or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › apple to improve compiler code
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

apple to improve compiler code

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
Apple is looking to hire some software engineers to improve the gcc compiler and its optimizations for PowerPC:
http://www.compilerjobs.com/jobs/apple.php

They are also wanting to improve compile time.

I'd say this is good news. GCC is not well optimized for PowerPC. I have seen this first hand on IBM JS20 servers. IBM's Visualage XLC compiler generates code that is noticeably faster on the PowerPC 970 than GCC.

What I really think Apple should do, and I don't understand why they haven't, is team with IBM to put objective C into XLC. Ah, nevermind, it looks like IBM is doing that:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

So, shouldn't Apple license IBM's compilers? I think it would make a huge performance difference on the G5 machines. Compiling OS X and its frameworks with XLC would be a boon to all G5 users, as well as a boon to G4 and G3 users, although to a lesser extent.
post #2 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru

So, shouldn't Apple license IBM's compilers?

Actually I am a bit surprised that they did not already in Tiger, but then who knows what IBM would charge them for that?
post #3 of 69
Tiger is compiled with the GCC4 specs, and they say that 4.1 should bring a major speed increase (Some say 30%, give or take) compared to 4.0. It should also include auto-vectorisation and auto-altivecoptimizations.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #4 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
....

So, shouldn't Apple license IBM's compilers? I think it would make a huge performance difference on the G5 machines. Compiling OS X and its frameworks with XLC would be a boon to all G5 users, as well as a boon to G4 and G3 users, although to a lesser extent.

Last time I heard, gcc was open source and XLC was not. Apple is committed to using open source tools to build MacOS X. You can rest assured that an XLC-compiled MacOS X would be a lot more expensive. Having said that, Apple strongly supports XLC. Recently, I attended an Apple high-performance computing presentation in which the engineers talked extensively about XLC and its performance advantages over gcc.
post #5 of 69
As a G3 owner, this is the sort of thing that both encourages and discourages me. On the one hand, OS X gets faster with each release and it's great to see Apple improving performance on an already snappy OS. On the other hand, why hasn't Apple used a better optimized compiler a long time ago? How much performance is being wasted in all Macs due to inefficient compilation?

- Jasen.
post #6 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by T'hain Esh Kelch
Tiger is compiled with the GCC4 specs, and they say that 4.1 should bring a major speed increase (Some say 30%, give or take) compared to 4.0. It should also include auto-vectorisation and auto-altivecoptimizations.

GCC 4 already includes these things, plus a lot of other improvements that improve the PPC code generation. It puts in place a major new architecture for implementing optimizations, considerably modernizing GCC. Future versions will continue to bring new improvements.

Prior to this Apple primarily used Metrowerk's compiler, and before that they used "MrC" which originated from IBM (if I recall correctly). Their use of GCC has been only since OSX arrived on the scene, and since then they have been making continuous improvements to it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #7 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Actually I am a bit surprised that they did not already in Tiger, but then who knows what IBM would charge them for that?

actually, given that IBM is in the biz of selling CPUs, apple could probably work a decent licensing agreement with them.

logic: faster OS and apps --> better "real world" benchmarks --> better rep for IBM CPUs

and likely by-product: more macs sold due to less perception of performance gap --> more IBM CPUs sold --> more ROI for IBM.

that said, sounds like programmer has a good handle on the state of GCC4, and that it's narrowing the gap.
apple gets "it."
Reply
apple gets "it."
Reply
post #8 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
"MrC" [] originated from IBM (if I recall correctly).

It was a collaborative effort between Apple and Symantec, according to DrunkenBlog.
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
We're investigating reports of indecent acts being committed at the YMCA.
Reply
post #9 of 69
Or Apple wants to optimise for cell?
post #10 of 69
GCC is free and will see significant improvements from Apple that include dynamic libstdc++, along-side intentionally breaking C/ObjC to fix a lot of hidden flaws in earlier revisions of GCC (GCC 4.1 is expected to see ObjC++ and all the fixes/optimations for the general GCC branch).

