[production_coordinator]

Our favorite writer, Mr. John C. Dvora, has written an article regarding the open sourcing of Apple's OS X: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1950226,00.asp

While I think he is a crackpot, It made me think... could Apple release a limited version of OS X that would run on most computers? Only runs a few applications at a time, max ram of 512, cap the bandwidth, single user, forced ads, bla bla bla.

Just an idea.

[demibob]

i think using a flawed version of OSX would only turn pc users of switching.

[mduell]

I think John Dvorak should open source is blog so random idiots can post dumber ideas and make him look smart.

[faragbre967]

Is he really still writing? I guess the information age is bad for some things...

[besson3c]

What is so dumb about open sourcing OS X? I guarantee that by doing so, we'd end up with a stronger product.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What is so dumb about open sourcing OS X? I guarantee that by doing so, we'd end up with a stronger product.

Unfounded speculation.

What has Apple to gain from this ? Nothing.
So why should they do it ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Unfounded speculation.

What has Apple to gain from this ? Nothing.
So why should they do it ?

-t

- greater security

- greater rate of innovation (if there was an open source and commercial OS X distribution, Apple could cherry pick features for their OS X release)

- greater amount of customization/flexibility = greater customer satisfaction

- greater market penetration


Need I go on?

[Chuckit]

1. It's not our product — it's Apple's. Something that benefits us and kills Apple would be a dumb move on Apple's part.

2. The awesome strength of open source hasn't exactly converted everyone here to Linux.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c

- greater security

Because OS X is so buggy and unsecure now ?

Originally Posted by besson3c

- greater rate of innovation (if there was an open source and commercial OS X distribution, Apple could cherry pick features for their OS X release)

So in the past, Apple was not able to be innovative, because they couldn't copy ideas from OS ? Duh, dumb argument.

Originally Posted by besson3c

- greater amount of customization/flexibility = greater customer satisfaction

How is OS X now not customizable and inflexible ?

Originally Posted by besson3c

- greater market penetration

Why ?

Originally Posted by besson3c

-Need I go on?

Please, no.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

1. It's not our product — it's Apple's. Something that benefits us and kills Apple would be a dumb move on Apple's part.

Would it really kill Apple? How long do you really think they are going to get away with annual/bi-annual releases and charging people money for OS updates? In other words, how much more "stuff" can Apple throw into OS X before people lose interest in upgrading?

2. The awesome strength of open source hasn't exactly converted everyone here to Linux.

Because most open source projects are not funded by commercial companies, they don't really have a political intent/set mission statement of trying to appeal to the mass market - they are largely tools designed for geeks.

Redhat is an actual open source company, and their growth was the second largest in the tech sector last year behind Google (they specialize in Enterprise computing). With funding muscle (Apple) behind an open source project, and the vision to target mass audiences... look out!

As it stands, there is a greater *quantity* of solid, quality innovation happening within open source than what Apple puts out, just in a totally different space.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

Because OS X is so buggy and unsecure now ?

OS X Server is, quite frankly, pretty crappy as a server. I could list several reasons why. Much of the software bundled with OS X is several versions behind even the vendor recommended releases. Apple is going for a very conservative approach to security that works for its target audience, but Apple's security policies are far from cutting edge. If Apple wants to go prime-time, they are really going to need to ramp up their security policies. I don't think they even have an appointed security officer working for them now.

So in the past, Apple was not able to be innovative, because they couldn't copy ideas from OS ? Duh, dumb argument.

That wasn't my argument.

How is OS X now not customizable and inflexible ?

Are you really at a loss for an answer here? First of all, the kernel is completely locked down. Many parts of Aqua are locked down, many customization attempts require weird hacks (e.g. themes, haxies, etc.), and it is dangerous to build Unix software on top of Apple's provided pieces.

I could go on, but apparently you aren't interested in this line of conversation.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Would it really kill Apple?

*sigh*

Remember the clone catastrophe ? It'll be alike.

Originally Posted by besson3c

How long do you really think they are going to get away with annual/bi-annual releases and charging people money for OS updates? In other words, how much more "stuff" can Apple throw into OS X before people lose interest in upgrading?

