why port our software to MAC ? are we killing linux and making them "mass appealing"?

[madjr]

porting to WINDOWS i can understand. They have the huge marketshare in the first place.

now os x...

http://361degrees.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/mac-os-x.jpg

the Mac userbase a lot smaller, but is increasing thanks to our contributions. yay! :)


They have a good amount of users, but just a small amount of them are actual developers... but they have an army of devs now.. US !

are we the new Mac devs they needed so much? Are we working for FREE for APPLE ?

we're making Mac a great platform full of free software, they don't have to buy their soft as before.


MAC's "mass appeal" is also increasing because of our efforts.


why are we porting our software to Mac ? so they switch ? they got all our software now and we don't have theirs, why would they switch to linux ?

nah, they won't switch... most mac users feel "elitists" and consider other OS's inferior.

We're just geeks to them... and worst of all working for free.

we just making Mac the best "distro" ever (giving them our soft)

So many linux users have their ipods and they haven't even considered porting that dumb itunes, we had to hack and hack to get it working in wine.. and if they wanted they could break us off on porpuse on the next versions..

they have native comercial microsoft software (office, etc.) , they have native comercial Adobe apps (photoshop, etc.), They have iTunes and now they have all our FREE software.

before, they needed to shell out cash, now they getting our best free of charge.

They got the windows soft, the mac soft and the linux soft..

we only have the linux soft..

yes, we work for them now, say hi to our new boses:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/208/522695099_026b8d7ffe.jpg?v=0

http://www.noticiastech.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/steve_ballmer_tongue_funny_nasdaq.jpg

once again we manage to kick ourselves in the nuts.

no wonder PCMAG considers it the best OS of 2007 - 2008. and is not for the rich anymore...


ok, now i would like to read some opinions of "why" we should keep helping a company that treats use like dirt (or less than), even after all our contributions to make them a better OS ?

they take and take and don't give anything back.

[p_quarles]

It's open source software. Anyone who wants to can port it to whatever platform they want. No one is being forced to port anything to OS X.

[Wobedraggled]

More things need to be ported our way.

[madjr]

It's open source software. Anyone who wants to can port it to whatever platform they want. No one is being forced to port anything to OS X.

Don't you mean FOSS devs are the ones porting it and giving them high priority?

we are porting it because we "think" is beneficial to linux, but in the end we are just making macOS a better OS.

we're their new geeks doing free stuff for them.

they even think neooffice is something apple made..

they don't deserve our work IMO or at least any priority.

[p_quarles]

Don't you mean FOSS devs are the ones porting it and giving them high priority?
No, that's not what I mean at all. I mean that anyone who wants to port it can and will, and anyone who objects to porting it is not required to approve, much less help.

[smartboyathome]

Don't you mean FOSS devs are the ones porting it and giving them high priority?

They actually aren't. If you look at the projects which port the programs to Mac, the people porting it aren't the developers.

[aysiu]

I don't understand where this is coming from.

First of all, open source means open and free, which means it can be ported to any OS anyone wants to port it to. You can't restrict open source from being ported; otherwise, how would it be open source?

Secondly, I've used Mac OS X a bit on my wife's Powerbook and then Macbook Pro, and I've found the ported Linux applications to be virtually unusable. Setting up apt-get or fink is no easy task, the repositories are small and mostly outdated, and almost every application requires X11 in order to run (which means extremely slow load times), which is why my wife gave up on OpenOffice. And NeoOffice is only recently starting to gain stability. I believe it's still officially beta software.

Thirdly, most Mac users do not use Linux-ported software or even open source Mac software. I tried to get my wife to use Thunderbird, Camino, Cyberduck, and a host of other open source Mac applications, but she keeps going back to proprietary and Apple. Now she uses Mail, Safari, and Transmit instead.

I doubt you'll find many Mac users loading up their Apple computers with open source software, and if you do... good for them.