Key change with the bison parser:

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html

XLC is not free and I believe is > $500 per seat. To add ObjC support means that folks who want something unique that XLC offers for Tiger will pay for it.

For clarification: ObjC++ did not make it in the the GCC branch, but is of course in Apple's modified GCC 4.0, along-side the dynamic libstdc++. What 4.1 will bring with the clean-up between C/ObjC and the bison parser will merge all these Apple additions into the general GCC 4.1 branch. With the heavy work done the optimization work on PPC can be focused more heavily and for folks who use GNUstep and ObjC who have been waiting for ObjC++, GCC 4.1 will be the first version in the 4 series they can use, whether on PPC, x86, so on and so forth.
post #11 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by shadow
Or Apple wants to optimise for cell?

I think they should look into the way the Mac is handling OGL with graphics cards while they do this. I'd like to see the option of better plug and play with PC cards at some extent. Quadro drivers work in Linux. That should be easy enough right?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #12 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Last time I heard, gcc was open source and XLC was not. Apple is committed to using open source tools to build MacOS X. You can rest assured that an XLC-compiled MacOS X would be a lot more expensive. Having said that, Apple strongly supports XLC. Recently, I attended an Apple high-performance computing presentation in which the engineers talked extensively about XLC and its performance advantages over gcc.

I don't think the "free" nature of GCC is why Apple was/is using it. At the time work started on OS X, the only compiler that could compile Objective C on the PowerPC was (I believe) GCC. Most other compilers have dropped ObjC support.

C'mon, you're telling me that Steve Jobs, salesman of the century, couldn't sell IBM on a deal to license XLC? IBM would be stupid to turn down the revenue. I really think Apple could make an agreement for compiling OS X and Apple applications with XLC that wouldn't break the bank.

I'd say the performance benefits of XLC would be well worth the costs. Performance on all Macs would increase appreciably.
post #13 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

Key change with the bison parser:

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html
With the heavy work done the optimization work on PPC can be focused more heavily and for folks who use GNUstep and ObjC who have been waiting for ObjC++, GCC 4.1 will be the first version in the 4 series they can use, whether on PPC, x86, so on and so forth.

That's very interesting. It says there that 4.1 uses a hand-written parser. I'll have to check that out. I thought all modern compilers probably used parser generators.
post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
I don't think the "free" nature of GCC is why Apple was/is using it. At the time work started on OS X, the only compiler that could compile Objective C on the PowerPC was (I believe) GCC. Most other compilers have dropped ObjC support.

C'mon, you're telling me that Steve Jobs, salesman of the century, couldn't sell IBM on a deal to license XLC? IBM would be stupid to turn down the revenue. I really think Apple could make an agreement for compiling OS X and Apple applications with XLC that wouldn't break the bank.

I'd say the performance benefits of XLC would be well worth the costs. Performance on all Macs would increase appreciably.

You don't seem to understand that Apple is a business. Look around the software industry. You see no comparable commercial software project that is not substantially more expensive than MacOS X. Apple's business model makes an OS of the quality of MacOS X available for $129, $69 edu. This is a major reason why Apple replaced Display PostScript with Quartz. This is a major reason why Apple bundles TrueType fonts with its OS rather than PostScript fonts. Essential to the success of Apple's current business model is the use of opensource tools. XCode, arguably the best development system on the planet, is available for every new Mac at no extra charge.

If Apple is a business, IBM is really a business. It is not a charity. Currently, you can get XLC for $400/seat at education prices, which is a 33.3% discount on the standard $600/seat price. Even if IBM reduced the price of XLC by another 75% of the academic price, that would represent a $100 increase in the price of MacOS X in its current configuration. How many people are willing to pay $230 ($170 edu) for MacOS X?

In the final analysis, you proposal makes no sense for Apple. It makes no sense for IBM. It makes no sense for their customers.