You are contradicting yourself.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

*sigh*

Remember the clone catastrophe ? It'll be alike.

No, there are licenses which prevent the reselling of stuff... I can't see why it could be extended to prevent the reselling of computers bundled with OS X. There'd still be Jim-bob selling computers he built out of his garage, but I don't think this is a great concern.

You are contradicting yourself.

How am I? I'm not saying there is no room for innovation left, I'm just wondering how long Apple can *charge* people for this innovation.

Part of innovation is moving people forward with upgraded pieces of core technology. People are not going to jump aboard and shell out their money unless there is a tangible benefit to them.

As it stands, you have people on 10.3 now, perhaps even 10.2 still. Apple has decided not to be liable for these older OS releases. They wouldn't even push out the f-ing Indiana timezone changes to 10.3! How long will it be before people start to become angry that they have to pony up to get their security updates and allow their machines to run current software? Do you really think Apple is going to continue to support 10.2 once 10.5 comes out? I don't.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Would it really kill Apple? How long do you really think they are going to get away with annual/bi-annual releases and charging people money for OS updates? In other words, how much more "stuff" can Apple throw into OS X before people lose interest in upgrading?

I think we all know that OS upgrades are not Apple's bread-and-butter, so that's not really what's important. The point is that the OS is an asset to Apple — they are selling a platform. If you give away the largest benefit of the platform as free software, what do you have? Pretty boxes. Remember that they won't even allow OS X to be installed commercially on other companies' PCs. Giving it to Dell as free software is quite a leap from that business model.

Originally Posted by besson3c

As it stands, there is a greater *quantity* of solid, quality innovation happening within open source than what Apple puts out, just in a totally different space.

Can you offer some examples?

[besson3c]

This doesn't have to be an either-or situation either. Apple could sell a commercial OS X and make money providing support and service for it. It would be a more conservative, stable release while the OS X open source edition would be more bleeding edge.

It would sure help with these major release transitions. It's been a complete PITA for some to migrate from 10.x to 10.x+1. For consumers the upgrade is mostly painless, but there is a lot of stuff that needs to be tested for admins. Heck, even point release upgrades have broken several things for us.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think we all know that OS upgrades are not Apple's bread-and-butter, so that's not really what's important. The point is that the OS is an asset to Apple — they are selling a platform. If you give away the largest benefit of the platform as free software, what do you have? Pretty boxes. Remember that they won't even allow OS X to be installed commercially on other companies' PCs. Giving it to Dell as free software is quite a leap from that business model.

A business is *probably* going to go with a commercial OS X release so that they have access to support and stability. I'm not proposing that Apple completely scrap their commercial release, just that they could supplement it with an open source release designed for different audiences.

Can you offer some examples?

Innovation?

Networking infrastructure:

- Apache
- BIND
- BSD/Linux
- Networking tools (Ethereal/TCP dump, etc.)
- firewalls (IPFW, IPTables)
- SSH
- VNC (Apple Remote Desktop is based on this)
- Zeroconf networking (Bonjour)
- Samba
- LDAP
- OpenSSL

Internet:

- Sendmail/Postfix/either MTAs
- Cyrus/Courier/other IMAP clients
- PGP
- Mozilla products
- Jabber
- Several antispam/virus tools

Database:

- MySQL
- Postgresql

Programming languages:

- Perl
- PHP
- Python
- Ruby
- development tools (CVS, Subversion)

Grid/cluster computing, CUPS, a ton of different formats, web-based software, emulation software, several file systems, Google's backend...

enough?


Just because your Grandma doesn't use this software doesn't make it any less important or revolutionary.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Would it really kill Apple? How long do you really think they are going to get away with annual/bi-annual releases and charging people money for OS updates?

If they keep innovating: a very long time.

Originally Posted by besson3c

In other words, how much more "stuff" can Apple throw into OS X before people lose interest in upgrading?

Lots.

Originally Posted by besson3c

As it stands, there is a greater *quantity* of solid, quality innovation happening within open source than what Apple puts out, just in a totally different space.

As if. Nothing in Linux was close to Expose, or CoreImage or CoreAudio, or even the extremely clever integration of the Oxford Dictionary in Tiger.

Apple has experimented with open source. The benefits have been lukewarm. As Chuckit said, there are no benefits for Apple to give away its IP like this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

As if. Nothing in Linux was close to Expose, or CoreImage or CoreAudio, or even the extremely clever integration of the Oxford Dictionary in Tiger.

Like I said, Apples vs. Oranges... Linux is not competing with Apple in the same space.

Apple has experimented with open source. The benefits have been lukewarm. As Chuckit said, there are no benefits for Apple to give away its IP like this.

Benefits have been lukeworm? Try, you wouldn't have an operating system right now if it weren't for open source. I think I've already touched on the benefits. Which do you dispute?

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by besson3c

- greater security

- greater rate of innovation (if there was an open source and commercial OS X distribution, Apple could cherry pick features for their OS X release)

- greater amount of customization/flexibility = greater customer satisfaction

- greater market penetration


Need I go on?

I think we've been hearing those same arguments from the Linux camp for years now -- and look at where they are on the desktop front ...

Need I say more?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

I think we've been hearing those same arguments from the Linux camp for years now -- and look at where they are on the desktop front ...

Need I say more?

I'm sounding like a broken record here, but again, this is apples vs. oranges. Linux does not compete with Apple within the same market.

If you want to make these comparisons, we should compare OS X Server to Linux in the server space, where OS X Server would come up short.

[besson3c]

So, now that we are hopefully no longer looking to Linux for cues as to how Apple's desktop offerings might fare if Apple were to provide an open source edition of OS X, does anybody else have any other ideas why Apple shouldn't make an open source edition?

It's purely about the economics and the strategic logistics right now, not about the technology, but this may change...

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Like I said, Apples vs. Oranges... Linux is not competing with Apple in the same space.

You're not playing fair. You yourself mentioned Linux as an example of innovation.

Originally Posted by besson3c

Benefits have been lukeworm? Try, you wouldn't have an operating system right now if it weren't for open source.

Maybe. Apple replaced many closed source portions of NeXTStep/OpenStep to create OS X. System V was swapped out and BSD swapped in. Display Postscript was swapped out in favour of Quartz "DisplayPDF." All that swapping made things cheaper, certainly.

My point was that Apple's experiments with open source have yielded good, but not amazing results. The open source community is much more interested in Firefox and Linux than they are in WebKit and Darwin. Given the lukewarm reception that Apple has been given by the open source community, complete open source would be a waste. It would be like throwing a party and having no one show up.

Apple has contributed greatly to open source. Launchd is probably Apple's most significant effort, but I haven't heard of the community embracing it, even though it is revolutionary for Unix. See http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/5

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think I've already touched on the benefits. Which do you dispute?

None. I just don't think that innovation at Apple will improve simply from opening the source of Apple's technology.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

You're not playing fair. You yourself mentioned Linux as an example of innovation.

It is, just not in the Desktop space since that isn't a big market yet.... what's confusing about my claims?

Maybe. Apple replaced many closed source portions of NeXTStep/OpenStep to create OS X. System V was swapped out and BSD swapped in. Display Postscript was swapped out in favour of Quartz "DisplayPDF." All that swapping made things cheaper, certainly.

And things have changed a lot since then too. Proprietary Unix is a dying breed.

My point was that Apple's experiments with open source have yielded good, but not amazing results. The open source community is much more interested in Firefox and Linux than they are in WebKit and Darwin. Given the lukewarm reception that Apple has been given by the open source community, complete open source would be a waste. It would be like throwing a party and having no one show up.

Darwin is completely useless because its kernel is not in sync with OS X's, and it doesn't really offer much to the x86 crowd that they don't already have. With the advent of x86 processors, Apple is going to have to make some important decisions about Darwin. It would become infinitely more popular if it would offer things that other x86 distros don't, such as Aqua.

