Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Apple Rolls Out WebKit2, But No Linux Love Yet

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    That could be said about any OS including linux with the exception to the reverence about paying.


    Bullshit. Anything those site that those journalists publish they do on their own accord.



    Got any proof of that? developer.apple.com is full of developer friendly documentation, sample code and is kept up to date which is more then many opensource projects where "RTFM" ends giving you vastly outdated documentation if there is any.



    No the only thing that they care about ultimately is profit. That is no secret. How they achieve it is governed by the publics current wants and what is the most efficient way of providing that. If it means sacrificing a feature for the small percentage "power user" group then so be it.


    How does Apples efforts "hinder" that? You are free to come up with a competing product that bests their effort.
    No, indeed it cannot be said that Apple is not staying within the bounds of the GPL or BSD licenses of software that they used as much of a base for OS X. But they only give back what they absolutely must, not one iota more. They do hurt open source software by overzealously defending their software patents, in my opinion. For instance the font hinting patents they have hinder the linux font engine to present good looking fonts, although I forgot what the issue exactly was. Something with cubic curves in fonts and also some patent having to do with font hinting. Also their legal steps against HTC are about trivial (non-)inventions that should not have be possible to patent in the first place. That lawsuit is seen by many as directed against google's android. Therefore it is a threat to linux and open source in general.

    So in short I think Apple is a bad open source 'citizen'. They take a lot, give little back, and have the bad form to not share their patents with the open source community they take so much code and talent from, and who ported so much software rooted in linux to OS X. Instead they sue (HTC) or threatened to sue (font issues).

    On the other hand, they do make very good software, not particularly fast or complete, but so very well integrated.

    I have been watching the whole linux development, from kernel to the desktop environments and most of the major software packages. It is all so disorganized and duplicated efforts. Only look to the situation with sound to understand what I mean.
    There is a clear advantage to having a person like Steve Jobs in charge. The anarchy in the linux world that is our strength is also our biggest weakness.

    Comment


    • #17
      So Apple doesn't care about Linux and open source, what else is new? As Steve Jobs once said in an interview "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas". So that's what they do, and make a lot of money of. If you don't want Apple or any other company 'stealing' open source code, use GPL.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU

      Comment


      • #18
        3) Apple is a closed ecosystem, unfriendly to developers like myself. And bad for the industry in general.
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        Got any proof of that? developer.apple.com is full of developer friendly documentation, sample code and is kept up to date which is more then many opensource projects where "RTFM" ends giving you vastly outdated documentation if there is any.
        Sure. Here you go, direct from Apple's license agreement:

        Originally posted by Apple
        3.3.1 — Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).
        If that's not "unfriendly to developers" then I don't know what is.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by monraaf View Post
          So Apple doesn't care about Linux and open source, what else is new? As Steve Jobs once said in an interview "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas". So that's what they do, and make a lot of money of. If you don't want Apple or any other company 'stealing' open source code, use GPL.
          Exactly. Which is why I dislike BSD's license. It's been used abused by both MS and Apple, not precisely friends of computing freedom.

          Also, I agree with perpetualrabbit, they stick to the letter, but they don't give back one little more than legally needed.

          I think their biggest asset is being "cool". iPod, iTouch, iPad, you name it, it's all about "cool", and part of it is being overpriced, and then again, a lot of people like that. Whatever. I just find their "all your hardware and data belongs to us" unacceptable.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
            Sure. Here you go, direct from Apple's license agreement:



            If that's not "unfriendly to developers" then I don't know what is.
            Here is a newsflash for ya, the same can be said for even for GPL licensed projects. If the leads don't like what you are contributing they are free to reject it. If you want to see a perfect example of how this happens in opensource Google Con Kolivas, Rieser, Aaron Plattner etc and see how even in the GPL world when someone tries to improve the eco system of linux innovations are rejected on a pure discrimination of "I don't like it", not because of legal or technical merits just because of conflicting views.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by perpetualrabbit View Post
              No, indeed it cannot be said that Apple is not staying within the bounds of the GPL or BSD licenses of software that they used as much of a base for OS X. But they only give back what they absolutely must, not one iota more.
              So I guess openCL, Grand central, cups, LLVM don't exist then in your limited vision.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                Here is a newsflash for ya, the same can be said for even for GPL licensed projects. If the leads don't like what you are contributing they are free to reject it. If you want to see a perfect example of how this happens in opensource Google Con Kolivas, Rieser, Aaron Plattner etc and see how even in the GPL world when someone tries to improve the eco system of linux innovations are rejected on a pure discrimination of "I don't like it", not because of legal or technical merits just because of conflicting views.
                That's a straw man. Listen, we could go back and forth for 100 posts about how that's a different situation (hint: those developers would have to control the internet and block all legal distribution points for it to be comparable - IOWs, they'd have to be China). But I'm not going to get sucked into some fake argument you're cooking up here.

