Re: Intel source code release
Re: Intel source code release
- Subject: Re: Intel source code release
- From: Dave Schroeder <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 14:07:12 -0600
I think we're all kind of missing the point, here. This isn't about
whether Apple "has to" release code under the BSD license, its own
license, or anything else.
This is about a fundamental shift in strategy on a product with no
notice or communication whatsoever to the community. Will Apple's
server and enterprise strategy suffer the same fate? After I purchase
50 Xserves, will the Xserve family be discontinued with no notice?
If you think that's ridiculous, consider how much Apple trumpeted the
concept of the Darwin OS, Darwin components, and all of the other non-
GPL open source components in Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server.
Or, if you think Apple can just cancel things like this with
impunity, you'd be correct, but then it had better stop representing
itself as an any semblance of an enterprise company in enterprise
markets.
Also, I sincerely hope that none of this was done as a misguided
attempt to somehow prevent Mac OS X (Intel) from being hacked to run
on non-Apple systems. Because it's already been done, and will
continue to be done. Please note that I'm not one of these idiotic
"pro-Mac OS X piracy" people; in fact, I've spoken out quite against
Mac OS X piracy and in defense of Apple's choices regarding Mac OS X
(Intel) in various forums (e.g. <http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?
sid=177400&cid=14717521>). But the point is that Mac OS X will
continue to be hacked to run on non-Apple hardware indefinitely, as
has already been done (for those not following, yes, the final,
shipping release of Mac OS X (Intel) has already been hacked to run
on non-Apple hardware).
This turn of events is extremely disappointing, to say the least.
What follows is a message I sent out to the MacEnterprise.org mailing
list this week:
----
From: Dave Schroeder <email@hidden>
Date: February 17, 2006 12:40:18 AM CST
To: email@hidden
Subject: Come on in, we're ____
Reply-To: Mac OS X enterprise deployment project
<email@hidden>
...well, not any more.
Well, I waited for a while to see what I could find out, and it
appears Darwin, as a standalone OS and as something that represented
all of formerly open source components of Mac OS X, is dead.
Compare:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.4.ppc/
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.4.x86/
and
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.5.ppc/
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.5.x86/
Pretty stark difference, huh? No APSL projects are released in the
x86 tree, only GPL stuff that Richard Stallman raised a stink about
and forced Apple to release a month late.
Also, today http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ redirects to http://
developer.apple.com/opensource/ and Apple apparently disallowed any
indexing or caching of former Darwin page by search engines or
archive.org, so you can't see their glowing descriptions of Darwin
and what it represented. Also, http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
projects/darwin/, the Darwin OS project, also now redirects to http://
developer.apple.com/opensource/. Also, corresponding Apple-specific
open source projects for Mac OS X Server appear gone.
And since Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) is expected to be unified, one
wonders if all of the non-GPL open source pieces will go away as well.
Stunningly, no one has really brought this up on any of the Darwin
lists, and Apple must have figured out that since there's no
pressure, or since no one has figured it out yet, it doesn't have to
say anything.
Apple must just figure it can "disappear" major projects,
fundamentally change strategy and course for its primary product (the
operating system) and kill off a major basis and selling point of Mac
OS X and Mac OS X Server, and something that has been an extremely
useful set of tools for us for the last few years, without telling
anyone.
Apple still hasn't figured out how to deal with enterprise customers;
how to strike this balance between its need for secrecy and
enterprise IT's need for roadmap information, consistency, and
communication, and this is becoming more upsetting each day. The
situation is getting worse, not better. This isn't about the source,
per se: it's about an apparent major fundamental change in direction
with no communication or consultation whatsoever.
Apple: when is this going to change? I would just give up if it
weren't for the fact that Apple keeps insisting it wants to get
better on dealing with enterprise customers; that it wants more
channels for communication and support. That it wants to develop
strategies and programs to support enterprise customers. But as the
years go by, I see little to no evidence of this.
There have been occasional steps forward...but more steps backward.
If this trend continues - especially as IBM, Sun, Red Hat, and
Microsoft fall all over themselves to assist us (no, they're not
perfect, but they're a LOT better) - I'm not sure what will happen...
Regards,
Dave Schroeder | University of Wisconsin - Madison
Senior Systems Engineer | Division of Information Technology
Email: email@hidden | Systems Engineering
Web: das.doit.wisc.edu | B263 Computer Science and Statistics
Cell: +1 608 444-5672 | 1210 West Dayton Street
Phone: +1 608 265-4737 | Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1685
_____________________________________________________
Subscription Options and Archives
http://listserv.cuny.edu/archives/macenterprise.html
_______________________________________________
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