Webkit is a little different too, because frankly there is very little incentive for anybody to contribute there given the strength of Gecko, and because of the difficulties in the relationships between KHTML and Webkit.

Many other Apple technologies are just open source things wrapped up in an Apple GUI:

- ipfw
- LDAP (OS X Server)
- Apache
- Bonjour
- .Mac

[url]Apple has contributed greatly to open source. Launchd is probably Apple's most significant effort, but I haven't heard of the community embracing it, even though it is revolutionary for Unix. See http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/5

Kudos to Apple for doing this. Perhaps it will be embraced, it could be too early to tell. I've played with Launchd extensively though, and have found it to be a little quirky.

None. I just don't think that innovation at Apple will improve simply from opening the source of Apple's technology.

Why wouldn't it?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm sounding like a broken record here, but again, this is apples vs. oranges. Linux does not compete with Apple within the same market.

The only reason you've provided for why open-source Linux is different than open-source OS X would be is that Apple has money to put into it. Essentially proving that closed-source has helped Apple make money much more than open-source has helped Linux make money.

Originally Posted by besson3c

If you want to make these comparisons, we should compare OS X Server to Linux in the server space, where OS X Server would come up short.

I don't see why say this. Aside from marketing, why shouldn't we compare Linux on the desktop to OS X on the desktop?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The only reason you've provided for why open-source Linux is different than open-source OS X would be is that Apple has money to put into it. Essentially proving that closed-source has helped Apple make money much more than open-source has helped Linux make money.

I don't understand why this miscommunication exists...

I honestly don't know how to respond, because I don't know where you are coming from here.

I don't see why say this. Aside from marketing, why shouldn't we compare Linux on the desktop to OS X on the desktop?

Because the two markets are entirely different, and these projects are both driven from their markets.

If you want to examine how Apple would gain from open sourcing OS X, you need to look at the fundamental strengths of open source, the strengths of the community as a resource, and how these pieces would fit into Apple's strategy.

I've listed a few examples:

- rate of innovation
- security
- whatever else I listed above

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple picks up on Xen for Leopard - another example of excellent open source technology innovation that Apple stands to gain from.

[Big Mac]

What incentive does Apple have to throw out the crown jewels for anyone, including commercial competitors to pick up and incorporate into their products? What do you think Apple would possibly gain? How will it be able to afford to justify fat salaries for all of its designers and engineers if the OS is no longer proprietary? And why would engineers even wish to further the higher level components of the OS if they knew all their grueling work would be turned over for the world to use? M$ already tried to steal QuickTime code from Apple, and QuickTime was not open source. Just imagine what would happen to its intellectual property if Apple gave away the keys to the OS by making it open source. Most importantly, what incentive would Apple's customers have to ever buy another premium priced Apple Intel computer if it suddenly were to become perfectly legally to run it on someone else's hardware?

The thing you got right, besson, is that OS X is not like Linux. The Linux culture is what makes their open source effort viable, but even then it's only viable to a certain degree. Linux still has a very long way to go, and it may well never become a true competitor on the desktop, partially because of the open source philosophy. If Apple were to make OS X open source, it would rightfully be construed as a desperation move. Netscape went open source out of desperation, and although Fire Fox has accomplished impressive feats it has not returned Netscape to a position of dominance.

By all objective measures, Apple has been outperforming M$ in OS development. Clearly OS X is far more innovative. Clearly OS X is far more secure. And while it's true OS X is less customizable from a UI perspective, that's only because of Apple's ethos that favors adherence to its designs, not due to close source limitations. The only thing that Apple truly lags behind M$ on is revenue. M$ knows how to make money. Now the day M$ makes Windows open source (which is also the day pigs will fly), then we can petition Apple to do the same. Until that time, it's not in Apple's interests to do so and just will not happen.

[Tomchu]

It looks like besson3c has been shot down, but is refusing to die.

It's like every keyboard philosopher out there thinks that they understand Apple's economy and business tactics than Apple themselves. The "Crown Jewels" part of OS X has remained closed-source up until now, and Apple not only continues to innovate, but they do it at a good pace, and they manage to make things decently stable -- and it's making them lots of money.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke. They have no reason to completely open-source OS X other than to satisfy the GNU/Linux fanboys out there who think they're entitled to all of Apple's tech.

