|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
GNU-Darwin Dropping PPC Support
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 291 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 18, @11:56PM (#1987)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always thought this guy was a little...off kilter to begin with. Is anyone actually using it, anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The list of GNU-Darwin packages doesn't even include GnuStep... Seems kinda arse-backwards to me.
"Terminal" is OS X's killer app.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd love to see Apple actually sell a version that does work on any DVD drive (seems like they could pretty easily)
It's rather obvious why they don't - the cost of the mpeg-2 encoder royalties would be too expensive for most people.
This is also the reason that iDVD can only be used with the superdive - part of the cost of the superdrive pays royalties on the patents that affect mpeg-2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @04:43AM (#6120)
|
|
|
|
|
you don't understand.
GNU-darwin try to make apple understands their actions are wrong. DMCA are wrong. and Apple has to share somethings HONESTLY with the open source/gnu community because the USE the good open source/free (freedom) software. (apache, gcc, bind ,sendmail, postgres and others )
it's not PRO-microsoft (sigh) it's : PRO-OPEN SOURCE !
it's GOOD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @04:21AM (#6130)
|
|
|
|
|
" These apparent benefits are at odds with software freedom, and so they are not worthwhile. Consenting adults should be permitted to modify and copy software in privacy ;-}. The value of openness is secondary to the value of freedom."
If you dislike Apple's licence so much, WTF are you doing building an OS on Darwin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @04:23AM (#6138)
|
|
|
|
|
The real issue is that Apple pays a per-drive royalty for iDVD's functionality.
This patch costs them money. However the only way to stop them legally is to invoke copyright law (DMCA).
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And no, this time I am *not* trolling...
The GNU-Darwin people deciding not to link to "proprietary" libraries is, of course, a result of them using the GNU Public License so extensively. The GNU mindset has gone so deep into the project that now, the primary platform for Darwin is not even supported in this project!
This makes me shake my and think "what the fuck." This project is not only shotting itself in the foot, by supporting *only* a just-barely-supported platform, but is also screwing over the real meat of Darwin's userbase: PowerPC owners. This move is akin to opening a car garage (in America) who are all experienced in servicing American cars, and then changing policy months later, stating you'll only work on foreign models.
Where. Is. Fucking. LOGIC?
Serisouly, am I the only one who is wondering who the Hell is in charge at that project? This move makes so little sense I can't tell if they are really that stupid, or if I am waking up in alternate realities every damn morning.
This is the GPL in action, Mac faithful. Get down and kiss Apple's butt for choosing the BSD license. Trollaxor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trollaxor, you're perfectly right! I love the BSD license, too. The BSD license is the most "open" of the open licenses. You can do almost anything you want with BSD-licensed code. GPL puts so many damn stupid restrictions on you! I use FreeBSD at work (because I'm stuck with a stupid P4), and Mac OS X at home. Both BSD, both open source, both modified as much as I damn well want wihout me having to publish my modifications! No nasty licensing issues, because I only need to link against BSD-license and Apple proprietry libraries! BSD forever!
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is probably going to cost karma and I'm not as good a storyteller as I would like to be, but...
There seems to be castles all around the software world. Some are big and mean with plenty of guards. These won't let you inside unless you swear allegiance and never speak of what you have seen inside the gates.
Some of these castles are opening the gates just a little. They want to believe, but they are still feeling their way. Some on the outside encourage the change praising the baby steps and hoping for more, some ignore them or say they will never change, and others yell in their face about the true way and all their mistakes.
Some castles have walls of glass, and not many guards to speak of. They do have priest instructing you on the true path. The priests say this place is not a castle, but the walls are still there. You are allowed to come in without interference. You may dwell here, but do not take anything to improve the structure of one of the neighboring stone castles. Although, you can take things from one glass castle to another. You may add only approved things to your glass castle. There are a lot of glass castles, and even if one falls down the remains can be taken to others easily or assembled again. There is a real power in this.
Other people just decided to ditch the castle and travel the roads. Use what we give for whatever you want. If you want to give back then cool, otherwise cool. Its your life, follow your own path.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 18, @11:55PM (#6186)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only a overzealous member of the GPL-mindset would make an ad hominem response like that.
See? It works both ways.