[samwyse]

It's Mac not "MAC" and I don't see why the topic is rant worthy, because it's not like Mac users care about the ported software.

[banjobacon]

It's Mac not "MAC"

This is worth repeating.


It's Mac not "MAC"

[madjr]

It's Mac not "MAC" and I don't see why the topic is rant worthy, because it's not like Mac users care about the ported software.

because we're spending man hours making that APPLE OS better.

[aysiu]

because we're spending man hours making that APPLE OS better.
Who's we?

Take a look at this statement from the NeoOffice developers:
Why is NeoOffice separate from OpenOffice.org?

When we started the NeoOffice project, our primary reason for being separate was that we did not like OpenOffice.org's SISSL license. However, now that the NeoOffice project has been active for a few years, license issues are no longer the primary reason that keeps us separate. The primary reason that we stay separate is that we can develop, release, and support a native Mac OS X office suite with much less time and money than we could if we worked within the OpenOffice.org project.

Why would running a separate project be so much more efficient than using OpenOffice.org's infrastructure? Basically, the reason is that OpenOffice.org's processes and infrastructure are designed to handle the tens (or maybe hundreds) of millions of users on three very different platforms. This is a huge job that requires a huge amount of infrastructure and processes. Furthermore, OpenOffice.org is paid for by Sun Microsystems so its paid staff are most concerned with completing whatever goals Sun Microsystems sets. In comparison, NeoOffice averages less than a million downloads per month and NeoOffice only runs on a platform that Sun Microsystems has rarely released software for. Because of these differences, any Mac OS X work must be coordinated with the OpenOffice.org paid staff to ensure that the Mac OS X work does not conflict with any work on the Windows, Linux, or Solaris platforms.

Both Ed Peterlin and Patrick Luby have worked within the OpenOffice.org project in the past and, in our experience, this coordination requires a significant amount of time. Since we are volunteers, we have very limited time and such coordination can quickly use up most of it. By running a separate project, we have eliminated most of this coordination time and have used that time savings on things that are important to NeoOffice users such as frequent bug fixes and responsive support. It sounds to me as if they are Mac users who like OpenOffice and are volunteering their own time to port it. Who are you (madjr) to make demands on how they use their own time and energy? Are you going to pay them to stop working on that open source project?

[Wobedraggled]

It's Mac not "MAC" and I don't see why the topic is rant worthy, because it's not like Mac users care about the ported software.

And people wonder why "MAC" users are hated...

port this over from OSX to Linux http://www.siriusmac.com/

[madjr]

Who's we?

Take a look at this statement from the NeoOffice developers: It sounds to me as if they are Mac users who like OpenOffice and are volunteering their own time to port it. Who are you (madjr) to make demands on how they use their own time and energy? Are you going to pay them to stop working on that open source project?

am not speaking about them, they can do all they want as long as "they" are the ones doing it.

But some FOSS devs think porting to mac is important because they think their users are going to come our way..... and that isn't happening

[earobinson]

anyone using any open source sw on any platform is fine by me :)

[aysiu]

But some FOSS devs think porting to mac is important because they think their users are going to come our way. Link, please?

[igknighted]

open source != just linux

If I develop an application and want as many people regardless of platform to benefit from it, what's the big deal? My loyalty isn't enslaved to the linux platform, I'm just trying to make a great app. Sometimes porting a great open-source app to Mac is about letting others use it, rather than getting them to use linux.

And lets be honest... Mac's are popular because the OS does everything for the user, the opposite of linux (which hands you the keys). The majority of Apple's base probably has no interest in linux, so why not let them use our software if they aren't going to use linux anyhow?

[FuturePilot]

anyone using any open source sw on any platform is fine by me :)

+1

[MONODA]

I disagree with the OP since that is one of the great things about FOSS and Linux. If the apps are ported then you will be able to use them on any OS meaning more compatibility between OSs and you will still be able to use amarok on mac if you need some proprietary software not ported to linux. also since these apps are free, people use them in win and mac (such as GIMP, firefox, pidgin. I used all of these before moving to linux) and this makes the transition to linux much easier.

