Re: Xcode 2.3 source gone
Re: Xcode 2.3 source gone
- Subject: Re: Xcode 2.3 source gone
- From: Dave Schroeder <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:19:34 -0500
On Aug 17, 2006, at 4:09 PM, fletcher sandbeck wrote:
On 2006-08-17 at 15:15 by email@hidden (Dave Schroeder):
Well, I'll eat my hat on this one since you did indeed fix it
promptly. But I'm sure you also understand the concern coming off the
heels of the whole xnu thing.
The removal of the link was revealed to be a simple mistake, and
xnu was revealed to be a simple delay. After over-reacting to the
removal of the xnu source I would hope that people would be *less*
prone to over-react to future issues. I guess I just don't have
enough emotional energy invested to understand.
There was no xnu x86 source for about 8 months. That's not what I
would call a "delay". No one from Apple would tell anyone why it
wasn't released, or when (or if) it would be. The only comment was to
say that Tom Yager's articles were nothing more than "speculation".
(And while I disagreed with Tom Yager's articles and sensationalism
completely, and was actually one of the people who in various forums
was actually defending the xnu situation as possibly only a delay,
wait for WWDC, etc., all we really had was "speculation".)
For a company that markets itself in various sectors on the benefits
of open source, and for organizations that have come to depend on the
source for various reasons, when a major piece of it just isn't there
for the better part of a year, and there is no communication or
guidance from Apple on it whatsoever, and all questions about it go
unanswered, yeah, it's kind of a big deal just on principle. I agree
that some have more invested in it than others. I'm glad it finally
got released, and I suspected it would be, but as Rob Braun said on
another list, the fact that it had to be "secret" until Apple was
ready to unfurl it again at WWDC is actually part of the problem,
because that's kind of antithetical to the philosophy of "open
source". Of course there are more issues at play here too, and Apple
has its own reasons for wanting to keep things secret sometimes
(like, perhaps the features of an open source element that might
reveal features of an unannounced machine, perhaps).
The bottom line is that I think Apple needs to reconcile these
issues, and not necessarily ALWAYS err on the side of secrecy and non-
communication, especially in the context of dealing with larger/
enterprise customers.
- Dave
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden