Pages and Keynote=clearly some technology taken from OpenOffice.
Mac OS X Server has Apache, Postfix, Tomcat and MySQL built right in, as well as Samba!
While we're picking nits, Camino and Firefox are both Gecko-based browsers. I have been using Camino for years. Camino predates Safari, but Safari is not based on Gecko. Safari is based on KHTML, the opensource rendering engine in Konqueror.
what's your problem.. it's opensource for something
your mentallity here shows that you approve microsoft's way of being closed and nobody else being allowed to use it...
And a little note, terminal isn't taken from Linux but from the longer existing Unix.
Pages & Keynote is by no means taken from OpenOffice(the original should work better you know
And mac os x server has apache because apache supports unix
and since mac os x is pure unix it's kinda logical that it runs... same for the others...
stop whining and have fun on your linux box..
I do not approve of anything that M$ does.
Terminal was taken from UNIX, big deal. OS X terminal is the same as the one in FreeBSD, that was the one taken from UNIX.
I am not whining, This is a great marketing opurtunity here. A million new customers for iTunes! More people using Quicktime! Buying Quicktime pro! It's the chance for APple to adverise Mac and iPod to Linux users for free like they do with Windows users for free.
Mac OS X is based on an unofficial offshoot of a project that is UNIX. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD, which is based on *BSD style Unix developed at Berkeley Software Design]. There are so many UNIX versions out there and its such a mess that no one knows anymore what is "pure UNIX" and what isn't.
FreeBSD is not recognized as an official UNIX OS by the OpenGroup, which hold the patent to the brand name of UNIX. It is recognized as a UNIX-like OS, much like Linux.
Therefore, Mac OS X is UNIX-like, but not UNIX. It may well have all the attributes of being UNIX, but it cannot be claimed that its 'pure UNIX' without The OpenGroup agreeing to that. It is, however, *Nix.
Yeah well, when you Open Source something you Open Source the entire thing not keep the best parts of it closed. But that's OK, because under FreeBSD's licence, they don't even need to open Darwin.
So do you not want commercial vendors to use or adopt open source software?
Apple has contributed piles of work back to the OSS community, in *BSD, in GCC, in KHTML, and elsewhere. As you point out, they've done this to the point of releasing source code even when they aren't obliged to. Your complaint seems to be that they don't make everything free to everyone?
Quote:
Very catchy. Talk to Sorenson. Nice.
But true, and obvious if you think about it. I've heard the same thing Kickaha has. The QuickTime team is more than happy to port QT to anything that can't run away fast enough, and to make it interoperable with those things that can (cell phones, for example, many of which are running Linux now—and Motorola recently announced that they're releasing Linux-run phones). Its container file format is an industry standard. The codecs it's adopting (AVC, H.264, AAC) are industry standards. The exception is Sorensen.
This problem will eventually solve itself, as Sorensen-encoded video retreats into legacy and MPEG-4 takes over. But we're obviously not there yet.
Quote:
I'm not sure about this, so, here's an honest question; Apple can't port its software (QuickTime) because of Sorenson?
Honest question; am not too familiar with their legal arrangements.
They can port everything but that codec, and they can call the result "QuickTime," but there's still a huge legacy of Sorensen-encoded content (including a lot of stuff from Apple) that states that it requires QuickTime that this "QuickTime" wouldn't be able to play. Sorensen was the industry standard for years and years, until very recently. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still in widespread use.
From the point of view of Linux users, it would actually be better to have a third-party MPEG-4 player in the near term. Then, at least, there would be no confusion about what it could play.
[B]So do you not want commercial vendors to use or adopt open source software?
Yes, but the way I see it, they [random company] should give something back. With a GPL style licence, they're obliged to give the entire source code back to the community, not just bits and pieces of it. That's what I, personally, think is a good licence. However, a perfectly legit licence is the BSD style licence which does not require you to give anything back for that particular component.
Quote:
Apple has contributed piles of work back to the OSS community, in *BSD, in GCC, in KHTML, and elsewhere. As you point out, they've done this to the point of releasing source code even when they aren't obliged to. Your complaint seems to be that they don't make everything free to everyone?
KHTML and GCC are under GPL as far as I know, so if one company takem them, modifies them, that company is required to give back the modifications to the community. The GPL is very clear about how you can use software under GPL and what your obligations are once you use it. It is not as broad as BSD type licences. With BSD however, it's different and they chose to do it themselves which I like.
