On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 08:19:03PM -0500, Edward Hahn <ehahn at isochronism.com> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2004, at 2:49 PM, Matthew Hunter wrote: > >It's true that Apple gets some points for adopting a UNIX-based > >model, but it's also worth noting that they picked BSD because of > >the license, not because BSD is necessarily better or worse than > >Linux. The GPL would have prevented Apple from taking the Linux > >kernel, modifying it, and selling the result as their own work > >(perhaps with a line or two of credit). > Ah, but you are aware of the Apple open source contributions to Darwin, > KHTML, Konqueror, etc? For the part of OS X that is BSD, they have > returned the improvements to the open source community. Somewhat. I don't pay much attention to apple these days. But that's not the point; the point is the licensing: Right about the time Apple was thinking about what sort of drastic action they would need to take in order to make their operating system competitive again, they had spent the past 2 years or so building up a significant secondary market in "clone" PowerPC computers. Those clones were starting to eat their lunch in the hardware department, which should surprise no one. At the time, Be (with their BeBox, and their PowerPC based, Amiga-inspired OS) was looming up in their rearview mirror on the software front. And Apple's OS team was staring at the writing on the wall -- the sign that said "Everything you know about OS design internals is wrong. Start from scratch." And let's not forget CHRP -- the hardware standard that would have made PowerPCs not only OS independent, but put the platform itself several steps ahead of where the x86 platform is today. Apple was between a rock, a hard place, and an oncoming train. Linux at the time was visible in the way the tide is visible as it rolls inwards -- that is, you knew it was there but you couldn't see it moving, at least not until you looked to see where it was the last time you looked. If Apple went with an open-source kernel and driver model that they could not make exclusive, the hardware cloners would have as much right to modify the kernel and OS as Apple did -- after Apple did all the hard porting work. And even if Apple could retain a lead in operating systems over the cloners (who lacked expertise in that area), they had Be to deal with still. And Be had demonstrated that they had the balls -- and the skills -- to write a better OS than Apple could manage, from scratch, that could run on Apple hardware... or on Be's little BeBox, which by virtue of true SMP was a shot across the bow of Apple's OS engineers, who were still shipping "dual processor" Macs that required special application support to utilize the second processor. Worse, Be had an ally in the wings, a hardware-based started with a CHRP platform already built... a platform that used cheap PC parts where possible when Apple machines remained custom and expensive. A platform that would have shipped out the door with up to four PowerPC G4 processors and an OS-agnostic hardware layout... and a stated policy of letting customers pick the OS. Motorola and IBM were also involved in the CHRP standard and Motorola at least was chomping at the bit. They wanted a piece of the clone business, bad. And Apple's balance is red. Blood red. So... Apple picks a GPL'd kernel and follows through on CHRP; PIOS releases their 4-CPU monster and takes the high-end customers. The rest of the cloners consume the low end. Motorola releases their CHRP machines and takes the middle. IBM releases their CHRP thinkpad and takes the laptops. Apple becomes a software company with an outdated OS and little idea where to go next. Be gets access to Apple's source code and steps on the gas. Everybody was converging on this space because Microsoft and Intel owned the PC and the threat had become obvious; if everybody jumped to a new, better-designed and *open* platform all at once, the new platform can compete with the Wintel duopoly. But if that happens, suddenly Apple goes from a comfortable, if ailing, hardware/software monopoly to the token herbivore in a museum's "This is what piranha do" exhibit. So how do they head off disaster? They backstab the cloners, cutting them off, and saving their hardware business with an inspired bit of marketing fluff called the iMac. They backstab Motorola (ever wonder why Motorola stopped being a major player in desktop PowerPCs? I understand Motorola execs are *still* pissed about this) and kick IBM's big toe (I'm not sure IBM even noticed) by dropping the CHRP work that was just a fancy cover page from being done. They keep their hardware closed, making just enough changes on each model to keep Be playing catch up. And they get a loan >from Microsoft to help them through the bad times until they can rewrite their OS around their BSD microkernel (and thus backstabbing Netscape on Microsoft's behalf) ... and since the OS core and drivers are BSD, they can continue to keep "their" platform closed while Be frantically tries to rewrite their OS for the x86. People talk about Microsoft being a monopoly and playing dirty, but Apple has gone hip-deep in blood and entrails too. It's the same thing; it's just that Apple's monopoly is smaller. Maybe I should write this up on the web. Call it something like "Open Source Kamikazi: How Apple could have killed Microsoft, but blinked". It's good to see that Apple is playing nice, now that they have the luxury of being able to do so. But that has nothing to do with why they picked a BSD-licenced OS as their base platform. > PS. List moderator - can we have a "reply-to" field added to the list > message headers, with the Dragaera.info address in it? We've been there. -- Matthew Hunter (matthew at infodancer.org) Public Key: http://matthew.infodancer.org/public_key.txt Homepage: http://matthew.infodancer.org/index.jsp Politics: http://www.triggerfinger.org/index.jsp