Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

besson3c · May 9, 2009, 08:00 PM

Please refrain from the snide comments, what I'm about to say has nothing to do with Linux or open source Desktop apps...

I think Apple should invest a million dollars a year worth of new employees into advancing open source software in areas that are relevant to Apple for the following reasons:

- It will improve all of Apple's products that rely on open source libraries or open source programming languages by getting better acquainted with these developers and becoming more involved in fixing bugs and working towards new releases

- It will attract open source developers to Apple a little more. There is obviously no way I can quantify this, and I'm not suggesting that there aren't a healthy number of open source developers that are already involved, but it can't hurt. We've met some people that insist on using free software and we all have our opinions about these people, but there are several developers that could stand to gain by an increased number of open source libraries with compatible redistribution licenses, and foreign countries, not-for-profits, government, education, and others with legitimate reasons to minimize their software expenses

- By helping make some of these open source projects stronger, it will help provide better competition against Microsoft providing Apple with potential new opportunities (e.g. a hypothetical Exchange competitor that didn't require a Microsoft OS to run. I'm not suggesting that this is a practical example, just an example off the top of my head)

- Being a better open source contributor provides potential for new collaborative opportunities for working with developers outside of Apple and recruiting new developers into Apple. Some developers may be apprehensive about Apple's spotty track record working with open source

- Better open source involvement might not only improve some of Apple's software including OS X Server, but services such as MobileMe

- These days a million dollars for these new employees is probably not going to break the bank for Apple

Some of these points are stronger than others, and some of what I've written is a little vague and unpolished, I admit. However, they are just ideas... Thoughts?

Jawbone54 · May 9, 2009, 09:31 PM

This has everything to do your admiration for the Linux subculture. The problem is that most companies, even if they use Linux servers, have absolutely no interest in developing open source software or incorporating open source ideas into its product flow.

Also, if you think Apple (i.e. the biggest control-freak corporation in the industry) is going to relinquish ANY control over where their programs are headed or how they are developed, then you haven't been paying attention to who this company is.

starman · May 9, 2009, 10:21 PM

You give open source developers too much credit. Other than a few anomalies (Apache, etc.) most open source software I ever have to deal with is long abandoned, poorly built, and half-assed.

Dork. · May 9, 2009, 10:26 PM

Apple is way ahead of you.

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

besson3c · 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

This has everything to do your admiration for the Linux subculture. The problem is that most companies, even if they use Linux servers, have absolutely no interest in developing open source software or incorporating open source ideas into its product flow.

Also, if you think Apple (i.e. the biggest control-freak corporation in the industry) is going to relinquish ANY control over where their programs are headed or how they are developed, then you haven't been paying attention to who this company is.

I'm not following your reasoning here on the first point. Most companies are not interested in developing any kind of software, but if you mean IT companies, I can assure you that many are heavily entrenched in open source software to help build their IT infrastructure and help automate various workflows. For starters, if you use a language such as Ruby, Python, PHP, Perl, etc. you are already halfway there.

I'm also not sure how Apple relinquishing control of their stuff is relevant here?

besson3c · May 9, 2009, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by starman

You give open source developers too much credit. Other than a few anomalies (Apache, etc.) most open source software I ever have to deal with is long abandoned, poorly built, and half-assed.

We've been through this a thousand times. Since you don't seem to be a developer or a sys-admin, I don't know what is left to discuss with you.

besson3c · May 9, 2009, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

Apple is way ahead of you.

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

It's interesting that Apple lists ZFS in there, I thought any ZFS involvement was supposed to be a secret?

AKcrab · May 9, 2009, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think Apple should invest a million dollars a year worth of new employees into advancing open source software in areas that are relevant to Apple for the following reasons:

How much do they currently invest? The only one I know of is Dave Hyatt with the webkit project.

besson3c · May 9, 2009, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by AKcrab

How much do they currently invest? The only one I know of is Dave Hyatt with the webkit project.

I don't know, but it certainly doesn't seem like much at all. My impression of the projects of theirs that are open source are open source merely as a means to not get themselves into legal trouble with the code they use. That's fine, that's their right, but I just think that there is so much untapped potential there. For instance, I know many would love to run Apple's Calendar Server on other OSes (as would several hosting providers, I'm sure), but it is very awkward to get setup and working and not all features work last I checked. Whether this would be in Apple's best interest is another question, I guess, but...

starman · May 9, 2009, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

We've been through this a thousand times. Since you don't seem to be a developer or a sys-admin, I don't know what is left to discuss with you.

Errr, everyone KNOWS I'm a developer. Apparently your open source email app didn't get the memo.

Chuckit · May 10, 2009, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by AKcrab

How much do they currently invest? The only one I know of is Dave Hyatt with the webkit project.

Also:

All of the Darwin team
The developer tools team
The Apple LLVM contibutors
The CUPS developers
Laurent Sansonetti (currently developing the open-source MacRuby among other things)
Charles Jolley (and some others working on SproutCore — I'm not sure how many are Apple guys)

I'm sure I've forgotten a bunch more, but it's not just Hyatt producing open-source stuff at Apple.

The fact that you didn't know this makes me wonder whether this would be a good area for Apple to invest more in. Also, if the open-source community has failed so far to produce good software to fill some critical niche Apple wants to reach, I don't see why inviting them into Apple's projects is supposed to be some kind of magic bullet.

besson3c · May 10, 2009, 12:48 AM

Chuckit: how do you feel about the reverse, Apple's guys working on these projects?

Chuckit · May 10, 2009, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Chuckit: how do you feel about the reverse, Apple's guys working on these projects?

I think it's good for the most part. These are technologies Apple wants to use, so it's good for Apple to pitch in and make the technologies into what they need.

I just think open-source is really overhyped. Open source is a good thing in that it gives people more freedom, but it's been turned into some weird religious thing where people believe against all evidence that it's the magic solution to good software. And don't even get me started on the FSF.

OreoCookie · May 10, 2009, 05:49 AM

I think Apple is rather comfortable with the way it is.
They like to retain control over a few core components (e. g. Cocoa, the way OS X/Darwin is structured), because they don't want to have community decisions in that area. That is actually quite reasonable from their business perspective, they're doing it akin to, say, Sun which also develops quite a bit, but retain control over their projects.

I don't think Open Source software is better or worse in terms of software itself (has some advantages to be open source as well as disadvantages), but Open Source software is a good thing for software vendors. Quite a few use bits and pieces from the various *BSDs (because the BSD license doesn't require you to open source modified code), even Microsoft uses BSD code in Windows (you know for sure, because the BSD license does require you to leave in a disclaimer). This way, people don't have to waste their time again and again to recode `trivial' things.

Back on topic: I think Apple will support more Open Source projects when it sees the need to. I was a bit surprised that Apple wasn't interested in buying Sun or so. Sun has quite a few interesting technologies (Solaris, ZFS, experience in the server space), but anywho. If they need to (Sproutcore being one example), they'll support projects when it fits their strategy. And don't if it doesn't.

OreoCookie · May 10, 2009, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's interesting that Apple lists ZFS in there, I thought any ZFS involvement was supposed to be a secret?

Apple has announced ZFS support quite a long time ago. It's on the official 10.6 server page as a main feature and ZFS tools have been available via the Developer Connection since 2007, I believe.

Doofy · May 10, 2009, 07:04 AM

If open source is so good, how come Linux is still crap?

CharlesS · May 10, 2009, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's interesting that Apple lists ZFS in there, I thought any ZFS involvement was supposed to be a secret?

Not only is it out in the open, you can even download the source without an ADC account.

http://zfs.macosforge.org/

besson3c · May 10, 2009, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think it's good for the most part. These are technologies Apple wants to use, so it's good for Apple to pitch in and make the technologies into what they need.

I just think open-source is really overhyped. Open source is a good thing in that it gives people more freedom, but it's been turned into some weird religious thing where people believe against all evidence that it's the magic solution to good software. And don't even get me started on the FSF.

I see your point. I'm not one of those people, but I suspect that some people here have put me into this category. I don't know if this was just in a reactionary way or out of my own doing, but...

There is nothing inherent about open source software that makes it good. Yet, on the other hand, there are technologies and protocols that really want to be open and work best when open. Too many people design their stuff to be walled gardens and reinvent the wheel.

besson3c · May 10, 2009, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Apple has announced ZFS support quite a long time ago. It's on the official 10.6 server page as a main feature and ZFS tools have been available via the Developer Connection since 2007, I believe.

Ahhh... I guess I've been asleep at the wheel!

I've been meaning to play around with ZFS in FreeBSD 7.x. I've read stuff online where some people state that ZFS works better in FBSD 7 than Solaris for some reason. It will be the default file system in FBSD 8, replacing UFS. What I'm wondering is if Apple will go straight to making it the default file system, and whether there will be some easy path to convert HFS+ volumes to ZFS volumes?

besson3c · May 10, 2009, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

If open source is so good, how come Linux is still crap?

