Google Gets Serious About Open Source Mac Projects 193
mjasay sends us a link to a CNet story, which begins:
"In the '20 percent time' that Google employees have to work on projects of personal interest, it turns out that an increasing number are spending time writing open-source projects for their Macs. Google has long had a fondness for the Mac, with upwards of 6,000 of its 20,000 current employees opting to use the Mac over Windows. It is in the 20 percent employee development time, however, where this statistic becomes interesting. At Google, development time translates into products. The more Mac-friendly employees, the more Mac-related development. The more Mac-related development, the more Google-sponsored Mac-based open-source code. As Google's Mac Developer Playground demonstrates, some of this code is quite interesting."
Here is another proof that CNET doesn't know Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
See the numbers just at its versiontracker page
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22549 [versiontracker.com]
Also here is its source along with various Alcor programs:
http://code.google.com/p/blacktree-alchemy/ [google.com]
There is no chance you miss a 200.000 downloaded (just a single site!), used by newbie to advanced developer profile utility. Unless you have never used Mac regularly and sit there and write a story about Google and Mac code of course. Another thing to include in that story is the fiasco of Google Desktop search which seriously made everyone paranoid with its method of install, method of running and the idea of shipping that Windows wonder to an OS which invented dynamic/extended search in its core.
Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you disagree, can you name a single significant open source desktop application that originated on the Mac and is now cross platform (supporting Windows, Mac and Linux at least)?
This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. The attitude seems to be that its fine for them to use stuff from BSD or Linux, but if you want to run their software, you should just buy a Mac. And that makes them a lot more like Microsoft than the person who asked the original question.
Re:I really like Google apps except for $RANDOM (Score:2, Interesting)
Google Desktop search is an example how to spare thousands of engineer hours needlessly just to duplicate spotlight and make those "maccies" extremely paranoid.
http://daringfireball.net/2007/04/google_desktop_installer [daringfireball.net]
John Gruber isn't a tinfoil hat and I don't know if Google fixed those horrible dangerous method of installing. Rule number 1 on OS X: You never, ever write to
Google should ask their Apple buddies one, simple question: "Why do you code spotlight in a way that it never, ever connects to internet". It is still same on Leopard, Spotlight connects _only_ to XServe on local network if it is configured to do so. It is also the framework which Apple uses every kind of counter measure for security whether they are ready for third party or not.
The point is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Only, I wish those same people putting all that work into OS X applications would instead redirect their efforts to improving GNUStep, making Linux a place that can have the same set of appeals. Right now it's pretty ugly, but it has so much potential.. it seems to only lack developers. I'd love to see it go somewhere.
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:1, Interesting)
http://www.macosforge.org/ [macosforge.org]
It seems to me there's a non-trivial effort required to make a lot of OSS work on a Mac, as witnessed by the need for some Mac developer to custom-build every OSS project under the sun and post the MacThis, MacThat, MacTheOther installers on obscure web pages. The "configure;make;make install" dance never seemed to "just work" for me.
Queue "you're doing it wrong" responses in 5,4,3...
So where is Picasa for the Mac? (Score:4, Interesting)
GCal Sync (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, there are plenty (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like a reasonable policy to me. It's the same one we had at my last employer. Users choose what works best for them. Since several of those people now work at Google, I imagine they feel right at home.
Actually, according to Consumer Reports Thinkpads have a higher failure rate than MacBooks or MacBook pros, by a decent margin. At that last employer those were our two pre-approved vendors and our data showed the same thing. As for ease of service, who services their own machines? We put in RAM and the like, which is plenty easy on Apple systems. Anything else, we copied the data to a spare machine (if possible) and shipped the broken one back to the vendor. On site repairs may make sense for servers, but not for laptops. It just isn't worth the employee down time. A couple of spare laptops are a cheap way to keep people working.
I find using them anywhere as a primary desktop is cumbersome. It's come a long way, but there is still a lot of tinkering and hands on work that needs to be done to get them running with whatever infrastructure and keep them that way. I use one daily, but I don't find it to be as painless and enjoyable as OS X for most tasks (although for some tasks it is quite superior).
I'd note most all of the problems you list are probably the result of having a distro not tailored to your hardware. That will hopefully be less of a problem in future as laptop makers customize Linux for their machine and keep it supported.