[Angus_D]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Maybe. Apple replaced many closed source portions of NeXTStep/OpenStep to create OS X. System V was swapped out and BSD swapped in.

Uh, NeXTStep/OpenStep were always derived from BSD.

My point was that Apple's experiments with open source have yielded good, but not amazing results. The open source community is much more interested in Firefox and Linux than they are in WebKit and Darwin. Given the lukewarm reception that Apple has been given by the open source community, complete open source would be a waste. It would be like throwing a party and having no one show up.

Darwin has always had a huge number of issues which has meant that contributing to it has been pretty much impossible. WebKit is entirely different and the open-source association has big traction with the Safari team, and so it's gone fairly well.

Darwin has been a zombie project for years, but it's pretty blatantly obvious that it's completely dead-ended now.

Apple has contributed greatly to open source. Launchd is probably Apple's most significant effort, but I haven't heard of the community embracing it, even though it is revolutionary for Unix.

"Greatly" is a stretch. launchd is about the only decent bit of tech to come out of the BSD team, and it's not particularly portable (certainly not to Linux).

None. I just don't think that innovation at Apple will improve simply from opening the source of Apple's technology.

Apple's culture is completely at odds with open source. They develop stuff in secret behind closed doors. It's just not compatible.

Also, the same reasons that Apple doesn't make retail copies of OS X available which run on grey box PCs apply. If it was all open-source, you could compile it and run it on whatever hardware you like. How does that help Apple's bottom line?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c

A business is *probably* going to go with a commercial OS X release so that they have access to support and stability. I'm not proposing that Apple completely scrap their commercial release, just that they could supplement it with an open source release designed for different audiences.

But consider what that actually means. All the big businesses that use Macs (a practically nonexistent market!) would be willing to shell out, while all the smaller places and home users would download free OS X and install it on their $200 Dells. Not exactly what Apple wants.

As for the innovation, you're right about a lot of those things, but there are also a lot on your list that either aren't really innovative (I love Ruby, but it's basically Smalltalk with a C-like syntax) or aren't particularly new (Linux). I'm sure many developments have come from open source — Apache is great proof that open source can make good software — but I don't really see the fantastic rate of innovation you're saying OSS has achieved lately.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What incentive does Apple have to throw out the crown jewels for anyone, including commercial competitors to pick up and incorporate into their products? What do you think Apple would possibly gain? How will it be able to afford to justify fat salaries for all of its designers and engineers if the OS is no longer proprietary? And why would engineers even wish to further the higher level components of the OS if they knew all their grueling work would be turned over for the world to use? M$ already tried to steal QuickTime code from Apple, and QuickTime was not open source. Just imagine what would happen to its intellectual property if Apple gave away the keys to the OS by making it open source. Most importantly, what incentive would Apple's customers have to ever buy another premium priced Apple Intel computer if it suddenly were to become perfectly legally to run it on someone else's hardware?

The thing you got right, besson, is that OS X is not like Linux. The Linux culture is what makes their open source effort viable, but even then it's only viable to a certain degree. Linux still has a very long way to go, and it may well never become a true competitor on the desktop, partially because of the open source philosophy. If Apple were to make OS X open source, it would rightfully be construed as a desperation move. Netscape went open source out of desperation, and although Fire Fox has accomplished impressive feats it has not returned Netscape to a position of dominance.

By all objective measures, Apple has been outperforming M$ in OS development. Clearly OS X is far more innovative. Clearly OS X is far more secure. And while it's true OS X is less customizable from a UI perspective, that's only because of Apple's ethos that favors adherence to its designs, not due to close source limitations. The only thing that Apple truly lags behind M$ on is revenue. M$ knows how to make money. Now the day M$ makes Windows open source (which is also the day pigs will fly), then we can petition Apple to do the same. Until that time, it's not in Apple's interests to do so and just will not happen.