[aysiu]

It's not clear who exactly is talking in this quotation, but it's at the tail-end of an article about porting KDE to Windows and Mac (http://lxer.com/module/newswire/lf/view/79007/):
Some of the developers working on the Windows port are Peter Kümmel, Holger Schröder and Christian Ehrlicher and on the Mac side there are Derek Ditch, Alexander Neuendorf, Marijn Kruisselbrink and Tanner Lovelace, just to name a few. There are many more who have contributed in the past that were integral in making these projects a success. All the hard work they have done will have the cumulative effect of exponentially increasing the number of people who get exposed to and use Open Source Software.

I believe that KDE porting their Desktop Environment to Mac and Windows to be a watershed moment for Open Source Software. By and large, people are resistant to change and in all my interactions with strangers, friends and family I have learned creative ways to describe what using Linux is like or how to run it from a liveCD or how to install it on a PC. I have learned to stay away from the word "change" and use the word 'add' instead.

It is much easier to convince someone to try Open Source Software if you describe it as "adding" something to their computer rather than "changing" it. Many who read this do not look at 'changing' their computer with apprehension or fear but we are not in the majority. If "adding" KDE to a Mac or Windows machine gets millions of people who otherwise would not, to try OSS then so be it. I am convinced that once a person tries OSS they will get hooked on it. It is easier than starting smoking. ;-)

From the day I first downloaded Firefox my addiction and/or love affair with OSS has flourished unabated. It started with Firefox and progressed into using only FOSS within two years. Why? Because I chose too. After using it every day and comparing it to proprietary software it was a "no brainer" to switch to Open Source Software entirely. There was no loss in quality of applications, security and functionality on my machine. There was a significant increase in the quality and choice of applications I could use and by switching to Linux my computer became a bank vault compared to whatever it was running Windows. How did all this happen? I started using one program, got hooked and never looked back.

Soon everyone who owns a computer will be able to try and use OSS and all they will have to do is "add" software to their computer. That shouldn't be too hard, people add software to their computers every day, right? So, lets say that 25 to 50 million people who had never tried OSS before, try it because all they have to do is "add" some software to their computers. Those of you who have surfed before will know what I mean when I say this, Your laying on your board and you look out into the ocean and see a bulge in the water and you think to yourself "Is that the next big wave coming in?" The answer is yes, this is the next big wave coming in.

Cheers! I happen to agree with this mystery person's stance. I, too, got hooked on the gateway drug to open source that Firefox is, and that was eventually led me to switching to Ubuntu. Even if people never make the full switch, just convincing people that open source is trustworthy and quality software is good marketing, as they can then make recommendations to their friends who may switch over to an open source operating system eventually.

In the end, would I rather have a Mac user using Camino, Adium, Quicksilver, Thunderbird, NeoOffice, Seashore, Scribus, Cyberduck, and Smultron instead of Safari, iChat, Spotlight, Mail, Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe InDesign, Transmit, and Dreamweaver? Well... yes, I would!

[madjr]

open source != just linux

If I develop an application and want as many people regardless of platform to benefit from it, what's the big deal? My loyalty isn't enslaved to the linux platform, I'm just trying to make a great app. Sometimes porting a great open-source app to Mac is about letting others use it, rather than getting them to use linux.

And lets be honest... Mac's are popular because the OS does everything for the user, the opposite of linux (which hands you the keys). The majority of Apple's base probably has no interest in linux, so why not let them use our software if they aren't going to use linux anyhow?

exactly, mac OS is better everyday, because FOSS devs are also contributing to it.

many of those program are original from linux. So my rant is that linux is not getting credit for it.

[piousp]

Well, thats thw whole point of open source, isnt it? So, are we making Windows better now that you can install KDE4 on it?? Probably, yeah, but for me, thats the whole point.
And, its not like we loose anything if we make Windows or Mac OS better.