Edit: Corrected the mistake in which I called XCode by the name Xtools, which a completely different product.
post #15 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You don't seem to understand that Apple is a business. Look around the software industry. You see no comparable commercial software project that is not substantially more expensive than MacOS X. Apple's business model makes an OS of the quality of MacOS X available for $129, $69 edu. This is a major reason why Apple replaced Display PostScript with Quartz. This is a major reason why Apple bundles TrueType fonts with its OS rather than PostScript fonts. Essential to the success of Apple's current business model is the use of opensource tools. Xtools, arguably the best development system on the planet, is available for every new Mac at no extra charge.

If Apple is a business, IBM is really a business. It is not a charity. Currently, you can get XLC for $400/seat at education prices, which is a 33.3% discount on the standard $600/seat price. Even if IBM reduced the price of XLC by another 75% of the academic price, that would represent a $100 increase in the price of MacOS X in its current configuration. How many people are willing to pay $230 ($170 edu) for MacOS X?

In the final analysis, you proposal makes no sense for Apple. It makes no sense for IBM. It makes no sense for their customers.

You don't seem to understand how compilers are licensed. A compiler is a translator. It translates from a high level language like C, ObjC or C++ to assembly language. Compilers are (usually) licensed based on the number of "seats" that may be compiling with it at any one time. Once the compilation is done, there are no royalties on the compiled software, because the compiler is not beng used after that. It has done its job; software is not compiled again when it is used. Display Postscript is quite different. In display postscript, the OS would be actively running Postscript code while in use, hence Adobe can collect royalties.

Are you trying to tell me that if I were to compile an app with MS Visual Studio that I would have to pay MS $500+ for every copy of the program I distribute? How can anyone sell software for less than $500 then?

The only thing that could cause the price of Mac OS to go up by $100+ is if Apple were to actually ship the XLC compiler with every copy of Mac OS. It is quite possible to compile the OS and core libraries with XLC, but still ship GCC as the default compiler for XCode, as is currently done. For example, Windows is compiled with Microsoft's compiler, but you can run programs on it that were compiled with Borland or GCC.

In conclusion, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

P.S. What is Xtools? Do you mean the XCode IDE?
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me


If Apple is a business, IBM is really a business. It is not a charity. Currently, you can get XLC for $400/seat at education prices, which is a 33.3% discount on the standard $600/seat price. Even if IBM reduced the price of XLC by another 75% of the academic price, that would represent a $100 increase in the price of MacOS X in its current configuration. How many people are willing to pay $230 ($170 edu) for MacOS X?


Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru


The only thing that could cause the price of Mac OS to go up by $100+ is if Apple were to actually ship the XLC compiler with every copy of Mac OS.

That is obviously exactly what he is saying. Even an educational seat for the compiler is big $$$, and more than Apples charges for their OS. Apple can't purchase one copy of it, and distribute it freely with every version of Mac OS X in Xcode like they would need to. Don't you think that may be why they are hiring developers to better GCC for them?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
That is obviously exactly what he is saying. Even an educational seat for the compiler is big $$$, and more than Apples charges for their OS. Apple can't purchase one copy of it, and distribute it freely with every version of Mac OS X in Xcode like they would need to. Don't you think that may be why they are hiring developers to better GCC for them?

That is one strong reason. Another is that Apple's code could be heavily reliant on extensions, quirks or implementation details within GCC. If it was it would be difficult, time consuming and expensive to port the codebase to another compiler.

Maintaining GCC gives them access to a compiler that can never be taken away from them, and that can be made as great as they need it to be.
post #18 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
You don't seem to understand how compilers are licensed. A compiler is a translator....

To the contrary, I understand perfectly.

Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
The only thing that could cause the price of Mac OS to go up by $100+ is if Apple were to actually ship the XLC compiler with every copy of Mac OS. It is quite possible to compile the OS and core libraries with XLC, but still ship GCC as the default compiler for XCode, as is currently done. For example, Windows is compiled with Microsoft's compiler, but you can run programs on it that were compiled with Borland or GCC.

Currently, Apple makes gcc available with every copy of MacOS X at no extra cost. Apple gives its users the same compiler that it uses for its own development. This practice allows every Mac user to be a developer if he or she has the skills and desire to do so. It baffles me that you consider bifurcating Apple's development tools as a viable option. This would be a bad idea if it were possible, which it is not. As I said before, to switch from gcc to XLC would add a minimum of $100 to the price of the present configuration of MacOS X.

Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
In conclusion, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

It is inappropriate to get personal.

Quote:
Originally posted by unixguru
P.S. What is Xtools? Do you mean the XCode IDE?

My bad. I meant XCode.
post #19 of 69
I disagree completely with you guys. I would have no objection whatsoever if Apple compiled Mac OS X itself with XLC, but then distributed gcc with XCode. I would also like the option of buying XCode Pro for $400 or whatever it is. I think the percentage of Mac users who write code with XCode is fairly low - well below 1% - but it is very nice that Apple includes XCode.

Consider a different example. Sun sells Solaris 9 without a compiler. You don't get any compiler at all. You can download gcc for it and write applications. Sun doesn't use gcc to write Solaris, they use their own compiler. That compiler costs $500 IIRC. You can use gcc, or you can buy their compiler. The choice is yours.

If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away. Instant speed boost with no negatives at all. No additional costs to end users. All positives, no negatives. XCode can use gcc, be free and still work fine. What, in this picture, is not to like?
post #20 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
I If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away.

You seem pretty sure of the numbers. What chance - and I speak as a strict non-programmer - is there for decompilation back to high level and then recompilation with XLC? If zero, I assume getting a copy of Tiger in C++ or whatever it's written in is also zero?
post #21 of 69
I thought Apple used AIX for their compiler? As do the few big companies able to afford it; Adobe, and Microsoft.

Of course last time I remember reading about was a couple of years ago so I suppose they could have switched

They should always compile with the fastest possible compiler because it does make a huge speed difference and Window compilers are better. i.e. assuming a 1 GHz G4 is equal to to a 1 GHz P3 in all respects the G4 would wind up around 70%-80% of the speed in actually running stuff due to inferior compilers.
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist

If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away. Instant speed boost with no negatives at all. No additional costs to end users. All positives, no negatives. XCode can use gcc, be free and still work fine. What, in this picture, is not to like?

FWIW, I'm with cubist on this one. Apple should use the compiler that generates the fastest code possible for OS X. They can distribute GCC and XCode that generates decent speed code and is library compatible with the OS; that's not that hard. Metrowerks still sells CodeWarrior for the Mac and that uses their own compiler and interfaces with the OS libraries.

Again, I like that the OS keeps getting faster, but I'm disappointed that Apple isn't using the fastest tool available in the first place.

- Jasen.
post #23 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by cubist
I disagree completely with you guys. I would have no objection whatsoever if Apple compiled Mac OS X itself with XLC, but then distributed gcc with XCode. I would also like the option of buying XCode Pro for $400 or whatever it is. I think the percentage of Mac users who write code with XCode is fairly low - well below 1% - but it is very nice that Apple includes XCode.

Consider a different example. Sun sells Solaris 9 without a compiler. You don't get any compiler at all. You can download gcc for it and write applications. Sun doesn't use gcc to write Solaris, they use their own compiler. That compiler costs $500 IIRC. You can use gcc, or you can buy their compiler. The choice is yours.

If Apple compiled Tiger with XLC, it would be 10-20% faster at everything right away. Instant speed boost with no negatives at all. No additional costs to end users. All positives, no negatives. XCode can use gcc, be free and still work fine. What, in this picture, is not to like?

Actually cubist that's not that bad of an idea, but I think Apple likes the fact that they can distribute GCC for free, and it is the same compiler they develop, and compile OS X with. I think that point was made better earlier before you posted but I wanted to re-introduce it again. The fact that Apple is hiring developers to work on GCC is an obvious step in the right direction over the direction of the new (optional) compiler with an extra cost to the user.

IMO Apple is thinking wisely. 2ยข
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #24 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Electric Monk
I thought Apple used AIX for their compiler? As do the few big companies able to afford it; Adobe, and Microsoft.

....

