What is Digg?41 Comments
- Cannon13, on 10/12/2007, -5/+45They say that understanding sarcasm is a sign of intelligence.
I agree. - DrunkenPirate34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Just admit you didn't get it and move on.
- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28...OS X has been open for a while now.
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28What a terrible idea.
Now they'll have to accept community contributed bugfixes and free security hole finding/patching which will greatly benefit the company.
Darn it!! - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"Apple bigs up it's open source commitment, yet absolutely no sign of anything like iTunes for linux (yet they are more than happy enough to release it on Windows - hypocritical????)"
iTunes, let's see: iTunes requires Quicktime, meaning that Quicktime's gotta run on the platform. Quicktime requires a way to interface with both video and audio hardware, of which on Linux, there are literally too many ways to choose from. On top of the difficult of delivering Quicktime for Linux, they're also already supporting Windows (which is actually supported by a Carbon-clone that they did at one point in time when they were considering allowing Mac OS programs to run on Windows). Then you have the audience of Linux: hackers. iTunes main purpose in life is to support the iPod and to support iTunes Music Store, the former of which Apple couldn't care less if you hacked (you bought it, do with it what you like), the latter of which would go out of business if there was someone hacking it at every turn [which as of iTunes 6, nobody has been able to do]. Then you have the fact that Linux as a platform is a competitor to Mac OS X as a platform, whereas Windows isn't so much a competitor as it is "the market" due to Microsoft's monopoly. Lastly, toss in the fact that Linux users already have tools that interface their iPod with Linux, and the fact that before iTunes for Windows, there really wasn't a reliable way of using the iPod with Windows, and you understand Apple's reasoning.
The iPod would have never become what it is today without iTunes for Windows, iTunes for Linux would literally be a waste of developer's time. A great deal of Linux supporters are Anti-DRM, meaning they'd never buy anything from iTMS anyways, a great deal of Linux people are tinker-ers, meaning they'd find their own way of interfacing with the iPod, and a great deal of Linux users are also Mac fans, meaning that, at the least, those people would have access to iTunes as well.
So please, that troll is very old, and very dated. - suomi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It was never shut down, they were just slow in delivering.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15except the legality
- bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It already runs on AMDs ;)
- tuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14this is good news
- templest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Now it's just a matter of time before we have it running on AMDs. :-)
Hurray for kernel hacking! - whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10so, does this mean a group could make a full OS x install for any x86 system?
Forgive me if i should stupid. - whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8i mean *sound
It's late. - Darth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-dev/2006/Aug/msg00067.html
the link - cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"With many eyes, all bugs are shallow" - yay for open source!
@suomi: it WAS open for quite awhile. Then Apple closed it up... and now it's open again. I think it's legitimate to post an article about the fact that it's open yet again after a brief lapse. - belial, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Apple has conviently left out the AppleACPI driver rendering the system unbootable .. so this is useless for anyone not using OSX but Darwin alone.
- robwistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5b/c windows' problems all come from open source? no.
- DrunkenPirate34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A perfectly valid question. I was wondering the same thing myself. Feasibly, shouldn't developers be able to remove the "check" that looks for the special proprietary Apple chip?
- willistg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Apple bigs up it's open source commitment, yet absolutely no sign of anything like iTunes for linux (yet they are more than happy enough to release it on Windows - hypocritical????)"
They know they can't compete with Amarok. :) - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think that Apple is unduly concerned about hackers fiddling with OS X to get it to work (sort of) on some Windows machines. It takes a hacker, one, and it's just much more hassle. Is your motherboard supported? What about your precise hardware? Well, how about the next upgrade? Will it fix something your really need, but break your install because of a conflict with, say, YOUR video card, or whatever's not on the list of hardware that Apple tests on? It's just not going to get really popular. People seeing it work, though, might end up buying a Mac. No worries, mate.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Feasibly, shouldn't developers be able to remove the "check" that looks for the special proprietary Apple chip?"
Sure. At the same time, because Apple releases so few drivers for everything (as it has no reason to really), making OS X run on contemporary hardware will be practically useless to you, as many can tell you in the OS X86 project. The OS runs, but it's nothing like it would be if it were on Apple hardware. Most people can't get Quartz Extreme to even work out right, which means no Expose, and everything else built on top of that (and really crappy video performance).