[madjr]

I don't understand where this is coming from.

First of all, open source means open and free, which means it can be ported to any OS anyone wants to port it to. You can't restrict open source from being ported; otherwise, how would it be open source?

Secondly, I've used Mac OS X a bit on my wife's Powerbook and then Macbook Pro, and I've found the ported Linux applications to be virtually unusable. Setting up apt-get or fink is no easy task, the repositories are small and mostly outdated, and almost every application requires X11 in order to run (which means extremely slow load times), which is why my wife gave up on OpenOffice. And NeoOffice is only recently starting to gain stability. I believe it's still officially beta software.

Thirdly, most Mac users do not use Linux-ported software or even open source Mac software. I tried to get my wife to use Thunderbird, Camino, Cyberduck, and a host of other open source Mac applications, but she keeps going back to proprietary and Apple. Now she uses Mail, Safari, and Transmit instead.

I doubt you'll find many Mac users loading up their Apple computers with open source software, and if you do... good for them.

i don't want to get into arguments, but even if your wife does prefer the apple offerings, not everyone that needs to use a mac does.

many of them do prefer firefox, Ooo, transmission, etc.

macs without FOSS are not better. Some would not use it at all if not for some FOSS

this what got me thinking:
http://bryceharrington.org/drupal/foss-win-paradox

so don't get me wrong i would love mac users to have FOSS available, use it and contribute back.

the problem is barely contributing back to other platforms, they just seem to take and take.

Mac has more quality free software each day! (thanks to FOSS), mac has good security and core (Thanks to FOSS BSD), mac has a great browser (thanks to the Konqueror initially)

oh and my rant is only to Apple for treating us like poor scum even after taking so much.

i just wanted to state with this post that FOSS has made the transition from windows to mac so much easier (probably easier than to linux, which is kind of sad)

[Superkoop]

...umm, it's a GOOD think that Mac and Windows users get to use OSS...it's the whole point of open standards, everyone (!!!) get's to use and contribute.


Edit: And it's also their good that they aren't required to contribute.

[p_quarles]

oh and my rant is only to Apple for treating us like poor scum even after taking so much.
As long as Apple complies with the licenses of any free software that it uses (and I have never heard allegations to the contrary), then it really doesn't bother me.

As far as I know, the FreeBSD userland and Webkit are the only open source software products that Apple actually distributes. A project like NeoOffice doesn't involve Apple "taking" anything from the Linux/BSD communities -- it's aimed at Apple's users, and ultimately undercuts Microsoft far more than it does Apple. I really doubt Apple cares either way about such products. They certainly haven't shown any interest in
distributing it.

Apple's model is to create software that is locked to its hardware. It would make no sense at all for them to open such projects as iTunes or Garage Band, as these are selling points for their hardware. While it would be great -- I think -- if all software were free-as-in-speech, it's simply not going to happen without some sort of good reason.

[Freddy]

What do you think anyone could do about it, (even though I don't think that many actually care about this issue) do you think that the FOSS developers should stop using GPL as it exits today and instead rewrite it to some kind of propitiatory license? cause GPL allows even Apple themselves to port "our" software to their system, in your opinion they shouldn't be allowed to do this? Thats not free software!

Why is so many concerned about putting Linux on the general public desktops? My desktop runs Ubuntu just fine without my neighbors also using it, if they have chosen to use Windows or OSX it won't destroy my installations of Ubuntu. My tip to you is to choose what you buy, don't buy a ipod if it doesn't work that well with the OS you have chosen to use. Mac users have to think about this why is it so hard for Linux users to do that.

As Linus Torvalds said himself some time ago.


Linux on desktops? Well that's nice but not a concern of mine.

[aysiu]

this what got me thinking:
http://bryceharrington.org/drupal/foss-win-paradox

so don't get me wrong i would love mac users to have FOSS available, use it and contribute back.

the problem is barely contributing back to other platforms, they just seem to take and take.