These are the kinds of arguments investors were making back in the day, but the world is starting to sit up and take notice to the fact that the open source business model *is* working, and can also be profitable. By selling services and expertise instead of a tangible product, a company can still do well working with OSS. Big companies and universities still want a support system that they feel is liable and can be depended upon. The community at large is not a satisfying support model for guys in suits running companies. With some of the remote administration technologies available, the support models are changing. Redhat can rebuild our servers remotely in about 5 minutes.

Against all odds, I think there is ample evidence of what the open source business model can do. While some might remain shaky with the strategic decision to open up intellectual property, technologically speaking I think there is ample evidence that opening stuff up helps drive open standards, helps increase quality control, and helps increase the speed of innovation.

Open source software is not only outdoing Apple in the vast quantity of successful projects it has churned out, but it is also handing Microsoft's ass to them.

As far as this question:

Most importantly, what incentive would Apple's customers have to ever buy another premium priced Apple Intel computer if it suddenly were to become perfectly legally to run it on someone else's hardware?

The GPL can still restrict the sales of this software, and this is only one license... I'm sure Apple could put together a license that would restrict major vendors shipping the OS on their hardware without paying Apple some cash. There will be the community who are able to put together their own drivers and put together some sort of PC that will run OS X (this is already happening), but major companies and most consumers are not going to buy machines from Jim-bob who has built a PC in his garage.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

It looks like besson3c has been shot down, but is refusing to die.

I'll be happy to admit when I'm shot down. I'm not Zimphire. Honestly though, I think my points still hold up just fine.

Don't fix it if it ain't broke. They have no reason to completely open-source OS X other than to satisfy the GNU/Linux fanboys out there who think they're entitled to all of Apple's tech.

I'm not saying that Apple needs to do this or die, but it seems like Apple is making a lot of changes to its business model, particularly with things like Boot Camp. I think beefing up Darwin would fit in quite well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

But consider what that actually means. All the big businesses that use Macs (a practically nonexistent market!) would be willing to shell out, while all the smaller places and home users would download free OS X and install it on their $200 Dells. Not exactly what Apple wants.

Then they would have to go fetch drivers and jump through hoops to make their hardware work, unless their hardware was a nearly identical match to what Apple ships.

As for the innovation, you're right about a lot of those things, but there are also a lot on your list that either aren't really innovative (I love Ruby, but it's basically Smalltalk with a C-like syntax) or aren't particularly new (Linux). I'm sure many developments have come from open source — Apache is great proof that open source can make good software — but I don't really see the fantastic rate of innovation you're saying OSS has achieved lately.

Those were just things from the top of my head... With the exception to things like Apache, BIND, etc. that have been around for years, several of those things are newish. There are a ton of formats too which the importance of can't be underestimated. Thanks to Open Document Format (ODF), Massachusetts will eventually move all of their old MS Office documents over to an open format. All monopolies die. We probably won't be using Office in 20 years from now, but in 20 years from now we'll still need to access those old documents.

If you gave me more time, I'm sure I could come up with other more recent examples.

[besson3c]

Prediction: if Apple decides to open up their stuff, many of you will magically start to agree with me.


Just a point of clarification: not everything works better with the open source model. I think proprietary companies do better with developing software like Photoshop and Final Cut. They can get stuff together faster, and companies generally seem better at developing big monolithic "things". A lot of OSS is simply comprised of smaller pieces that fit together nicely.

An operating system is crammed full of standards, formats, protocols which gain momentum when the specs are opened up. Apple seems poised to basically position OS X as simply a standard - a standard piece of software that people use to do work (on their Macs). You can't underestimate the potential for market penetration in opening stuff up.

As another poster here said, a lot of Apple's "open" stuff has been rather half-baked, pretty much lip service. Darwin is a good example of that. I don't know a single person that runs Pure Darwin.

[Tomchu]

Just tell us this one simple thing, without any fluff or unfounded predictions: What is the single, most important thing that Apple has to gain from open-sourcing OS X?

Now tell us ... what is the single, most important thing that Apple has to lose from doing the same?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Just tell us this one simple thing, without any fluff or unfounded predictions: What is the single, most important thing that Apple has to gain from open-sourcing OS X?

