I am just saying that without Linux and without BSD.. OSX would have far far less support than what to does. Good example is Cups that is used for OSX printing.
You say it as though Apple had no input whatsoever into what makes a unix operating system and that they merely picked it up from somewhere else. Remember that BSD originated from the University of California, which is right next door to Apple in Cupertino. Also, most of OS X comes from NeXT, a company Steve Jobs founded so it's not as if they just bought it off a shelf in Linus Torvald's shop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlicerDicer
I would have to say that OSX offers me less than Linux really. I can get far more done on linux and its not bloated. I can trim out what I dont need and leave in what I do need. I can recompile everything I want even though I use a binary distro grab the packages source and recompile as I see fit.
You've pinpointed it right there. Linux offers you more but the vast majority of computer users don't need to recompile every piece of open source software, most of which are useless. I can't stand compiling every piece of software to get it to work. Given the choice between a binary and source code, I go for the binary every time. Bloat, I could agree with to an extent. I don't like how OS X has lost a lot of the snappy interface found in older systems and no way to get it back but it looks nicer and still gets the job done. It offers me a complete unix base, which is more than Windows and a standardized, easy to use interface with good commercial support, which is more than Linux provides.
I do a lot of stuff with video and media and Linux falls very short in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlicerDicer
Seriously man OSX is nice but drumming it up to be what everybody here claims is insane. And if anything you should be Praising Linux as its the only thing that has a chance to displace Microsoft. Steve Jobs wont allow OSX on beige boxes it will never take hold. Do the research at how many more installations of Linux there are over OSX and you will see a different picture entirely.
Sure, Linux has that advantage but it's also what's holding it back. The biggest problem with open source projects is fragmentation. There is such a thing as too much choice. It may be nice for the user to get to decide what kernel to run and how to optimize it and what window manager to use but can you imagine what a standardization nightmare that is for a developer? How can any commercial company seriously afford to support all those options if they are coupled with such a huge number of hardware options?
This effect can be seen clearly in the move towards gaming consoles over PCs. It is so much easier to develop games for a standard console than a generic PC. I personally value choice and I certainly wish Apple had more but I don't see a reason for unlimited choice because then it becomes chaotic and the end user experience suffers. I haven't spoken to anyone who is truly happy with Linux, always complaining that they can't get sound drivers or graphics card drivers to work and they always have to drop down to the command line and edit config files or something.
If they offered one standard version of Linux that worked like the Mac does and supported a wide variety of hardware then I could see Linux taking off (Ububtu seems to be going the right way) but I don't see that happening because there will always be Linux people who want to run some non-standard software just because they can.
I remember someone at uni taking over a week trying to get Blackbox running on Linux and was so pleased when it ran and I asked him what he achieved and he was like well it uses hardly any resources. I looked at the screen and it had nothing on it but a square. This may be fine for running one program with all your system's resources but I never ever do that these days. Today, I used a 3D program, a browser, a code editor, itunes, a compositing program, Photoshop, Final Cut, DVD Studio Pro, a wireless printing network and the command line and I had various network volumes mounted exchanging files, while hosting a webpage on the Apache webserver and I do this regularly. I expect them all to work and with Mac OS X, they all do and not only do they work, the interface makes the system enjoyable to use because it follow guidelines.
As for Linux installations, are we talking about servers and renderfarms? Because I'd imagine they'd take up a hell of a lot of those statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlicerDicer
And as for darwin being open source I consider that to be just a stunt to say OMG we are open source. Yeah...
Darwin is a separate operating system from OS X and is open source:
That's true. You shot accurately and missed the barn though, my reply to Marvin was exactly what you said.
No it's not. What he said was what I said that Darwin is a separate and completely open source OS. You said that Darwin isn't exactly separate, which is wrong. Darwin and OS X are two different systems developed independently. OS X being built on Darwin doesn't change this.
No it's not. What he said was what I said that Darwin is a separate and completely open source OS. You said that Darwin isn't exactly separate, which is wrong. Darwin and OS X are two different systems developed independently. OS X being built on Darwin doesn't change this.
My god man are you so effing caught up in your own ego that you have to resort to out of context word parsing?