Mac has more quality free software each day! (thanks to FOSS), mac has good security and core (Thanks to FOSS BSD), mac has a great browser (thanks to the Konqueror initially)

oh and my rant is only to Apple for treating us like poor scum even after taking so much. Interesting read there. I'm a user and not a contributor. I file bug reports and don't send patches. I just take and take from Ubuntu and FOSS, so apparently you would think that I (like Apple) treat (collective) you "like poor scum even after taking so much."

I stand by my own experience. I started using open source applications in Windows, and it made me think of open source as trustworthy and of good quality, so my switch to Linux was a lot easier and possible. Yesterday, at lunch, a teacher at my school told me how she was using Audacity to have students mix sound clips. I smiled, thinking, "Great. Those kids are getting exposed to open source." So when those kids get to college, and one of their computer geek friends says, "Hey, try this Ubuntu 11.04 thing" and these Audacity-exposed kids respond, "Can I still use Audacity on it?" the answer will be a resounding "Yes! Of course!"

Same goes for the FOSS app-using Mac fan whose Macbook Pro breaks, and her economic circumstances are such that she can't afford to buy another Apple computer, and she hates Windows... how much easier it will be for her to buy a cheaper-than-Mac Ubuntu-preinstalled computer and still use the same apps.

[init1]

because we're spending man hours making that APPLE OS better.

And? What's wrong with making an OS better? Just because it's not FOSS doesn't mean it's not worth developing.

[il-luzhin]

Not to be simplistic but apple is out to make money, foss is not.

different economic philosophies = different development strategies

apple ain't porting anytime soon; doesn't seem that odd, or difficult to accept to me.

[madjr]

Interesting read there. I'm a user and not a contributor. I file bug reports and don't send patches. I just take and take from Ubuntu and FOSS, so apparently you would think that I (like Apple) treat (collective) you "like poor scum even after taking so much."

I stand by my own experience. I started using open source applications in Windows, and it made me think of open source as trustworthy and of good quality, so my switch to Linux was a lot easier and possible. Yesterday, at lunch, a teacher at my school told me how she was using Audacity to have students mix sound clips. I smiled, thinking, "Great. Those kids are getting exposed to open source." So when those kids get to college, and one of their computer geek friends says, "Hey, try this Ubuntu 11.04 thing" and these Audacity-exposed kids respond, "Can I still use Audacity on it?" the answer will be a resounding "Yes! Of course!"

Same goes for the FOSS app-using Mac fan whose Macbook Pro breaks, and her economic circumstances are such that she can't afford to buy another Apple computer, and she hates Windows... how much easier it will be for her to buy a cheaper-than-Mac Ubuntu-preinstalled computer and still use the same apps.

if you want to get into arguments fine

nvm i really don't think you got what i said earlier.. :confused:

[Lord Illidan]

Posted from the GNU Philosophy (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

[Matakoo]

As far as I know, the FreeBSD userland and Webkit are the only open source
software products that Apple actually distributes.

Cups too, as far as I remember. Still, Apple does contribute back. Not
necessarily because they want to, but because they have to. Webkit is the prime
example of this. Everyone can get the source to it if they want to, because if Apple
refused to make it available they would be violating the GPL. Webkit is also integrated
in qt4.4 and consequently, in KDE 4.1 - which is one reason why KDE 4.1. can use MacOS X
dashboard widgets if the user choses to. And if I remember correctly, there is a gtk-based
browser under development that uses webkit as well.

As far as other FOSS products such as amarok, gimp, firefox, openoffice and what not goes they do not
make MacOS X neither better nor worse, and they don't make Linux any better or worse either. Why? Because they
are not a part of the OS, even if Linux distros install them by default. Great to have, sure, and makes Linux
more appealing. I don't think they necessarily make Windows or MacOS X more appealing though.