The kernel code is more for transparency; you can see the kernel, and feel free to tinker with its bits to see if you can make it faster, or remove bugs. My theory for why they shut down kernel transparency for a time was because of Leopard; they've got features going into the kernel that they didn't want to be distributed to the public quite yet, and they've had to go back and fork it out of the SVN/CVS system (which means a lot of code auditing basically). That, combined with mixed licensing could have made it hell to release the code earlier than they have. It's obvious that /some/ hacking had to go on under the hood (Time Machine's API at the top end had to be implemented on the bottom end, multi-user boxes probably meant some adjustments to resource handling, etc), but it remains inconclusive as to if that is the real reason they took it offline. - robwistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i wonder why they closed it before? you think they just wanted a clean move to the intel platform?
- brentv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5http://www.osx86project.org/
definitely possible - Codee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I can imagine they don't want to be the next Windows when it comes to attacks. Just a guess.
- Psylo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6i'm illegaly using OSX 86 10.4.5 on my acer laptop each days. no problems.
- bigBadOwl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5This is good news for tech-savvy people wanting to tweak the kernel. Its odd how anyone can complain, you don't see Micro$oft releasing their Windows kernel. At the end of the day Apple has to protect their interests. The release of the Intel kernel can only be a very positive thing.
- zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Get ready for the arrival of the zealots who still insist that Apple aren't doing enough for open source.
- SirGrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Or you think that they wanted to curb people from modifying OSX to run on their beige-box. When they realized that A) pirates weren't stopped by that and B) people like me (FSS/Open Source lovers) got mad at them, they decided to rethink their position.
- netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Potentially. But I doubt it. Who else thinks that the kernel source-code'll have more security checks than the retail kernel itself? Anyway, it's already possible to do a full OS X install on most x86 systems, so long as they have SSE2 (preferably SSE3).
- Ciebergasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My respect for Apple has just shot up ten-fold. I didn't know they did anything open-source, and it is quite welcome information. I am much less disinclined to buy Apple products now; don't know why but I always saw the company as a very patronizing institution (towards their customers). It just goes to show, ignorance can be crippling.
- MattGilley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple doesnt do open-source, its the kernel, not the libraries and apps that are the OS itself. Darwin was open-source too, until they stopped releasing the source.
- stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.nedprod.com/Niall_stuff/MacOS%20X/index.html
- corteze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think that Apple is quietly happy that hackers get involved with making OSX available on generic x86. They are not loosing any money because people who run it, generally wouldn't consider buying apple just for sake of having OSX. Spreading awareness of operation system is much more important then having one or two pirate copies of OSX. Opening kernel might just help that and I see that as indirect support of pirating OSX.
I have considered MacBook myself but I realized that Linux is actually working out for me but that didn't stop me from installing cracked OSX just to check it out and see if it's doable. - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I thought I read an article in the last couple of weeks on how painful it was doing an open source project with Apple.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2437095928.html - collywolly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Yay to Apple for giving so much and taking so little from the open source comunity.
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I've tried the flat image myself, and my system is far too exotic for os x.
I was hoping to give it another go, but yet again...no go. - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3They did shut it down for a while, angering the open source people. But it's open again, and a lot of people are, or should be, embarrassed.
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I would like to try this sometime,
- collywolly, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2People are perfectly entitled to complain.
Apple bigs up it's open source commitment, yet absolutely no sign of anything like iTunes for linux (yet they are more than happy enough to release it on Windows - hypocritical????)
Apples open source efforts are just lip service. - suomi, on 10/12/2007, -43/+11You do know it has been open for quite some time now, don't you?
And that they don't 'have' to accept contributed fixes to anything. - suomi, on 10/12/2007, -38/+3As a piece of sarcasm it totally fails - it is poorly constructed, executed and delivered - par for the course round here though...
And who is 'they'? - fabriciom, on 10/12/2007, -58/+0LET THE DRILLING BEGIN! Lets see how long till the first worm is out doing its rounds.
-Fabricio Martinez
-http://www.fabtechsolutions.com
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is