You said:
Quote:
Darwin is a separate operating system from OS X and is open source:
I said:
Quote:
Well Darwin isn't exactly separate, what we see as OS X sits on top of Darwin.
Everything Darwin is is inside OS X and gets wholly wrapped into OS X at various synch points. 10.4.8 sits on top of Darwin 8.8. You provided the link yourself, didn't you actually read the page??? Darwin is decidedly not a "separate" operating system, it is the core of OS X. Darwin would never have existed if Apple did not open source the core portions of OS X as the Darwin project.
While the core can also run on it's own without the OS X GUI elements and frameworks, that does not make it "separate". Since you desire to remain pedantic I can spell it out this way: The Darwin code base is properly defined as a subset of the OS X code base. As in -- wholly contained within. Every contributor, every commit, every line of main trunk Darwin code eventually makes it into OS X and is approved by the Apple project leads under the Apple Public Source License. Merely running independently from the rest of the code base does not change that subset relationship in the least.
Maybe you are confused with OpenDarwin. That was a separate project but has died. http://www.opendarwin.org/. It always pays to keep abreast of your facts.
My god man are you so effing caught up in your own ego that you have to resort to out of context word parsing?
You started the word parsing actually so I guess this statement applies more to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
While the core can also run on it's own without the OS X GUI elements and frameworks, that does not make it "separate".
Well, this all started when someone said that Apple saying OS X is based on open source components was wrong. The fact that the Darwin core can be taken and used in other system development proves that it can be used separate from OS X, whether or not it is developed separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Merely running independently from the rest of the code base does not change that subset relationship in the least.
Fair enough but it's still an open source component that can be used independently of OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Maybe you are confused with OpenDarwin.
Some of what I said related to OpenDarwin. I forgot the project had stopped.
"Historically open source software is a poor way to innovate new capabilities or technologies."
- Ever wonder what OS X is based on - You got it Open Source code - specifically BSD.
Gotta say that Apple certainly innovated there - Yes, we all know that Microsoft loves BSD because it can just lift bits out to use in Windows but Apple seems to strive to prove its even better than microsoft, so what did they do - Half-inch the entire thing, slap a funky GUI on top and call it a new innovation.
Interestingly though, in the interest of making things more user friendly, they actually neglected all that Unix heritage and made the thing more insecure - nevermind, there are only two important OS anyway - Mac just doesn't matter any more - why do you think Bill lets you use MS Office.
What is the point of a Mac? - Good question - They used to be the best platform for graphics - but now all the movie studios use Linux so really Macs key identifier is that it isn't Windows - but to be honest Apple are far worse than Microsoft - its just poor old steve jobs doesn't have the monopoly he dreams about - and apple software for windows is so rubbish - itunes, safari - good if you enjoy watching your computer slow down to a crawl and crash every where!
Desktop effects aren't for everyone - I use beryl - but sparingly - the videos you usually see are just to show how much more you can do with Linux than anything else, although you can set it to something more sensible - multiple desktops are awesome - one you start using them you can never go back. Wobbly windows while not doing anything to enhance your productivity do feel nice to use, and its actually quite difficult to use windows afterwards because the windows don't offer the same tactile response.
3d desktops - Ok, i'm willing to concede apple did it first, but beryl offers far greater functionality.
"Historically open source software is a poor way to innovate new capabilities or technologies."
- Ever wonder what OS X is based on - You got it Open Source code - specifically BSD.
The BSDs have not "innovated" in 20 years. They have evolved following other operating system capabilities and functionality described in academic papers, but haven't introduced anything independently new where you would go "That's a cool feature nobody ever talked about before!" They are great, stable, operating systems that are examples of the strengths of open source software. But not a font of independent innovation.
Not to mention that they, and Linux, are based off of a commercial OS...
Open source does innovate, sometimes. Usually, however, it's playing the role of mimic, producing a free copy of what people want, but don't want to pay for.
Not to mention that they, and Linux, are based off of a commercial OS...
Open source does innovate, sometimes. Usually, however, it's playing the role of mimic, producing a free copy of what people want, but don't want to pay for.
The BSDs have not "innovated" in 20 years. They have evolved following other operating system capabilities and functionality described in academic papers, but haven't introduced anything independently new where you would go "That's a cool feature nobody ever talked about before!" They are great, stable, operating systems that are examples of the strengths of open source software. But not a font of independent innovation.
Ever heard of the FreeBSD ports system? Where do you think MacPorts came from?
Not to mention that they, and Linux, are based off of a commercial OS...
Open source does innovate, sometimes. Usually, however, it's playing the role of mimic, producing a free copy of what people want, but don't want to pay for.
OK, I'll bite.
1) Linux (actually, GNU/Linux) is not "based off a commercial OS". All the GNU libraries/shells/etc are clean room implementations, improvements and optimizations of Unix equivalent functions. Linux as a kernel is a clean room implementation of a kernel for the GNU operating system. GNU/Linux emulates the behaviour of Unix, but it derives 0 code from it.
2) The BSDs may be based on commercial Unixes, but half of the branches of commercial Unix's are based off the BSD branch, including SunOS (Sun's Unix before Solaris).
1) Linux (actually, GNU/Linux) is not "based off a commercial OS". All the GNU libraries/shells/etc are clean room implementations, improvements and optimizations of Unix equivalent functions. Linux as a kernel is a clean room implementation of a kernel for the GNU operating system. GNU/Linux emulates the behaviour of Unix, but it derives 0 code from it.
Bingo. It is a mimicry of Unix. It's specifically what I already stated it was. It was a free version of an OS that people wanted, but didn't want to pay for.
Quote:
2) The BSDs may be based on commercial Unixes, but half of the branches of commercial Unix's are based off the BSD branch, including SunOS (Sun's Unix before Solaris).
Again... mimicry, but now with code sharing.
Quote:
3) Open source software has been the source of several notable innovations, to name a few:
* Apache httpd webserver, which is the #1 web server far ahead of Microsoft's IIS
* apt-get and other online installation/dependency resolution/download system
* FreeBSD ports source code compile installation system
* Apache Ant compile tool
* Firefox browser, with its cutting-edge features that InternetExplorer outright copied (and that Safari made interesting optimizations to)
* Thunderbird email client, again with features that Outlook copied
* CalDav networked shared calendaring protocol
* Perl, Python and Ruby scripting languages, to name but a few (for which Apple has built Cocoa bridges)
* Ruby on Rails web application development framework
* Eclipse and Netbeans Java IDE's
* junit Java unit testing framework
* Jabber instant messaging client and protocol (which is used by GoogleTalk and, I believe, AIM)
* OGG and FLOSS music file formats
* (last but not least) KHTML and Konqueror, the code upon which Safari is based
I could go on....
You don't have to. I did say that they have had some innovations. There are a few items in there though that I'm not sure whether they came before, with the assistance of, or after, closed source and commercial enterprises, but that doesn't really matter.
It's not an all or nothing situation, JC. OSS has had some innovative projects, and even a couple of industry shifting ones, but the biggest innovation has been on process. As far as technologies go, however, much OSS software is an attempt to mimic commercial software packages and innovations. Commercial and OSS feed off of one another, generally to their mutual benefit. It is not, as many OSS folks would like us to believe, a case of greedy companies simply slurping up OSS code and never giving anything back. OSS copies commercial code and technology on a regular basis, and owes much (in fact, rather its entire existence, given the *BSD and Linux ubiquitousness in OSS) to commercial code and ideas.
Copying doesn't require code sharing.
The thing *I* don't understand though, is why so much OSS code is intent on copying MS crap, down to the busted UI behaviors. That, I simply don't get. If you want to innovate, that's a prime place to do it.
Bingo. It is a mimicry of Unix. It's specifically what I already stated it was. It was a free version of an OS that people wanted, but didn't want to pay for.
Is there something wrong with giving away something that's yours for free?
Quote:
Again... mimicry, but now with code sharing.
This is what you said:
Quote:
Not to mention that they, and Linux, are based off of a commercial OS...
"Based off" is not the same as "mimicking". Name me one commerical OS developed in the last 30 years that did not "mimic" another commercial or open source OS. NeXT is the only one I could come up with.
Quote:
You don't have to. I did say that they have had some innovations. There are a few items in there though that I'm not sure whether they came before, with the assistance of, or after, closed source and commercial enterprises, but that doesn't really matter.
Non sequitur. You didn't distinguish "community developed" from "commercially assisted open source software. That is out of the scope of this debate.
Quote:
It's not an all or nothing situation, JC. OSS has had some innovative projects, and even a couple of industry shifting ones, but the biggest innovation has been on process. As far as technologies go, however, much OSS software is an attempt to mimic commercial software packages and innovations.
I chose my examples very carefully. All of them involved substantial innovations with very little copying. Please explain how your argument applies to even one of my examples. Be specific.
Quote:
Commercial and OSS feed off of one another, generally to their mutual benefit. It is not, as many OSS folks would like us to believe, a case of greedy companies simply slurping up OSS code and never giving anything back. OSS copies commercial code and technology on a regular basis,
Please provide an example of an open source project that violated the copyright of a commercial product. SCO fought that battle and lost.
As for "technology" you can only be referring to software patents. The software patent system is so broken, I don't even want to start talking about it. Please explain how "one-click shopping" is a "technology".
Quote:
and owes much (in fact, rather its entire existence, given the *BSD and Linux ubiquitousness in OSS) to commercial code and ideas.
And much commercial software owe its ides to OSS. Remember that, at one time, all commercial software came with open source code.
Quote:
Copying doesn't require code sharing.
That's true. Look at what Microsoft took from Apple.
Comments
I am just saying that without Linux and without BSD.. OSX would have far far less support than what to does. Good example is Cups that is used for OSX printing.
You say it as though Apple had no input whatsoever into what makes a unix operating system and that they merely picked it up from somewhere else. Remember that BSD originated from the University of California, which is right next door to Apple in Cupertino. Also, most of OS X comes from NeXT, a company Steve Jobs founded so it's not as if they just bought it off a shelf in Linus Torvald's shop.
I would have to say that OSX offers me less than Linux really. I can get far more done on linux and its not bloated. I can trim out what I dont need and leave in what I do need. I can recompile everything I want even though I use a binary distro grab the packages source and recompile as I see fit.
You've pinpointed it right there. Linux offers you more but the vast majority of computer users don't need to recompile every piece of open source software, most of which are useless. I can't stand compiling every piece of software to get it to work. Given the choice between a binary and source code, I go for the binary every time. Bloat, I could agree with to an extent. I don't like how OS X has lost a lot of the snappy interface found in older systems and no way to get it back but it looks nicer and still gets the job done. It offers me a complete unix base, which is more than Windows and a standardized, easy to use interface with good commercial support, which is more than Linux provides.
I do a lot of stuff with video and media and Linux falls very short in this area.
Seriously man OSX is nice but drumming it up to be what everybody here claims is insane. And if anything you should be Praising Linux as its the only thing that has a chance to displace Microsoft. Steve Jobs wont allow OSX on beige boxes it will never take hold. Do the research at how many more installations of Linux there are over OSX and you will see a different picture entirely.
Sure, Linux has that advantage but it's also what's holding it back. The biggest problem with open source projects is fragmentation. There is such a thing as too much choice. It may be nice for the user to get to decide what kernel to run and how to optimize it and what window manager to use but can you imagine what a standardization nightmare that is for a developer? How can any commercial company seriously afford to support all those options if they are coupled with such a huge number of hardware options?
This effect can be seen clearly in the move towards gaming consoles over PCs. It is so much easier to develop games for a standard console than a generic PC. I personally value choice and I certainly wish Apple had more but I don't see a reason for unlimited choice because then it becomes chaotic and the end user experience suffers. I haven't spoken to anyone who is truly happy with Linux, always complaining that they can't get sound drivers or graphics card drivers to work and they always have to drop down to the command line and edit config files or something.
If they offered one standard version of Linux that worked like the Mac does and supported a wide variety of hardware then I could see Linux taking off (Ububtu seems to be going the right way) but I don't see that happening because there will always be Linux people who want to run some non-standard software just because they can.
I remember someone at uni taking over a week trying to get Blackbox running on Linux and was so pleased when it ran and I asked him what he achieved and he was like well it uses hardly any resources. I looked at the screen and it had nothing on it but a square. This may be fine for running one program with all your system's resources but I never ever do that these days. Today, I used a 3D program, a browser, a code editor, itunes, a compositing program, Photoshop, Final Cut, DVD Studio Pro, a wireless printing network and the command line and I had various network volumes mounted exchanging files, while hosting a webpage on the Apache webserver and I do this regularly. I expect them all to work and with Mac OS X, they all do and not only do they work, the interface makes the system enjoyable to use because it follow guidelines.
As for Linux installations, are we talking about servers and renderfarms? Because I'd imagine they'd take up a hell of a lot of those statistics.
And as for darwin being open source I consider that to be just a stunt to say OMG we are open source. Yeah...
Darwin is a separate operating system from OS X and is open source:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
Darwin is a separate operating system from OS X and is open source:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
Well Darwin isn't exactly separate, what we see as OS X sits on top of Darwin.
Well Darwin isn't exactly separate, what we see as OS X sits on top of Darwin.
But Darwin is a full operating system in its own right. OS X just happens to be a far more comprehensive one.
But Darwin is a full operating system in its own right. OS X just happens to be a far more comprehensive one.
That's true. You shot accurately and missed the barn though, my reply to Marvin was exactly what you said.
You trying to violently agree here?
That's true. You shot accurately and missed the barn though, my reply to Marvin was exactly what you said.
No it's not. What he said was what I said that Darwin is a separate and completely open source OS. You said that Darwin isn't exactly separate, which is wrong. Darwin and OS X are two different systems developed independently. OS X being built on Darwin doesn't change this.
No it's not. What he said was what I said that Darwin is a separate and completely open source OS. You said that Darwin isn't exactly separate, which is wrong. Darwin and OS X are two different systems developed independently. OS X being built on Darwin doesn't change this.
My god man are you so effing caught up in your own ego that you have to resort to out of context word parsing?
You said:
Darwin is a separate operating system from OS X and is open source:
I said:
Well Darwin isn't exactly separate, what we see as OS X sits on top of Darwin.
Everything Darwin is is inside OS X and gets wholly wrapped into OS X at various synch points. 10.4.8 sits on top of Darwin 8.8. You provided the link yourself, didn't you actually read the page??? Darwin is decidedly not a "separate" operating system, it is the core of OS X. Darwin would never have existed if Apple did not open source the core portions of OS X as the Darwin project.
While the core can also run on it's own without the OS X GUI elements and frameworks, that does not make it "separate". Since you desire to remain pedantic I can spell it out this way: The Darwin code base is properly defined as a subset of the OS X code base. As in -- wholly contained within. Every contributor, every commit, every line of main trunk Darwin code eventually makes it into OS X and is approved by the Apple project leads under the Apple Public Source License. Merely running independently from the rest of the code base does not change that subset relationship in the least.
Maybe you are confused with OpenDarwin. That was a separate project but has died. http://www.opendarwin.org/. It always pays to keep abreast of your facts.
My god man are you so effing caught up in your own ego that you have to resort to out of context word parsing?
You started the word parsing actually so I guess this statement applies more to you.
While the core can also run on it's own without the OS X GUI elements and frameworks, that does not make it "separate".
Well, this all started when someone said that Apple saying OS X is based on open source components was wrong. The fact that the Darwin core can be taken and used in other system development proves that it can be used separate from OS X, whether or not it is developed separately.
Merely running independently from the rest of the code base does not change that subset relationship in the least.
Fair enough but it's still an open source component that can be used independently of OS X.
Maybe you are confused with OpenDarwin.
Some of what I said related to OpenDarwin. I forgot the project had stopped.
Ready!? Go!
- Ever wonder what OS X is based on - You got it Open Source code - specifically BSD.
Gotta say that Apple certainly innovated there - Yes, we all know that Microsoft loves BSD because it can just lift bits out to use in Windows but Apple seems to strive to prove its even better than microsoft, so what did they do - Half-inch the entire thing, slap a funky GUI on top and call it a new innovation.
Interestingly though, in the interest of making things more user friendly, they actually neglected all that Unix heritage and made the thing more insecure - nevermind, there are only two important OS anyway - Mac just doesn't matter any more - why do you think Bill lets you use MS Office.
What is the point of a Mac? - Good question - They used to be the best platform for graphics - but now all the movie studios use Linux so really Macs key identifier is that it isn't Windows - but to be honest Apple are far worse than Microsoft - its just poor old steve jobs doesn't have the monopoly he dreams about - and apple software for windows is so rubbish - itunes, safari - good if you enjoy watching your computer slow down to a crawl and crash every where!
Desktop effects aren't for everyone - I use beryl - but sparingly - the videos you usually see are just to show how much more you can do with Linux than anything else, although you can set it to something more sensible - multiple desktops are awesome - one you start using them you can never go back. Wobbly windows while not doing anything to enhance your productivity do feel nice to use, and its actually quite difficult to use windows afterwards because the windows don't offer the same tactile response.
3d desktops - Ok, i'm willing to concede apple did it first, but beryl offers far greater functionality.
Sorry...don't feed the trolls.
"Historically open source software is a poor way to innovate new capabilities or technologies."
- Ever wonder what OS X is based on - You got it Open Source code - specifically BSD.
The BSDs have not "innovated" in 20 years. They have evolved following other operating system capabilities and functionality described in academic papers, but haven't introduced anything independently new where you would go "That's a cool feature nobody ever talked about before!" They are great, stable, operating systems that are examples of the strengths of open source software. But not a font of independent innovation.
Open source does innovate, sometimes. Usually, however, it's playing the role of mimic, producing a free copy of what people want, but don't want to pay for.
Not to mention that they, and Linux, are based off of a commercial OS...
Open source does innovate, sometimes. Usually, however, it's playing the role of mimic, producing a free copy of what people want, but don't want to pay for.
Totally agreee
The BSDs have not "innovated" in 20 years. They have evolved following other operating system capabilities and functionality described in academic papers, but haven't introduced anything independently new where you would go "That's a cool feature nobody ever talked about before!" They are great, stable, operating systems that are examples of the strengths of open source software. But not a font of independent innovation.
Ever heard of the FreeBSD ports system? Where do you think MacPorts came from?
Not to mention that they, and Linux, are based off of a commercial OS...
Open source does innovate, sometimes. Usually, however, it's playing the role of mimic, producing a free copy of what people want, but don't want to pay for.
OK, I'll bite.
1) Linux (actually, GNU/Linux) is not "based off a commercial OS". All the GNU libraries/shells/etc are clean room implementations, improvements and optimizations of Unix equivalent functions. Linux as a kernel is a clean room implementation of a kernel for the GNU operating system. GNU/Linux emulates the behaviour of Unix, but it derives 0 code from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_Linux_kernel
2) The BSDs may be based on commercial Unixes, but half of the branches of commercial Unix's are based off the BSD branch, including SunOS (Sun's Unix before Solaris).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd
3) Open source software has been the source of several notable innovations, to name a few:
* Apache httpd webserver, which is the #1 web server far ahead of Microsoft's IIS
* apt-get and other online installation/dependency resolution/download system
* FreeBSD ports source code compile installation system
* Apache Ant compile tool
* Firefox browser, with its cutting-edge features that InternetExplorer outright copied (and that Safari made interesting optimizations to)
* Thunderbird email client, again with features that Outlook copied
* CalDav networked shared calendaring protocol
* Perl, Python and Ruby scripting languages, to name but a few (for which Apple has built Cocoa bridges)
* Ruby on Rails web application development framework
* Eclipse and Netbeans Java IDE's
* junit Java unit testing framework
* Jabber instant messaging client and protocol (which is used by GoogleTalk and, I believe, AIM)
* OGG and FLOSS music file formats
* (last but not least) KHTML and Konqueror, the code upon which Safari is based
I could go on....
OK, I'll bite.
1) Linux (actually, GNU/Linux) is not "based off a commercial OS". All the GNU libraries/shells/etc are clean room implementations, improvements and optimizations of Unix equivalent functions. Linux as a kernel is a clean room implementation of a kernel for the GNU operating system. GNU/Linux emulates the behaviour of Unix, but it derives 0 code from it.