Now tell us ... what is the single, most important thing that Apple has to lose from doing the same?

I've already been long-winded enough. Why don't you share with us the answer to your second question?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Prediction: if Apple decides to open up their stuff, many of you will magically start to agree with me.

Your crystal ball has poor reception.

No one is disagreeing that open source can be a Good Thing™. We are disagreeing with you on two issues: that open sourcing OS X will "magically" improve innovation at Apple, and that Apple won't lose big money on this.

They're not a perfect company, but lack of innovation at Apple isn't an issue. Open sourcing OS X is a solution in search of a problem.

Originally Posted by besson3c

The GPL can still restrict the sales of this software, and this is only one license... I'm sure Apple could put together a license that would restrict major vendors shipping the OS on their hardware without paying Apple some cash.

Is this a joke? This issue isn't about other computer companies shipping OS X with their hardware, but of other software firms using the now exposed technology in the source. As soon as Apple shows its algorithms and coding methodology, competitors can imitate with impunity.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Angus_D

Uh, NeXTStep/OpenStep were always derived from BSD.

I think you're right.

I think it was Solaris that switched from System V to BSD (or was it the other way?), and of course OpenStep was just NextStep with the Mach guts ripped out of it, to run on Solaris and other OSes. I think I mangled those different facts in my head. Opps.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I've already been long-winded enough. Why don't you share with us the answer to your second question?

Apple will lose money and intellectual property.

[Gamoe]

Wow. Quite a lot of long and passionate responses on this one. Forgive me if I didn't read every word. However, I would like to add my voice to the chorus.

I think it would be a great thing for most people if Apple Open-Sourced Mac OS X. Apple could still be in charge, but others would be free to produce derivatives. I bet GUI people would LOVE to get their hands on Mac OS X's graphics/Aqua layer. These are far more advanced than anything I've seen in Linux, and it could benefit both Linux and new derivative operating system.

To be honest, I would have more confidence in the platform if Apple did this, only because I'd know that even if Apple dumped it, it could still live, and I would bet that there would be enough developers to keep it alive in such a case. Also, we could be assured that we wouldn't have to endure built-in DRM if Apple ever decided to do that, because another DRM-free distribution would surely come to be.

However, Apple has worked hard on Mac OS X and they're under no ethical or moral obligation to simply give it away, unlike what some fanatical Open-Source folks think. But it would sure be great if Apple did decide to do that.

[Tomchu]

It would be a good thing for most non-Apple/non-OS X users. Why would Apple, or any Mac users, be interested in seeing similar technologies pop up in Linux or other alternative OSes, that had been derived from OS X intellectual property?

I'm also sure that GUI people would love to get their hands on Apple's stuff -- but Apple stands only to lose from such an undertaking.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Is this a joke? This issue isn't about other computer companies shipping OS X with their hardware, but of other software firms using the now exposed technology in the source. As soon as Apple shows its algorithms and coding methodology, competitors can imitate with impunity.

This is a reasonable concern. When it comes to protocols and formats, being imitated isn't necessarily a bad thing. When it comes to ideas, this is something else.

I believe there are licenses which prohibit the sale of open source code though. This should keep competitors looking to make money in check.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Apple will lose money and intellectual property.

Lose money where?

See my last post in response to the notion of their intellectual property being used by competition.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

It would be a good thing for most non-Apple/non-OS X users. Why would Apple, or any Mac users, be interested in seeing similar technologies pop up in Linux or other alternative OSes, that had been derived from OS X intellectual property?

This is happening anyway... See Songbird. See all the dock imitations. The difference would be, if you use Apple's code to come up with something you want to use, there are specific usage restrictions.

I'm also sure that GUI people would love to get their hands on Apple's stuff -- but Apple stands only to lose from such an undertaking.

You guys keep repeating yourselves, but you've yet to come up with a meety argument that can't be easily disputed, no offense. Of course, I might be wrong about the restrictions of various software licenses (several Creative Commons/GPL), but I suspect that you guys simply haven't considered these licenses when posting your responses, or are perhaps getting the GNU thing mixed up with these more restrictive licenses.