(a different anonymous coward)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that the GNU organization has known since the inception of the APSL that it is incompatible with the GPL, why on earth would you create a GNU distribution for software that isn't GPL compatible in the first place?
Honestly, if you want to honor the GPL, stick with a GPL'ed OS instead of trying to force others to change. Choice is good, forcing a choice on others is bad.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @12:46AM (#6217)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think they are correct in protecting their software that was intended to help promote the sale of their SuperDrives from people who think it's a freebie. Hacking the code to make it work on every machine regardless of SuperDrive presence is wrong.
I have a SuperDrive and an external firewire DVD/+R/+RW drive and iDVD works just fine with it as well as iMovie. If I didn't have a SuperDrive I wouldn't feel that Apple owed me the functionality of the DVD Player and iDVD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @12:56AM (#6218)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. Sure sounds like a bunch of unix nerds having a bloody temper tantrum 'cuz they don't get all the toys they want. Ohh.... by the way, it eventually gets boring when your THE ONLY FUKN LOSERS USING YOUR OWN LITTLE VARIATION!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My B&W G3 400 with a gig of RAM is not an obsolete machine, and that's all Apple was trying to do...make it obsolete so I would buy a new machine.
No, they simply tried to have you buy DVD Studio Pro or another piece of software since iDVD was mainly meant to be a goodie to make people buy the PowerMacs with the SuperDriver built in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @03:33AM (#6223)
|
|
|
|
|
Get somebody to make generic MIPS boards and move to it (x86 and Itanic are Wintel and have Linux, there are Sun clones already, and Alpha and HP-PA are dead and closed).
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 18, @10:51PM (#6237)
|
|
|
|
|
|
"First, Apple continues the wall-of-silence with respect to their repugnant DMCA-based legal action, and there is no reason whatsoever for us to think that they will not undertake similar action in the future. It is regrettable that the DMCA was Apple-sponsored legislation, and it is now time for them to disavow it and promise never to employ it."
Yes the DMCA is horrible legislation that we all seem to hate, yes Apple threatened to use it, but it seems that they had to, to protect their own arses. If lamer X buys a hacked dvd-burner and uses a scripted-up version of iDVD to "steal" copywrited material (weather this is right or wrong) Apple would then be possibly facing huge lawsuits from any entertainment company. Getting rid of the DMCA (while we all want to) is not Apple's job, they are just as negitively effected as we are. Don't be mad that Apple has to protect the butt.
"Second, APSL is languishing, and it is unacceptable to the free software community. It is now time for an APSL revision, which brings the license in line with the free software definition in accordance with the expectations of GNU Project."
Sure maybe the APSL isn't great but, it is a lot better than GNU and it would be sucide for Apple to realse all there software in any OpenSource platform. let them ease into it. Be patient, and happy with whay you have. You spoiled little boy.
"First, we are making explicit and binding the following policy. GNU-Darwin will not support or distribute any software which links to proprietary libraries, and that includes Cocoa, Carbon, CoreAudio, etc. There will be no native package manager from GNU-Darwin (pkg_add suffices)."
Isn't GNU supposed to support programmers? how is restricing libraries accomplishing this? Seems very counter productive.
"Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode."
Why are you doing this, just another childish "statement"? Don't forget that Apple is not the only PPC harware on the market, while it is obviously the best (YEAH APPLE!) don't forget IBM created PPC and uses it in their most powerful servers. Id this really a possible market you want to loose? I think that you should have thought about this a little harder. Apple and IBM use PPC because its supperior architecture, why would you restrict (as in 'to prevent freedom') your distro?
Oh well, I really don't care fink is much superior, and they don't even try to get your money. GNU is turning into a very not free license. BSD is the only really free licence.
BTW. I am not an anonymous coward, but someone already has my perfered handle here, so you will know me by my sig.
decrypt
justin.triplett@wmich.edu
http://diablonet.net/~decrypt/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 18, @10:53PM (#6238)
|
|
|
|
|
|
To quote B. Bunny, "What a maroon!"
