What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
47 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61Probably because of this? http://digg.com/apple/OSx86_10_4_8_Cracked_Legally
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -3/+41you can't be open source then remove it when somebody uses it.
- AngryBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Just for fun, let's prove it!
1) Approxily
2) happend
3) downlaod
4) happend
5) publicty
6) sine
7) redistrbute
8) vanishs
9) fullfiled
10) moduifications
11) downlaod
12) themself
13) soure
14) accessable
15) deffenetly
16) defenetly
Notice 15 and 16 are supposed to be the same word. Not only is his spelling inaccurate, it's also inconsistent. Out of ~225 words, that's about a 7% misspelling rate. Considering that FF2 has a built in spell checker on text input fields, that's terrible, and inexcusable. I don't care if English isn't his first language... anyone can use a spell checker. - TomFrost, on 10/12/2007, -18/+30I'm really, really sick of seeing these posts whenever people interested in Apple products and development share news about it.
Here's the deal. If it bores you, don't read it. But in a few hours, over 80 people stopped by digg and thought this was interesting enough to click the digg button. This may come as a huge surprise to you, but this actually interests people. If a chuck of the Vista kernel had been public, and Microsoft took it down with no warning, would that be news to you? Because I know a lot of developers and code tweakers who would be quite upset over both of these scenarios.
Stop insulting people who digg what matters to them. - dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17I think you are mistaking open source code with Open Source. I could show you the source code to a program but then sue your ass when you try to use it if my license allows for that.
This is most likely what Apple did, open source code but with a license giving them the right to do what they want with it (including taking it down or closing it whenever they feel the need to). - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I think they've done this before and they usually return. There may be something coming.
- awhiteflame, on 10/12/2007, -0/+101: "Approxily" ?
2: They're going to have to say something eventually. They could also be working on the servers. Who knows. - FluxHarmonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Man that guy's English sucks *****.
- cplater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Read the updates. The source code is still available.
- GoodBrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9BSD, on which Darwin and MacOS X are based aren't under the GPL, they are under the BSD license, which requires attribution, but not source code redistribution.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Abusing the first comment reply to note that the sources are back up, but apparently they're only available to those with dev logins.
- forgetfulca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Mejogid:
What the heck are you talking about? Certain portions of Linux (NOT unix) are under the gpl which requires modified code to be released, but there's no such requirement for 'unix' (of which there are so many flavors and branches, it's impossible to make a blanket statement like yours)
It's very possible that apple's setup with the unix they are using allows them to do whatever the heck they want with access. - Filter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4BSD license doesn't require that they release the source code. They release the source code to contribute to the Open Source community. Microsoft has been using BSD licensed code for years.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"And fanboys still suck.
Suck it in boys. I'm not going away."
*Yawn* /click on the block user button. - Sandkat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Quick! Everybody put on your tin foil hats! It's a trap!
- dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I agree, but it does show how sincere Apple is about their involvement in the Open Source movement.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"(which is free in this case, you only need to be a registered Darwin developer)."
Oh dear, spending two minutes to register on Apple's server, something you've already done if you're an Apple developer, is really a big deal...
They're probably just tired of people anonymously cracking their product. They'd at least like to know the name of the fella who's recompiling their kernel and running Mac OS X illegally, give him a big pat on the back. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"you can't be open source then remove it when somebody uses it."
*yawn*. They posted those sources in hope that a) someone would make a better product from it, and b) so that people could recompile their OS X kernel to add [feature]. Using it as a tool of piracy is just low.
But, the sources are still up, so all-and-all, good article.
"APPLE SERVER HICCUPS, NEWS AT ELEVEN". - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But not in the public tree, only in the version for registered developers (which is free in this case, you only need to be a registered Darwin developer).
- regeya, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I couldn't agree more. If people want a free lunch, they need to help put some effort into making a 'free' lunch. Sadly enough, it's one of the reasons I'm willing to go to a lot of trouble just to do the same things other desktop users do nearly effortlessly.
EDIT: Though to be fair you can still get the source for free. You just need a login. - 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Chris: If you are the copyright holder, you can do anything you want, including take it down or change the license. The rightsholder is not bound by the license in this case, the license only applies to others, who ordinarily would not be allowed to copy or redistribute, etc.
- Filter, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8I think they are sincere about their involvement in the open source movement. They made the source code available hoping that they can trust the general public. Apple was wrong to think that the general public can be trusted and have taken appropriate action to ensure that their software wouldn't be stolen.
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So you think that Apple really wants to be open, but unfortunately, when they released source code, people used it as they wanted, which people shouldn't do when companies release source?