Ask Google (the company itself, not the search engine)? Maybe it's not if you are a sys admin?

Doofy · May 10, 2009, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Ask Google (the company itself, not the search engine)? Maybe it's not if you are a sys admin?

Yeah, but who the heck wants to be a sys admin? The hours are crap, the pay's lousy and you don't get to meet any nekkid chicks.

besson3c · May 10, 2009, 12:48 PM

Wait, the chicks you meet come naked?

Chuckit · May 10, 2009, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Wait, the chicks you meet come naked?

He's in Europe.

Doofy · May 10, 2009, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Wait, the chicks you meet come naked?

Wait. The chicks you met don't come nekkid?

For the love of everything that is holy, what kind of world do you live in?

besson3c · May 10, 2009, 02:40 PM

Why doesn't it say that in the European travel brochures?

Spheric Harlot · May 10, 2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why doesn't it say that in the European travel brochures?

You've been reading the British ones.

Cold Warrior · May 10, 2009, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

You've been reading the British ones.

Yeah, those guarantee fully-clothed females just to ensure no one is too scared to visit.

Doofy · May 10, 2009, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Yeah, those guarantee fully-clothed females just to ensure no one is too scared to visit.

But they lie. As any Saturday evening attempting to avoid the seething mounds of milky-white, pox-ridden flesh stuffed into belt-like mini-skits when out and about for a tipple will clearly demonstrate. Makes one want to carry a spoon just so one can Jack Bauer oneself to avoid it.

besson3c · May 10, 2009, 06:02 PM

Okay, screw open source, this thread is now about nekkid ladies!

Also, I would still like to understand Doofy's fascination with golf tees.

- - e r i k - - · May 10, 2009, 10:04 PM

Actually on topic:

Is Money Useless To Open Source Projects?

Open Source is to Traditional Software as Terror Cells are to Large Standing Armies – if you gave a terrorist group a fighter jet, they wouldn't know what to do with it. Open source teams, and culture, have been developed such that they're almost money-agnostic. Open source projects run on time, not money. So, the way to convert that currency is through bounties and funded internships. Unfortunately, setting those up takes time, and since that's the element that's in short supply, we're back to square one.

OreoCookie · May 11, 2009, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It will be the default file system in FBSD 8, replacing UFS.

Nice, didn't know that! (Although I've stopped playing with FreeBSD ever since my brother disassembled the server at my parents' place, it used to be their backup server.)

Originally Posted by besson3c

What I'm wondering is if Apple will go straight to making it the default file system, and whether there will be some easy path to convert HFS+ volumes to ZFS volumes?

I'd wager yes on both accounts. ZFS is integrated into OS X by default in 10.6 (at least the server version) and it's marketed as a major feature. I hope they'll make the switch in 10.7.

besson3c · May 11, 2009, 12:52 AM

I'd actually wager no on the first account in particular.

It would be suicide to jump into a change as major as this without massive testing and months and months of debugging by the masses. Like I said, the file system (or the ZFS tools, not sure which) don't even work flawlessly in Solaris yet.

If I were Apple I would do something like that the FreeBSD team is doing - make the ZFS tools available to advanced users who want to get their feet wet, make the file system a format option for advanced users at some point, but don't actually make this a new default for regular users until much later. I realize that ZFS is being tested by developers now, but this is the kind of thing that is going to need massive amounts of test data. You screw this up, you screw up everything, there would be no bigger screw up than this.

At the same time, it would be in Apple's best interest to move people off of HFS+ as aggressively as they can get away with.

mattyb · May 11, 2009, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

If open source is so good, how come Linux is still crap?

It allows Directors to have bigger company cars.

Doofy · May 11, 2009, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

At the same time, it would be in Apple's best interest to move people off of HFS+ as aggressively as they can get away with.

Why?

- - e r i k - - · May 11, 2009, 04:57 AM

Yeah. Why?

HFS+ is a perfectly capable file system. Much better than anything apart from ZFS out there for sure.

besson3c · May 11, 2009, 08:37 AM

I'd check on your research guys. HFS+ is a very poorly performing file system due to having to make multiple writes for its dual fork design. HFS+ benchmarks quite poorly. Aside from NTFS which I know nothing about, it is the worst file system in use today.