The iDVD 'fiasco' as I saw it referred to by one person has to be one of the worst cases for arguing against the DCMA I've seen.
iDVD is 'free' software that Apple justified developing by linking it to people buying Macs with Superdrives. Someone who didn't buy a Superdrive mac doesn't have a valid license to use it, period. I'd love to see Apple actually sell a version that does work on any DVD drive (seems like they could pretty easily), but that's a seperate issue.
I'm not a big fan of the DCMA, but this is certainly not the posterchild case to use when arguing against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Friday December 20, @10:31PM (#6241)
|
|
|
|
|
|
NeXTSTEP 1.0 was released in 1989 after several previews dating back as far as 1986.
Linus Torvarlds wrote the Linux kernel in 1991.
Looks to me like Apple DID go with the more mature system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @09:02PM (#6243)
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no mention of DMCA on the gnu-darwin home page. What are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @07:29PM (#6258)
|
|
|
|
|
The orginal poster might be a tad out of his mind... as GNU-Darwin wasn't PPC only... nor did they port any Darwin apps from PPC to x86 they are just just porting GNU (crap) from other Unicies to Darwin.
The ONLY thing GNU-Darwin could get sued over is using the word Darwin... which I don't think apple could sue over if its not trademarked
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is total nonsense and fud.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/--
This message was posted with
Dillo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @12:29AM (#6270)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who would care about a x86 darwin that will fall old and ancient and won't work with ideology-free Darwins?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @03:00AM (#6271)
|
|
|
|
|
"The value of openness is secondary to the value of freedom."
Unless you're talking about the freedom to choose the license you're publishing software under, of course. Then the value of freedom is secondary to the value of GNU.
I'm posting AC because I don't want an account.
Ian Bullard
ibullard at mjolnirstudios dot com
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the large number of illogical, reactionary posts going around on this topic, your point is refreshingly well thought out, and I agree with you.
When the ideology of free software becomes a doctrine of software orthodoxy instead of continued progress towards a unified goal -- as it seems this condemnation of the APSL by Stallman seems to be -- there's no way that it will gain ground.
Abstract ideology and emphatic dedication towards a standard is one thing, but this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Apple is probably the most profitably involved commercial contributor to open software out there right now, and it's also setting an unprecidented standard for open software at a world-wide, larger distribution level than free software has ever managed. Yet because they're actually having to protect their own interests, guard their new technologies, and thereby turn a profit, they're being condemned!
Forgive me, but this is ridiculous. Open Software bigots need to quit their whining and buck up, or they're going to lose the support of a pioneering corporation that has the potential to set a standard for open software's impact in major businesses for years to come.
"I am the Windows NT Blue Screen of Death. No one hears your screams."
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are a Mac user and you call us GNU guys cultish ?? What a laugh, none of us sit there a collect ad posters from 20 yrs ago and we do not sit there and put hundreds of those ugly multi-colored Apple stickers all over our car, and our wardrobe doesnt consist entirely of Mac OS X propaganda either. Before youn call us cultish, step back and look at the tendencies of the Mac community, Im a mac user and I think most Mac users to be fanatic losers who have no lives except to idolize a stupid heap of plastic and glass and of course Steve Jobs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday December 19, @07:53PM (#6323)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you think you are the only one that can port Phoenix ? If you are you are just a stupid as your submission makes you sound
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 18, @10:59PM (#6438)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open source and free software are commercial failures so far. No business larger than the mom-n-pop level (i.e., above $5M in annual revenue) has shown sustained profitability, and most of the former media darlings in open source have now gone bankrupt or are at risk of delisting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These apparent benefits are at odds with software freedom, and so they are not worthwhile. Consenting adults should be permitted to modify and copy software in privacy ;-}. The value of openness is secondary to the value of freedom.
Whatever you think of this tedious debate, this is the standard that the free software foundation has set, and it is the standard that Apple must meet in order to recieve full benefits from the free software community.
I believe that it is also crucial to Apple's future, because they will never obtain market dominance unless they first obtain the trust of the users. That trust will depend on the maintenance of an open platform with valid standards of software freedom.
Apple has entered into proprietary agreements, which are legally binding, so it is impossible for them to free all of their code at this time. Hopefully, they will consider avoiding such agreements in the future, which are not beneficial to them in the long term. Meanwhile, a free Darwin would be the next logical step in their progress, which would also garner tremendous goodwill which they do not currently enjoy. Moreover, it is the right thing to do.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
--
This message was posted with
Dillo
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole thread annoys me. Hell I wrote out the plans for Darwin. Very simply, it does exactly what it is intended to do with the APSL.