Quote:
But true, and obvious if you think about it. I've heard the same thing Kickaha has. The QuickTime team is more than happy to port QT to anything that can't run away fast enough, and to make it interoperable with those things that can (cell phones, for example, many of which are running Linux now—and Motorola recently announced that they're releasing Linux-run phones). Its container file format is an industry standard. The codecs it's adopting (AVC, H.264, AAC) are industry standards. The exception is Sorensen.
Still, if the native QT port (or even iTunes) existed, it would lay down the basis that would eventually make it a viable video player in the Linux world. There are great players in Linux, many of them I find to be superior to any commercial video player in both Windows and Mac. VLC for example, or MPlayer. So, there's no definite need for QT in terms of its playback of various codecs, but there is a need of playback of some QT movies. I didn't know the bit about Sorenson, so I assumed that its Apple not taking the step. Sorry.
Quote:
This problem will eventually solve itself, as Sorensen-encoded video retreats into legacy and MPEG-4 takes over. But we're obviously not there yet.
Hopefully we'll be there soon.
Quote:
They can port everything but that codec, and they can call the result "QuickTime," but there's still a huge legacy of Sorensen-encoded content (including a lot of stuff from Apple) that states that it requires QuickTime that this "QuickTime" wouldn't be able to play. Sorensen was the industry standard for years and years, until very recently. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still in widespread use.
From the point of view of Linux users, it would actually be better to have a third-party MPEG-4 player in the near term. Then, at least, there would be no confusion about what it could play.
I'm sure that there will be a good MPEG-4 player in Linux in the future, and I hope that day will come sooner than we think. Thank you, and everyone else for your answers regarding the question I posed earlier.
Comments
Originally posted by isomething
Safari=Camino(Firefox based Mozilla project)
Terminal in OSX=Terminal in Linux
Pages and Keynote=clearly some technology taken from OpenOffice.
Mac OS X Server has Apache, Postfix, Tomcat and MySQL built right in, as well as Samba!
what's your problem.. it's opensource for something
your mentallity here shows that you approve microsoft's way of being closed and nobody else being allowed to use it...
And a little note, terminal isn't taken from Linux but from the longer existing Unix.
Pages & Keynote is by no means taken from OpenOffice(the original should work better you know
And mac os x server has apache because apache supports unix
and since mac os x is pure unix it's kinda logical that it runs... same for the others...
stop whining and have fun on your linux box..
Originally posted by isomething
Safari=Camino(Firefox based Mozilla project)
Terminal in OSX=Terminal in Linux
Pages and Keynote=clearly some technology taken from OpenOffice.
Mac OS X Server has Apache, Postfix, Tomcat and MySQL built right in, as well as Samba!
While we're picking nits, Camino and Firefox are both Gecko-based browsers. I have been using Camino for years. Camino predates Safari, but Safari is not based on Gecko. Safari is based on KHTML, the opensource rendering engine in Konqueror.
Originally posted by hdcool
what's your problem.. it's opensource for something
your mentallity here shows that you approve microsoft's way of being closed and nobody else being allowed to use it...
And a little note, terminal isn't taken from Linux but from the longer existing Unix.
Pages & Keynote is by no means taken from OpenOffice(the original should work better you know
And mac os x server has apache because apache supports unix
and since mac os x is pure unix it's kinda logical that it runs... same for the others...
stop whining and have fun on your linux box..
I do not approve of anything that M$ does.
Terminal was taken from UNIX, big deal. OS X terminal is the same as the one in FreeBSD, that was the one taken from UNIX.
I am not whining, This is a great marketing opurtunity here. A million new customers for iTunes! More people using Quicktime! Buying Quicktime pro! It's the chance for APple to adverise Mac and iPod to Linux users for free like they do with Windows users for free.
I think I'm actually stupider for having read (some of) this thread.
Originally posted by hdcool
mac os x is pure unix
not true at all.
Mac OS X is based on an unofficial offshoot of a project that is UNIX. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD, which is based on *BSD style Unix developed at Berkeley Software Design]. There are so many UNIX versions out there and its such a mess that no one knows anymore what is "pure UNIX" and what isn't.
FreeBSD is not recognized as an official UNIX OS by the OpenGroup, which hold the patent to the brand name of UNIX. It is recognized as a UNIX-like OS, much like Linux.