Yeah, we all become accustomed to interfaces and the like. I've used ThinPads and they are fairly reliable (number 3 or 4 right now?) but I've never been fond of the nipple-pointer thingy. Over the last couple of years I've noticed that OS X has incorporated pretty much all the old UNIX style interface features I missed, but the big Linux distros are still lacking in reciprocation. Ubuntu still does not ship with an expose clone by default or with two-finger trackpad clicking and scrolling. From what I've seen this has facilitated a large exodus of laptop users away from Linux and to OS X for their primary OS. Where I worked last they went from about 5% to about 70% in the last 4 years, mostly converting Linux people (and a few BSD users). It worries me because a lot of those people are now developing applications and the like to solve problems on OS X and there are even fewer people doing so for Linux on the desktop.
Re:Why Mac, though ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people work to solve a problem, either their own, personal itch, or what their employer needs done. Those that care about the benefits of GNUStep have mostly moved to the Mac for the desktop. The rest don't know or care about those benefits. Many angrily defend Linux claiming it is better the way it is now than being more "like OS X" which they believe is obviously inferior (although many have no real experience to make this determination). Others understand the benefits of GNUStep for the desktop, but already use OS X for the desktop and really want Linux to be the perfect Server OS for them, and actively oppose any compromise that might add "bloat" without benefitting Linux as a Server. Finally, there are those that would like Linux to be an ideal desktop OS and understand how GNUStep can help, but pragmatically believe compatibility with other Linux distros is more important than the benefits of GNUStep and at the same time believe it is too hard to get all the major distros to buy in to a better way all at once.
I'd love to see GNUStep match and exceed OS X's implementation through integration with package managers and extending packages for that purpose. Sadly I don't think it will happen. Really Linux needs a hardware OEM to champion it on their hardware and work towards making it an ideal desktop, including feature parity with OS X (and interoperability where possible). Basically what would be needed is an Apple like company that had one executive who could make hard decisions and break compatibility with other Linux distros. They could undercut Apple on price by leveraging all the shared work from other Linux developers. Alas, it is just a pipe dream for now.
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
From my perspective (I use OS X, Linux, and Windows desktops daily) the freeware community for OS X is just as diverse as on other OS's. I just did a search for freeware titles on my favorite OS X application tracking site. It came up with 7800 links to free software applications for download on OS X. This does not include CLI applications, where there are plenty more. Some of that software is very high quality. In comparison, it came up with 7900 links to payware.
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what you're talking about is centralized package management. I agree Apple should add it into OS X, as they are doing with the iPhone. There is even some indication they might be planning to do so in the future.
I'm not sure, however, that this is a one sided argument. Package managers are great and useful, in some cases, but all the current ones fail miserably for other workflows, sometimes in ways Apple has already solved. Package managers on Linux suck for commercial software developers and as a result are pretty much ignored by commercial developers. They also suck for installing software on remote drives for access by multiple systems, installing on removable media, easily moving installed applications to other systems, and installing from a Web page.
Right now I'd say Apple has about 50% of the solution we all want, while Ubuntu has the other 50% and neither has gone and integrated the half the other vendor got right. Apple has their half right because they have one, centralized authority willing to make hard decisions and break compatibility with others when needed to make a real advancement. Ubuntu has the other half right because they have diverse contributors and a somewhat democratic, mob like way of making decisions that work for most people. That said, want to bet that Ubuntu gets drag and drop installs and all the other benefits they could get from GNUStep before Apple adds a centralized package manager and repository to OS X?
Slightly Stacked Deck (Score:5, Interesting)
That's right, let's compare vs. Linux (1991) vs. OS X (2001).
And, since you said, 'significant', this makes it a bit harder, as to be significant, something generally has to be around for awhile, reducing OS X's ability to produce something.
And guys like you crack me up, as, a bunch of significant open source programs did not originate on Linux - the Gnu tools, gcc, perl, Apache, X11, python, samba, java, and I'm sure the list goes on.
I couldn't find out where mysql started. But that's three letters out of LAMP that didn't originate on Linux. Linux could not have originated ON Linux by definition, and I'd have a hard time counting it anyway, since it owes heavily to Unix in design and implementation. (Note: this is not a knock on Linus, or Linux, just if you're getting picky, w/o Minux or UNIX linux would not exist.)
Apple has made contributions back to open source, the easy example here is KHTML which even ended up changing it's name to WebKit.
Apple has originated open source projects as well. Take a look at iCal Server, which is an open source, cross platform Calendar server written in python.
launchd is open source, and I vaugley recall that it inspired some changes in Linux booting.
Others have noted several user supplied open source projects.