I fought damned hard to get Darwin opensourced. And my opponents feared exactly this type of shit because it doesnt benefit one damned person and it drags Apple through the mud. Just because some weeny with a pacifier needs stroke his cock.
If you have any questions as to why please ask.
I would be happy to tell you exactly why it is set up the way it is, but i will summarize:
Darwin itself is a development OS. Period.
Specifically, to help create drivers and help fix bugs in the core of the OS and give the ability to extend the Darwin layer for other applications, like clustering, embedded, etc that do not benefit from having the world class GUI, core audio, etc.
Apple has some damn good programmers but unfortunately even the brightest of minds miss some scenarios, or write buggy code. This is a 180degree turn from the OS 9 toolbox if you EVER worked with that which obviously quite a few of you havent (or if you have maybe you have forgotten what life was like in early 97 when this plan was written.)
It is also a way to generate feedback from the developer community back to Apple. It is hopefully used to create a more technical discussion people can use to get started developing, and create a "playground" for people that just like to hack where personal computer == personalize the hell out of it.
It is also an easier way to submit bug fixes back to the maintainers which is no different than the GNU license expect you have to submit them, and the maintainer happens to be a small cap corporation.
If you think GNU software is perfect think again, it has its own problems. Forking and lack of maintainers time etc happens to be a few of them. I was hoping this fixes that problem. IE back to Apple, Apple tests it maybe even fixes your code and possibly adds it. You can't possibly expect to have every hack thrown into the base Darwin layer.
This fixes the forking problem, and the rights to maintain it. If you submit a bug to the lead developer of a GNU project say the Linux Kernel, it goes throught he same process and in fact there is not really much difference, except usually if it is included in Darwin, it actually works correctly. I fail to see what is unfair about this.
I am not saying it is a "perfect" system There are two forks fo the project. One is what is included in OS X and the other is what is released as the development layer. The OpenSourced Darwin layer is merged back into the main tree provided the code meets the standards and expectations of the Apple team. The lag time between the ports can be annoying but it is essential in order to ship a good product.
Apple might not include some information, for device drivers, this is not necessarily their fault, They do a lot of licensing from 3rd party manufacturers, and to give out some of the source also gives out trade secrets from other manufacturers which violates their licensing agreement. This goes for mainly for hardware and encryption algorithms which Apple cannot actually opensource. The easiest example is QT streaming server, yes it is opensourced, but they can't opensource the encryption portions frankly because they license them.
In summary the GNU license in effect would lesson the viability of Darwin as an OS. Moving to X86 in fact does not even help the anti-corporate sentiment of the GNU spirit because in essence you still have to buy your hardware from a corporation since I am not aware of any coop, or way to make machine completely with corporate free parts (feel free to enlighten me on such projects) and have it be a useful machine by todays standards which is part of the irony of the GNU license.
In effect by making this an issue at all, you are displaying sentiment that Darwin in fact is a bad idea, and that Apple might as well close up the source since no matter what Apple does some whiney little brat is going to complain. Complaining is one thing, but it becomes whining when a real alternative solution is not presented which in fact there wasnt.
I am really happy to see that there are people a lot more logical and more intelligent that have rebuffed the weenies arguments in a more eloquent and subtle way then I have. I am happy to see these people show support for the idea of Darwin as a whole.
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Saturday December 28, @01:54PM (#6739)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A question more to the point... Is there any attempt to make Darwin integrated with Linux? Would there be any benefit to doing that? Would using Darwin help Linux along to becoming a desktop system as well as a server?
If this is possible, then GNU-Darwin will be a very practical step. If it is not used for anything beyond just a thought experiment, then it is completely wasted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make me laff my evil Darth laff. Ha ha ha!
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/--
This message was posted with
Dillo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happy to report that GNU-Darwin is alive, well, and growing. As for my reputation in the Darwin community, I think that the stature of the project speaks for itself, and yes we do have developers. GPL roules!
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/--
This message was posted with
Dillo
|
|
| | |
