Craig White wrote:
> Apple's commitment to open source is curious...
> http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
> Apple refuses to release a version of QuickTime for Linux.
> Apple hasn't helped to get OpenOffice ported to the Mac.
like Novell's? These are companies who are run by people and owned by
people. The shareholders demand that these for-profit companies make
money. The execs of these companies are using Open source for the
benefits to those companies but it's obvious by actions that neither
company is committed to the OS philosophy. . .
Frankly, Apple chose BSD for exactly this reason. The license allows
them to fork, modify, change, keep proprietary etc. anything they want.
I don't know how we ever got into thinking that Apple was 'behind' OR
'committed' to Open Source.
Apple is a proprietary company selling proprietary products. That's
fine. People can use what they want. The products look nice and work
fairly well. But let's not mistake them as being equivalents to OS.
- --
JT Morée
PC Xperience, Inc.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)