AIX is not a compiler. AIX is IBM's version of Unix. You may be thinking about the development system that Apple used to port System 7.1 to the POWER architecture back in the early 1990's. Prior to the Power Mac, Apple used IBM RS/6000 workstations running AIX to port System 7.1 to the PowerPC. Later, our favorite fruit company sold AIX-based servers. However, Apple has not sold AIX since the release of MacOS X Server.
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
To the contrary, I understand perfectly.

Currently, Apple makes gcc available with every copy of MacOS X at no extra cost. Apple gives its users the same compiler that it uses for its own development.


What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?

GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.

You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.

Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.

'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #26 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?

GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.

You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.

Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.


No extra cost means that Apple does not charge its users over the base OS. XCode includes GCC, but it is much, much more. It is arguably the best development system available anywhere. Even though GCC is free, the rest of XCode does not have to be. Despite the considerable effort that Apple put into XCode, it charges nothing for it over the base OS. Can Microsoft make the same claim? If Apple substituted XLC for GCC, then its development system could not be free. What's so shaky about that?

Friends?
post #27 of 69
You were referring to GCC when you said 'at no extra cost', so I only referred to that point. The whole idea of Xcode being offered for free was something that I considered, but I saw it seperately from GCC because I thought you were alluding that Apple could charge for GCC if it so wished. Which they can't.

But, now that you mention Xcode and all the rest, the ground becomes firmer, and it's not shaky anymore.

Friends? Sure
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?

GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.

You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.

Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.


Free is not as in cost, FSF makes that VERY clear. It is Free as in I am free to modify it as I see fit.

FSF has no problem if you charge for distributing software using any one of the FSF licenses as long as you make the source code easily available for free. There are no specific restrictions on what and how much you can charge for. The whole no-cost available complete source download thing enforces the low/no-cost aspect without even having to use any restrictions.

So it would be completely legal for Apple to charge for their version of GCC. But then they would be legally bound to make ALL their source changes public at the time of sale, something they don't want to HAVE to do. Apple often sits on it's source mods before committing, to sync with hardware and software release schedules, to avoid tipping anything by compiler feature upgrades.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by PB
Actually I am a bit surprised that they did not already in Tiger, but then who knows what IBM would charge them for that?

IBM charges a lot for the use of their compiler's if I remember correcly. Apple basically gives theirs away in the developers kit, so licensing IBM's compiler would probably bleed Apple dry within a few years.
post #30 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by @homenow
IBM charges a lot for the use of their compiler's if I remember correcly. Apple basically gives theirs away in the developers kit, so licensing IBM's compiler would probably bleed Apple dry within a few years.

Remember that Apple also gave away MPW, its venerable development system for MacOS 9 and earlier operating systems.
post #31 of 69
I'm reading that people think Apple should compile OS X with XLC and then release tools for GCC.

This is a waste of resources and time.

All the Frameworks would have to be tested and refined with XLC since XLC would have to provide a custom linker and modifications to XLC to support the Objective-C runtime costing Apple more time between releases and personnel power devoted just to reinvent the wheel all for the idea of a small percentage of performance?

I guess people don't realize the amount of resources it takes to do such a task?

GCC 4 and subsequent revisions has had a ton of resources going into revamping it and everyone will soon reap the benefits.

NeXT has 16 years + of time invested in its frameworks using GCC. The compiler expertise at Apple is top-knotch.

People also don't seem to realize that this is the 8 or 9th chip architecture that the OS X technologies have been compiled, tested and deployed on. (this includes all NeXT CPU architectures plus a few that never were released from SUN during the Openstep initiative)

To dump GCC at this point is to put a bullet into the skulls of Apple Engineering collectively.

Just enjoy the improvements to GCC now that Apple has fixed the C/ObjC issues.

App developers want to develop on the tools the OS provider develops on which reassures them they will get the same type of performance experience in their apps that the OS provider gets out of its applications.
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
What do you mean 'at no extra cost'?

GCC is Free Software - charging for it goes against the idea of Free Software and the GNU groups philosophy with relation to software.

You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.

Anyway, I don't want to undermine your whole point with people becoming developers, because it's a legit point, but this part is kind of shaky, so I thought I'd explain it better.


By the contents of your post I can tell you've never purchased OS X. You may have it. But you didn't get it in the box, It's obvious.