Bingo. It is a mimicry of Unix. It's specifically what I already stated it was. It was a free version of an OS that people wanted, but didn't want to pay for.
2) The BSDs may be based on commercial Unixes, but half of the branches of commercial Unix's are based off the BSD branch, including SunOS (Sun's Unix before Solaris).
Again... mimicry, but now with code sharing.
3) Open source software has been the source of several notable innovations, to name a few:
* Apache httpd webserver, which is the #1 web server far ahead of Microsoft's IIS
* apt-get and other online installation/dependency resolution/download system
* FreeBSD ports source code compile installation system
* Apache Ant compile tool
* Firefox browser, with its cutting-edge features that InternetExplorer outright copied (and that Safari made interesting optimizations to)
* Thunderbird email client, again with features that Outlook copied
* CalDav networked shared calendaring protocol
* Perl, Python and Ruby scripting languages, to name but a few (for which Apple has built Cocoa bridges)
* Ruby on Rails web application development framework
* Eclipse and Netbeans Java IDE's
* junit Java unit testing framework
* Jabber instant messaging client and protocol (which is used by GoogleTalk and, I believe, AIM)
* OGG and FLOSS music file formats
* (last but not least) KHTML and Konqueror, the code upon which Safari is based
I could go on....
You don't have to. I did say that they have had some innovations. There are a few items in there though that I'm not sure whether they came before, with the assistance of, or after, closed source and commercial enterprises, but that doesn't really matter.
It's not an all or nothing situation, JC. OSS has had some innovative projects, and even a couple of industry shifting ones, but the biggest innovation has been on process. As far as technologies go, however, much OSS software is an attempt to mimic commercial software packages and innovations. Commercial and OSS feed off of one another, generally to their mutual benefit. It is not, as many OSS folks would like us to believe, a case of greedy companies simply slurping up OSS code and never giving anything back. OSS copies commercial code and technology on a regular basis, and owes much (in fact, rather its entire existence, given the *BSD and Linux ubiquitousness in OSS) to commercial code and ideas.
Copying doesn't require code sharing.
The thing *I* don't understand though, is why so much OSS code is intent on copying MS crap, down to the busted UI behaviors. That, I simply don't get. If you want to innovate, that's a prime place to do it.
Bingo. It is a mimicry of Unix. It's specifically what I already stated it was. It was a free version of an OS that people wanted, but didn't want to pay for.
Is there something wrong with giving away something that's yours for free?
Again... mimicry, but now with code sharing.
This is what you said:
Not to mention that they, and Linux, are based off of a commercial OS...
"Based off" is not the same as "mimicking". Name me one commerical OS developed in the last 30 years that did not "mimic" another commercial or open source OS. NeXT is the only one I could come up with.
You don't have to. I did say that they have had some innovations. There are a few items in there though that I'm not sure whether they came before, with the assistance of, or after, closed source and commercial enterprises, but that doesn't really matter.
Non sequitur. You didn't distinguish "community developed" from "commercially assisted open source software. That is out of the scope of this debate.
It's not an all or nothing situation, JC. OSS has had some innovative projects, and even a couple of industry shifting ones, but the biggest innovation has been on process. As far as technologies go, however, much OSS software is an attempt to mimic commercial software packages and innovations.
I chose my examples very carefully. All of them involved substantial innovations with very little copying. Please explain how your argument applies to even one of my examples. Be specific.
Commercial and OSS feed off of one another, generally to their mutual benefit. It is not, as many OSS folks would like us to believe, a case of greedy companies simply slurping up OSS code and never giving anything back. OSS copies commercial code and technology on a regular basis,
Please provide an example of an open source project that violated the copyright of a commercial product. SCO fought that battle and lost.
As for "technology" you can only be referring to software patents. The software patent system is so broken, I don't even want to start talking about it. Please explain how "one-click shopping" is a "technology".
and owes much (in fact, rather its entire existence, given the *BSD and Linux ubiquitousness in OSS) to commercial code and ideas.
And much commercial software owe its ides to OSS. Remember that, at one time, all commercial software came with open source code.
Copying doesn't require code sharing.
That's true. Look at what Microsoft took from Apple.