[Millennium]

Open-Sourcing OSX would absolutely eviscerate Apple's business model.

Apple has always considered itself a hardware company. They understand that people buy Macs for the software, which is why they make the software in the first place: it attracts people to the hardware. But in order for that business model to work, the software has to remain locked-in to that particular hardware: otherwise, someone will build a better and/or cheaper machine and people will buy that while continuing to use the Apple software. The clone era proved this.

Apple refuses to move to a software-based business model. This puts them into an odd position, because it means that even though they don't make their money in software, they would lose far more than they would gain by Open-Sourcing it. They would be better able to Open-Source their software if they actually made money from that software.

Yes, this seems strange. Chewbacca is clearly living on Endor here. However, that's Apple for you.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I believe there are licenses which prohibit the sale of open source code though. This should keep competitors looking to make money in check.

Microsoft wouldn't sell the source code. They would look at the source code, see how Apple did it, implement it themselves and sell the object code as Windows. How does this benefit Apple?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Chewbacca is clearly living on Endor here.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Open-Sourcing OSX would absolutely eviscerate Apple's business model.

Apple has always considered itself a hardware company. They understand that people buy Macs for the software, which is why they make the software in the first place: it attracts people to the hardware. But in order for that business model to work, the software has to remain locked-in to that particular hardware: otherwise, someone will build a better and/or cheaper machine and people will buy that while continuing to use the Apple software. The clone era proved this.

Apple refuses to move to a software-based business model. This puts them into an odd position, because it means that even though they don't make their money in software, they would lose far more than they would gain by Open-Sourcing it. They would be better able to Open-Source their software if they actually made money from that software.

Yes, this seems strange. Chewbacca is clearly living on Endor here. However, that's Apple for you.

How would this kill off Apple's hardware sales? I still don't get this. Why would people stop buying Macs? Who says that Dell or some other hardware vendor would be able to ship machines running OS X? Who says that people would be interested in buying a Dell and scrambling to both install another OS and get the drivers they need, and then receive no support or accountability outside of the open source community? Some, but how big do you think this market really is?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by besson3c

How would this kill off Apple's hardware sales? I still don't get this. Why would people stop buying Macs? Who says that Dell or some other hardware vendor would be able to ship machines running OS X? Who says that people would be interested in buying a Dell and scrambling to both install another OS and get the drivers they need, and then receive no support or accountability outside of the open source community? Some, but how big do you think this market really is?

Besson, you aren't listening. No one is concerned about Dell or any other hardware company shipping OS X with their hardware.

What we are concerned about is Microsoft or Sun or any other software maker stealing from Apple's source code. You just don't seem to realize that that is the problem.

No license can stop anyone from 1) reading the code, 2) rewriting the code, and 3) thus getting around the license restrictions.

Apple would be "showing their cards."

[production_coordinator]

What if Apple offered a lite version of OS X for free?

Could only run 4 applications at a time, limited resources, etc. etc. Not good for most of us, but good enough for many people (the email, web, chat, word drones)?

Hmmm...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Besson, you aren't listening. No one is concerned about Dell or any other hardware company shipping OS X with their hardware.

What we are concerned about is Microsoft or Sun or any other software maker stealing from Apple's source code. You just don't seem to realize that that is the problem.

No license can stop anyone from 1) reading the code, 2) rewriting the code, and 3) thus getting around the license restrictions.

Apple would be "showing their cards."

Apple's main competitor in the Desktop space is Microsoft. Do you really think that Microsoft can make use out of Apple's code which is designed and tightly integrated with the rest of OS X and the BSD subsystem? It would take a substantial effort for Microsoft to work OS X code into Windows, they are already heavily invested in their own development. Much of the back-end of OS X is already open anyway.

Solaris is already open source, has Apple been stealing from Sun?


To me, the only disadvantage to showing code is that it prevents vendor lock-in. Apple has been pretty good about going with open standards anyway, so I don't see what they have to lose.