Therefore, Mac OS X is UNIX-like, but not UNIX. It may well have all the attributes of being UNIX, but it cannot be claimed that its 'pure UNIX' without The OpenGroup agreeing to that. It is, however, *Nix.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah well, when you Open Source something you Open Source the entire thing not keep the best parts of it closed. But that's OK, because under FreeBSD's licence, they don't even need to open Darwin.
So do you not want commercial vendors to use or adopt open source software?
Apple has contributed piles of work back to the OSS community, in *BSD, in GCC, in KHTML, and elsewhere. As you point out, they've done this to the point of releasing source code even when they aren't obliged to. Your complaint seems to be that they don't make everything free to everyone?
Very catchy. Talk to Sorenson. Nice.
But true, and obvious if you think about it. I've heard the same thing Kickaha has. The QuickTime team is more than happy to port QT to anything that can't run away fast enough, and to make it interoperable with those things that can (cell phones, for example, many of which are running Linux now—and Motorola recently announced that they're releasing Linux-run phones). Its container file format is an industry standard. The codecs it's adopting (AVC, H.264, AAC) are industry standards. The exception is Sorensen.
This problem will eventually solve itself, as Sorensen-encoded video retreats into legacy and MPEG-4 takes over. But we're obviously not there yet.
I'm not sure about this, so, here's an honest question; Apple can't port its software (QuickTime) because of Sorenson?
Honest question; am not too familiar with their legal arrangements.
They can port everything but that codec, and they can call the result "QuickTime," but there's still a huge legacy of Sorensen-encoded content (including a lot of stuff from Apple) that states that it requires QuickTime that this "QuickTime" wouldn't be able to play. Sorensen was the industry standard for years and years, until very recently. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still in widespread use.
From the point of view of Linux users, it would actually be better to have a third-party MPEG-4 player in the near term. Then, at least, there would be no confusion about what it could play.
Originally posted by Amorph
[B]So do you not want commercial vendors to use or adopt open source software?
Yes, but the way I see it, they [random company] should give something back. With a GPL style licence, they're obliged to give the entire source code back to the community, not just bits and pieces of it. That's what I, personally, think is a good licence. However, a perfectly legit licence is the BSD style licence which does not require you to give anything back for that particular component.
Apple has contributed piles of work back to the OSS community, in *BSD, in GCC, in KHTML, and elsewhere. As you point out, they've done this to the point of releasing source code even when they aren't obliged to. Your complaint seems to be that they don't make everything free to everyone?
KHTML and GCC are under GPL as far as I know, so if one company takem them, modifies them, that company is required to give back the modifications to the community. The GPL is very clear about how you can use software under GPL and what your obligations are once you use it. It is not as broad as BSD type licences. With BSD however, it's different and they chose to do it themselves which I like.
But true, and obvious if you think about it. I've heard the same thing Kickaha has. The QuickTime team is more than happy to port QT to anything that can't run away fast enough, and to make it interoperable with those things that can (cell phones, for example, many of which are running Linux now—and Motorola recently announced that they're releasing Linux-run phones). Its container file format is an industry standard. The codecs it's adopting (AVC, H.264, AAC) are industry standards. The exception is Sorensen.
Still, if the native QT port (or even iTunes) existed, it would lay down the basis that would eventually make it a viable video player in the Linux world. There are great players in Linux, many of them I find to be superior to any commercial video player in both Windows and Mac. VLC for example, or MPlayer. So, there's no definite need for QT in terms of its playback of various codecs, but there is a need of playback of some QT movies. I didn't know the bit about Sorenson, so I assumed that its Apple not taking the step. Sorry.
This problem will eventually solve itself, as Sorensen-encoded video retreats into legacy and MPEG-4 takes over. But we're obviously not there yet.
Hopefully we'll be there soon.
They can port everything but that codec, and they can call the result "QuickTime," but there's still a huge legacy of Sorensen-encoded content (including a lot of stuff from Apple) that states that it requires QuickTime that this "QuickTime" wouldn't be able to play. Sorensen was the industry standard for years and years, until very recently. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still in widespread use.
From the point of view of Linux users, it would actually be better to have a third-party MPEG-4 player in the near term. Then, at least, there would be no confusion about what it could play.
I'm sure that there will be a good MPEG-4 player in Linux in the future, and I hope that day will come sooner than we think. Thank you, and everyone else for your answers regarding the question I posed earlier.