It's hardly a one way street Open Source -> Apple.
Re:Here's why (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Here's why (Score:3, Interesting)
YOU may prefer to use Linux+Xfce over OS X and thats your right. You aren't alone either. There are whole hundreds of thousands of people who use Linux everyday as a desktop operating system, and as their main operating system too. Not just as a rarely used dual boot option when they get bored of Windows.
The issue here is that Google is a company and a company makes money by catering to LARGE groups of people. This is why they're willing to develop for Windows and Mac OS X and not so much for Linux. Emphasis on the LARGE in large groups of people there.
The problem with some Linux users is that they cannot see that time has a price value too. If you severely undervalue your time at $5 an hour, then you have about 40 hours to tinker with Linux and get it running properly before it would have made more sense to just shell out the money for a copy of Windows. Lets say you go for a Mac instead, with a MacBook at $1000 that gives you 400 hours to get your Linux install working properly. Thats 16 days worth of time. I can assure you that there are folks who have spent 16 MONTHS trying to get Linux to do what a Windows running PC or Mac can do pretty much out of the box.
Of course if you were smart enough to realize any of this you wouldn't be using Linux in the first place, now would you?
Re:Open source on non open OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, $99 i pretty low for development fees for cell phones, actually really low. It would be nice if Apple did not charge at all, but I'm not upset either.
I'm of the opinion that trying to make things hard to do as a security measure, is asinine. People can and still do install "binary blobs" on Linux. They just don't get automated updates to those blobs, so they are more likely to be insecure. They also get people in the habit of running binary installers, which are less secure than a "drag and drop" package that is self contained, like Apple uses. Or, more commonly, people don't install blobs on Linux, they just use Windows instead... which incidentally introduces lots of artificial problems with Windows and ends up hosing networks left and right screwing with people who are using Linux.
Trying to engineer people's behavior by making things people want to do (install closed source games or publishing software) causes a lot more problems than it solves and is wholly ineffective. The proper solution is to make everything users want to do both easy and secure and it's a lot easier to secure closed source software when it is coming from a centrally controlled repository and implementing DRM/registration via an official and OSS channel instead of via dozens of different closed source, proprietary channels. Trying to stop people from running closed source software, is zealotry, by the way. It is trying to impose your decision upon others, despite their wishes, instead of trying to convince them your way is better.
Yeah, there are numerous solutions, but no standard and nothing implemented by multiple distros (who can't even standardize on a package format I might mention). So far the most common workflow for installing software (research on Web then install based upon the info found) is still pretty mythical. A few developers have Web pages that will allow for fairly easy installation, if you happen to be using the right distro, otherwise, it's worse than Windows.
Re:Here's why (Score:1, Interesting)
True, but the proper mod for those kinds of posts is -1, Flamebait, sorry. Check the moderation guidelines if you don't believe me.
And OSX's marketshare is anything but "LARGE". Yes, it's bigger than Linux's, but only barely, specially outside the USA.
You're basing your argument on two false assumptions: first, that Linux always requires post-install configuration and troubleshooting, and second, that neither Windows nor Mac do. Ohh yeah, and also that a MacBook costs only $1000, which is pretty much false outside the US, unless you want a second-hand G4.
And again, you're assuming that Windows and Mac will do everything you need them to do out of the box, which unless your name is Bill Gates or Steve Jobs is simply not true 99.99% of the time.
Ohhh, name-calling, clever. I'll leave you alone to ponder about what it says about yourself, 'kay?
Re:Mac developers don't do cross platform. (Score:4, Interesting)
And you have good evidence that this is the reason for the way they have done things, as opposed to making sure that apps written for OS X simply integrate well with the system to provide a good and consistent user experience?
In a world where most apps are written for Windows, it doesn't really make sense for Apple to try and make it hard to stop people from porting Mac apps to other platforms. Apple aren't stupid.
This is why I consider the Mac OSS community to be a bunch of leeches. They've ported most open source unix applications to OS X but to date have given nothing useful back. The attitude seems to be that its fine for them to use stuff from BSD or Linux, but if you want to run their software, you should just buy a Mac.
Or perhaps they are only interesting in creating apps for OS X? I mean, if they take from the OSS community to begin with, then how can they consider it their software? How do you know that they simply don't consider themselves porting software to OS X for the benefit of OS X users? What would they contribute back, anyway? remove all the OS X parts and give back what they took in the first place? You're not making much sense.
I think you are simply being paranoid or have something against people who use Macs.