Maybe it's just me, but most Windows and MacOS X users I know are allergic to free programs and seems to take for granted
that free equals low quality. Take the classic example of Gimp vs Photoshop. Yes, Photoshop is the superior program if you are
a professional in the fields of graphics and digital photography. How many people fall into that category though? Compared
to the number of computer users as a whole: very few. And still most people prefer to pirate Photoshop even when
Gimp or something similar would be more than adequate for what they need.

I would say that with the exception of Firefox and OpenOffice, Mac and Windows users are as a rule not interested in FOSS
software since FOSS, in their eyes (assuming they know of alternatives in the first place) means sacrificing features and easy of use
for no-cost software. And why bother with that since they can get the pay-for software free?

Which, I would argue, is one reason why Linux isn't more popular. Linux is free, yes, but it is hard to compete with just that as an
argument given that the proprietary apps running on Windows and/or MacOS X can be had for free as well. Illegal, yes, but in my experience
most people just don't care. I certainly didn't when I used Windows as my main OS and not on my now dead Mac either. Friends and family members do not either, and I somehow doubt we are in the minority.

And that is why I think it's great that FOSS apps can compile and run well on MacOS X and Windows too. Even if just a tiny percentage
chooses to install Scribus, Banshee, OpenOffice, OpenProject, Amarok, Firefox, and what not it may at least cause those few to keep an open mind
about the quality of FOSS in general and Linux as a whole.

Okay, end of rant :)

[Lord Illidan]

I would say that with the exception of Firefox and OpenOffice, Mac and Windows users are as a rule not interested in FOSS
software since FOSS, in their eyes (assuming they know of alternatives in the first place) means sacrificing features and easy of use
for no-cost software. And why bother with that since they can get the pay-for software free?

Which, I would argue, is one reason why Linux isn't more popular. Linux is free, yes, but it is hard to compete with just that as an
argument given that the proprietary apps running on Windows and/or MacOS X can be had for free as well. Illegal, yes, but in my experience
most people just don't care. I certainly didn't when I used Windows as my main OS and not on my now dead Mac either. Friends and family members do not either, and I somehow doubt we are in the minority.

And that is why I think it's great that FOSS apps can compile and run well on MacOS X and Windows too. Even if just a tiny percentage
chooses to install Scribus, Banshee, OpenOffice, OpenProject, Amarok, Firefox, and what not it may at least cause those few to keep an open mind
about the quality of FOSS in general and Linux as a whole.

I've been saying this for a long time, too. It's not that proprietary software is miles better than free software, it's that people automatically assume that free = crap or worse, it is spyware/adware/malware. There are cases where free software is vastly outperformed by proprietary software, but one must also take into consideration the investment into R&D and the size of the bank accounts.

Still, people aren't deterred by the price, as long as they can get it for free - legally or not, they don't care. I see proprietary software being distributed illegally all around me at school.

In many cases, people also don't care if an application is open source or not. They look at the price-tag, and stop there.

I like the fact that OSS software can be used on Windows. I started out by using Firefox and open office on windows..this made the transition to Linux easier.

[Tomatz]

Yeah it annoys me that they rip konquror, call it safari and don't even attempt to port itunes!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[Lord Illidan]

That annoys me too. However, there's choice out there. There's no need to buy an Ipod. The only Ipod I have is a first generation Nano, and it's rockboxed, so I can do much more with it than Apple would let me do. Again, the power of open source at work.

[bruce89]

Cups too, as far as I remember. Still, Apple does contribute back. Not
necessarily because they want to, but because they have to. Webkit is the prime
example of this.

In fact, KHTML is/was LGPL. CUPS's company (ESP) was bought by Apple.

[piousp]

Indeed. Just as an example, my -mac fangirl- sister started to use OSS with firefox. Then, when she could get a copy of MS Office for mac, i installed OOo in her mac. At first she didn't like it, but now she does really prefer OOo over MS Office. For now, she is even using VLC instead of whatever media player mac offer, with her been really happy about the QUALITY of the software!