                So i'm just going to note that you pretty much agreed with my point that it is developer unfriendly and leave it at that.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                  That's a straw man. Listen, we could go back and forth for 100 posts about how that's a different situation (hint: those developers would have to control the internet and block all legal distribution points for it to be comparable - IOWs, they'd have to be China). But I'm not going to get sucked into some fake argument you're cooking up here.

                  So i'm just going to note that you pretty much agreed with my point that it is developer unfriendly and leave it at that.
                  No the situation is that people are blinded to what ever they want to believe but in real life practice the situation is entirely different. The blind conception of "my shit don't stink because I use GPL" is nothing but self delusion.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by monraaf View Post
                    So Apple doesn't care about Linux and open source, what else is new? As Steve Jobs once said in an interview "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas". So that's what they do, and make a lot of money of. If you don't want Apple or any other company 'stealing' open source code, use GPL.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW0DUg63lqU
                    So it's OK for GPL to rip off other projects licensed under other terms? Why is it that if someone puts out something that is a direct rip off of a competitors efforts that as long as it is put under GPL it's deemed OK?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                      No the situation is that people are blinded to what ever they want to believe but in real life practice the situation is entirely different. The blind conception of "my shit don't stink because I use GPL" is nothing but self delusion.
                      Why do you keep bringing up the GPL? It's like you're intentionally trying to go after another target because you know Apple's policies suck. Let's compare them to Microsoft, now that's a developer friendly company. Don't try to call me some GPL fanboy, because I'm not.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                        Why do you keep bringing up the GPL? It's like you're intentionally trying to go after another target because you know Apple's policies suck. Let's compare them to Microsoft, now that's a developer friendly company. Don't try to call me some GPL fanboy, because I'm not.
                        LMFAO, Microsoft places just as many limitations on developers as any other company. One only has to look at their terms of redistribution to see that or look at what they say against projects such as wine.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by perpetualrabbit View Post
                          . For instance the font hinting patents they have hinder the linux font engine to present good looking fonts, although I forgot what the issue exactly was. Something with cubic curves in fonts and also some patent having to do with font hinting. Also their legal steps against HTC are about trivial (non-)inventions that should not have be possible to patent in the first place. That lawsuit is seen by many as directed against google's android. Therefore it is a threat to linux and open source in general.
                          I would also like to point out that patents do not stifle innovation. They stifle duplication.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            LMFAO, Microsoft places just as many limitations on developers as any other company. One only has to look at their terms of redistribution to see that or look at what they say against projects such as wine.
                            Wow. Just..... wow. Do you really believe the stuff you're spewing out right now? You mentioned apple used to pay you, is that actually still the case?

                            MS may try to keep people from copying their own products (yes, apple does this as well, and much more vigorously). But they have never once - please, try to give me an example here - declared that a company that has spent millions of dollars developing a product that they can't allow their users to run it on top of windows. Not once.

                            Heck, for my taste MS is even a little too developer friendly - i think the platform would be better if they didn't put such a priority on maintaining binary compatibility with decades old code, but I can see why a 3rd party developer might like it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                              I would also like to point out that patents do not stifle innovation. They stifle duplication.
                              That depends on the patent, of course. Some are good, some are bad. For example, the gene patents that a US judge recently struck down say that a company owns a human gene, and any invention or treatment anyone ever creates related to that gene in any way. As you can imagine, that results in less innovation because any other company looking at creating a treatment that involves that gene would just lose it anyway. But you're correct that some patents can be good. I'm in favor of fixing the patent system, not scrapping it entirely.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                                Wow. Just..... wow. Do you really believe the stuff you're spewing out right now? You mentioned apple used to pay you, is that actually still the case?

                                MS may try to keep people from copying their own products (yes, apple does this as well, and much more vigorously). But they have never once - please, try to give me an example here - declared that a company that has spent millions of dollars developing a product that they can't allow their users to run it on top of windows. Not once.

                                Heck, for my taste MS is even a little too developer friendly - i think the platform would be better if they didn't put such a priority on maintaining binary compatibility with decades old code, but I can see why a 3rd party developer might like it.
                                And how many homebrew apps are running on a Xbox? Same limitations buddy if not more restrictive.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X