- corteze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why putting so much effort into hacking OSX. Yes, it's nice and it's a good os but
why not putting all this effort in making a Linux that good.
They don't want to share the code, they don't want to contribute to community and they want to have a full control of their os. It's their way of doing business and we cannot criticize it either. Open source gave us a chance to hack and tweak os as much as we want and do it legally, so stop crying that Apple is against that and put more effort into open source. - JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1One reason is licensing restrictions. One thing, for example that one can do with darwin or other bsd licensed kernels is ship it with proprietary modules. So 3D can actually work on modern hardware, wifi drivers can be enabled on a more global scale, and the OS can 'just work' for Joe Average. Important to some people, not to others, but it's one thing that always bugs me about linux distros that won't come up with bsd licensed kernels. The total freedom and great danger of a bsd licenced kernel, versus the forced restrictions with a gpl'd kernel such as linux are fuel for a lot of pointless shouting on the internet. But, in the end, some people just like something about one and don't like something similar in the other.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2And you still damn well suck.
- itisme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@corteze
Its nice to read a balanced opinion.
From my position of relative ignorance it appears to me Apple have made some marketing waves of being interested in opening out their innovations to the wider community whilst staying within acceptable bounds for their business, I'm not sure in reality they've done much of that but either way, if they want to protect their software from being run anywhere other than on their hardware then good luck to them.
Personally I think as Microsoft tighten up on piracy and apple get tough with their EULA and Trusted Platform they'll just send more and more people looking to gnu/Linux and whats more they'll send those with a bit more technology experience first, just the people gnu/Linux is quite ready for these days. - Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10@dgh1973
I'm pretty sure that since Darwin is based of NexT, which is in turn based on some of the open parts of UNIX, and since UNIX requires all derivatives of this code to be open Darwin must keep them open too. I may be wrong, but it's the explanation I've always understood as Apple's practical reason for opening it up. I don't believe that Apple opened it up because they're such nice guys - if that was the case, they would have fully opened up the core of OS X. - zzzeven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1UPDATE3: The soure are just gone from public accessable source tarball tree, the one with dev login still contains them and they are md5 identical. (still available at: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/)
@http://semthex.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2006/10/27/source-gone-from-apple-s-dev-site.html
finally..... - catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I agree they'll be back up eventually... but the proximity to the release of the crack can't be ignored...
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2And fanboys still suck.
Suck it in boys. I'm not going away. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10This is what I am talking about... There is an Apple assault going on on Digg right now.
I swear it must be something to do with Apple marketing massaging/manipulating the Digg system...
It's been like this for the ;last 3 days. If Steve Jobs as much as sneezes, it makes it to the front page. - greghunt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I thought it was under the BSD license, this is an assumption based on it being BSD based. The BSD is a lot more "free" than the GPL one.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Then later that day digg users started blocking raid, because an anti-fanboy troll is just as lame as a fanboy or any other troll.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I'm not so familiar with how the Darwin core is licensed but if it's not open source, then Apple owns the code, right? So if they suddenly decide to not make it available, they're within their rights to do it. Same as MS is within their rights to make changes to Windows without your permission as granted by that EULA you agreed to.
- turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1didn't it used to be fully open before intel?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7Right now, 5 of the 15 stories on the front page are Apple related. Good god.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2flagged as lame
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Amen raid :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Is this really important?
Its not like its the end of the world or anything is it - cannibaljp, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5this should be interesting to watch...
(buckles up and checks for where the airbags deploy from) - kidd3ckz, on 10/12/2007, -28/+15did he sniff?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+10Apple Scented?
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -26/+6"How deep into the crack please?"
Not as deep as some people here would clearly like to put their tongues...
Lol, fanboy baiting is fun...
BTW, I hate Windows fanboys, Firefox fanboys, IE fanboys, Linux fanboys, iPod fanboys Zune fanboys (does such a thing even really exist?) and fanboys of every age, type and description just as much.
So Apple fanboys needn't think they are being singled out for special treatment. (Given that most of them already think they are special enough already). You will be pleased to know that I hate you just as equally too. - DooDooFace, on 10/12/2007, -34/+10How deep into the crack please?
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -46/+17In other news, Steve Jobs scratched his butt today - at which Apple fans everywhere around the world broke out in rapturous fits of ecstatic applause - and collectively declared Mr Jobs to be the second coming of Christ on Earth...
- OutlawSamurai, on 10/12/2007, -47/+10Apple burps, outrage ensues! -_-
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is