Does this make her OS X better than linux? Certaintly not, and now she is able to use a linux machine, and find her daily-use-apps in linux too! As far as i can see, thats definately better for linux.

[Tomatz]

That annoys me too. However, there's choice out there. There's no need to buy an Ipod. The only Ipod I have is a first generation Nano, and it's rockboxed, so I can do much more with it than Apple would let me do. Again, the power of open source at work.

I agree :)

But its not the point though.

[Lord Illidan]

I agree :)

But its not the point though.

But Itunes is their software. It's their code, they have a right to keep it on Windows and Mac. No one can force them to do so. The only way you can leverage some power is vote with your wallet.

[Tomatz]

But Itunes is their software. It's their code, they have a right to keep it on Windows and Mac. No one can force them to do so. The only way you can leverage some power is vote with your wallet.

Don't worry the only money apfel have had off me is £50 for a shuffle for my girlfriend.

:lolflag:

[Matakoo]

There are cases where free software is vastly outperformed by proprietary software, but one must also take into consideration the investment into R&D and the size of the bank accounts.

True. And the more specialized the software you need/want is, the more likely that is to happen. Which is why I still need to keep XP around for ONE app...admittedly as specialized as you can get and only running using VirtualBox...


In many cases, people also don't care if an application is open source or not. They look at the price-tag, and stop there.

I'm sort of like that...I don't care about the license as long as the program does what I need it to do. And yes, I have bought closed-source Linux programs (and one was actually included in the price of some hardware. I got Nero for Linux included with my burner).

[Matakoo]

Yeah it annoys me that they rip konquror, call it safari and don't even attempt to port itunes!

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

That annoys me too, but then again. I've never been a fan of iTunes. I think Amarok is so far superior to iTunes it's not even a competition (and works great with my Ipod). It's just annoying that they only attempt to cooperate when they have to.

[Matakoo]

In fact, KHTML is/was LGPL. CUPS's company (ESP) was bought by Apple.

I could have sworn KHTML was GPL and not LGPL? But my memory could be faulty...but yeah, I do remember that the CUPS company was bought by them but as far as I know, Apple can not revoke the GPL/LGPL license of it.

[drascus]

I think if anything porting our software to MAC will mean that more users get exposed to free software and see what its all about. I think getting hung up on price is a problem. We are always talking about our software being Grais or our Developers working for nothing. It think this is an error. Many Free Software Developers are paid well for their efforts. Others are doing it as a hobby in their spare time (for enjoyment). Still others are dedicated to software freedom and truly love writing code. Either way their is some quid pro quo. As far as I tunes porting to Gnu/linux. I don't think you will see it any time soon thankfully. The freedom people have in Gnu/linux makes it hard to impose DRM and you won't get Itunes without DRM.

[jacob01]

its free software why cant it be free to every one, if people want to port it to mac then great thats why it is opensource. Alot of the mac users would never be linux users to begin with because they are drawn to mac for its ease of use and neat features...... last time i checked linux was not a popularity game so it doesn't matter if mac attracts users or not.

Linux is still ahead of mac in many ways, it supports a wider range of hardware, more customizable and is free.....

[Lord Illidan]

its free software why cant it be free to every one, if people want to port it to mac then great thats why it is opensource. Alot of the mac users would never be linux users to begin with because they are drawn to mac for its ease of use and neat features...... last time i checked linux was not a popularity game so it doesn't matter if mac attracts users or not.

Linux is still ahead of mac in many ways, it supports a wider range of hardware, more customizable and is free.....

+1 Linux is not a popularity game. The goal of Linux is not to achieve 100% market share. We would like a more equalized market distribution of course, and equal media attention but there's a place for all OSes out there.

[qazwsx]

For me it was much easier to switch Linux because I was able to continue to use Firefox, OpenOffice, GIMP and much needed multimedia support based on for example ffmpeg (realized that later) etc. I found myself opensourcing my desktop in Windows and swithed when I wanted use even more Open source programs.

Why not?