Those who have purchased a copy of OS X can see it right away.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #33 of 69
Personally I think the developer tools alone are worth the price of the upgrade. Every major OS X release has sported major improvements in XCode, GCC and Interface Builder. Tiger has some waaaay cool new APIs to decrease pain in developing OS X apps. I can't wait to get my copy this Friday.
post #34 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
By the contents of your post I can tell you've never purchased OS X. You may have it. But you didn't get it in the box, It's obvious.

Those who have purchased a copy of OS X can see it right away.




...anywaaaaay. I don't need to purchase OS X to know what GCC is. I'm sure you think that GCC is something Apple created. Keep dreaming.

However, contrary to popular belief, you can't just take GCC and charge for it. If that were the case, a lot of people would indeed charge for it. You may deploy it in specific commercial distros, or OSs, and charge for those OSs, like Apple or Novell do, but you can't just sell it in a box, just the developer tools.

Apple can sell Xcode, with all the bells and whistles, and include GCC on it, but I don't think that's the way Mr. Me said. He mentioned GCC, not the whole Xcode lot, and that's why I said you can't do it.

I own two Mac computers, and I do have an OS X box. I don't know how 'them' can see it, that I 'don't have it', but your premise is seriously flawed. Who gives a donkeys ass anyway? PowerMacs are coming and that's all that matters, right?

Ciao
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
However, contrary to popular belief, you can't just take GCC and charge for it. If that were the case, a lot of people would indeed charge for it. You may deploy it in specific commercial distros, or OSs, and charge for those OSs, like Apple or Novell do, but you can't just sell it in a box, just the developer tools.

Apple can sell Xcode, with all the bells and whistles, and include GCC on it, but I don't think that's the way Mr. Me said. He mentioned GCC, not the whole Xcode lot, and that's why I said you can't do it.

Ummm, you can too sell it : "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." Straight from The GNU Licence, Terms and conditions, para 1, second sub-para.

Gcc - [The GNU General Public License, Version 2 or later] - 2005-01-19
GNU Compiler Collection. Yes, this shows the above license is what covers Gcc.

All these idealists running around without ever reading the damnable license!
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."


How about you read what I said?

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean

You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #37 of 69
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me

It is inappropriate to get personal.
XCode.

It was a JOKE! Ever seen the movie Billy Madison?
http://www.great-quotes.com/movie_quotes.htm

Mr. Madison, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Author: Billy Madison
post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
How about you read what I said?

How bout I just bold what you said?

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean

You can only charge for Free Software if you actually use extra CDs to give it to people, and if you mail them to ever user individually. Seeing as GCC is a small part of the entire OS, and as it occupies a negligible amount of space in a Mac OS X DVD, it is very hard to justify charging for it given the terms set forth by the GNU group under which one can charge for Free Software.

There you said it again, "you can't charge" and that is completely wrong. You almost had it right in the beginning of that paragraph, but amount of content actually has nothing to do with whether or not you can charge.

The Free Software Definition: Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer. Their words, not mine.

It's really simple if you will just accept the definition and license as published by the Free Software Foundation. I think the horse is getting pretty dead by now. If these last few posts don't seal the deal, no amount of anyone's posts will.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally posted by Hiro
[B]How bout I just bold what you said?



There you said it again, "you can't charge" and that is completely wrong.

I don't see where I said 'you can't charge'. I said it's very hard to justify charging for it when it takes minimal space in an OS X DVD, and when it's not distributed as a separate CD, which could warrant charging for it to cover the costs of the physical transfer Apple -> User.

'Very hard to justify' is not the same as 'you can't charge.'

Quote:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

Is there a physical act of transferring a copy of GCC (separate from the OS), and/or is there a warranty protection offered exclusively for GCC by Apple?

If not, then I don't see what we're arguing here.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #40 of 69
I'd argue that you're nitpicking and it's quite clear what the GPL licence intentions are.

Quote:
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

I don't think that there's a legal distinction between mailing a CD containing software and making it available for download from a server - both incur costs for the person/company making it available.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › apple to improve compiler code