Doofy · May 11, 2009, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

HFS+ benchmarks quite poorly.

Meanwhile, in the real world, HFS+ handles 64+ tracks of 24/96 quite comfortably.

What, exactly, do you need it to be quicker for?

besson3c · May 11, 2009, 09:51 AM

I don't need anything from OS X because I do not use OS X as a server, but if one wanted to and the server utilized a lot of I/O, HFS+ would be a bottleneck when benchmarked against other file systems on other OSes (and same drive types, of course). This has been widely documented.

Don't you remember these comments? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=1278

and the MacNN thread that came out of this?

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...-hfs-complete/

Doofy · May 11, 2009, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Don't you remember these comments? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=1278

Dude, I've had way too much sex to be reading zdnet.

besson3c · May 11, 2009, 09:59 AM

I think you're a nerd at heart Doofy. You like to flirt with us with nerdy subject matter, but then when it gets too in depth you remind us how much tail you get. Why would you taunt us if you don't want to be one of us?

Maybe the Doofy is getting a little too old to chase tail and wants to become geeky enough to create an army of robot sex slaves?

starman · May 11, 2009, 10:24 AM

They're called fembots

Doofy · May 11, 2009, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why would you taunt us if you don't want to be one of us?

Oh come on, you know that nerd-taunting is a favourite hobby of the jock caste.

Maflynn · May 11, 2009, 10:41 AM

I don't think it makes too much business sense for apple to invest heavily in the open source sector. While there are plenty of excellent open source applications and I think linux is a great example of how good open source can be, it makes little business sense for apple.

Apple has been extremely successful in producing commercial (and proprietary) software and while they do embrace open source to some extent, its as the others of mentioned. They embrace only so far so they can retain control.

besson3c · May 11, 2009, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I don't think it makes too much business sense for apple to invest heavily in the open source sector. While there are plenty of excellent open source applications and I think linux is a great example of how good open source can be, it makes little business sense for apple.

Apple has been extremely successful in producing commercial (and proprietary) software and while they do embrace open source to some extent, its as the others of mentioned. They embrace only so far so they can retain control.

Regain control of what? Apple is free to use these open source tools as they please. If they use the Python language, for instance, how are they giving up any control? Apple is only required to release the source code of applications and tools that actually use open source code, not applications that rely on open source code that functions in a standalone fashion, as far as I understand it. Because OS X includes Apache doesn't mean that Apple has to release the source code for OS X, for instance.

Salty · May 11, 2009, 11:00 AM

I think they should make open source pies... mmm... penguin flavoured pie...

Maflynn · May 11, 2009, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Regain control of what? Apple is free to use these open source tools as they please. If they use the Python language, for instance, how are they giving up any control? Apple is only required to release the source code of applications and tools that actually use open source code, not applications that rely on open source code that functions in a standalone fashion, as far as I understand it. Because OS X includes Apache doesn't mean that Apple has to release the source code for OS X, for instance.

I said retain, not regain. With their software they have full say on the look/feel feature implementation and platform that it will be run on. If apple say produced an open source aperture, people would be free to make changes, port it to another platform or alter it in a ways that maybe apple doesn't want.

There's no financial incentive for apple to throw millions of dollars at open source as you recommend. Sun started embracing open source because all of their other business models fell apart and they're were going to be circling the drain if Oracle didn't buy them. Apple is in business to make money and so far they don't believe open source is the answer.

Chuckit · May 11, 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

I think they should make open source pies... mmm... penguin flavoured pie...

Apple pies would be confusing if they came in multiple varieties.

besson3c · May 11, 2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I said retain, not regain. With their software they have full say on the look/feel feature implementation and platform that it will be run on. If apple say produced an open source aperture, people would be free to make changes, port it to another platform or alter it in a ways that maybe apple doesn't want.

There's no financial incentive for apple to throw millions of dollars at open source as you recommend. Sun started embracing open source because all of their other business models fell apart and they're were going to be circling the drain if Oracle didn't buy them. Apple is in business to make money and so far they don't believe open source is the answer.

That's not what I'm recommending at all. I'm not sure what gave you that impression.

Chuckit · May 11, 2009, 02:19 PM

You explicitly said Apple should put $1 million of new employees into open-source projects. Since they're already devoting quite a lot of resources, what were you recommending if not that Apple put millions of dollars into open source?

besson3c · 03:31 PM

How did you get that Apple should make their current products open source out of my list in my original post? Was my original post unclear in answering this, Chuckit?