I think the move made by Apple should be reversed,
because people are not interested in copying Macs
onto PCs. They are more interested in using the open source part of the code to develop better applications.

I really dont think that this will do much to deter pirates. Windows is fully closed source, and look at how many people pirate that. This is a blind attempt to fix a minor problem, in hopes that it doesnt become a big problem.

Apple could always go back to the PPC chips and I wouldn't mind, I'd be happy, rather than using the stale, legacy, crappy x86 CISC architecture. Unfortunatley, IBM refused to put the time and money into R&D to advance the PPC faster. PPC RISC has far more potential than old fashioned x86 ever has had or will have.

Apple is simply doing what is required of any major company in the modern worldwide market - protecting their intellectual property.

Sure, there's a couple of open source companies making money giving their software away...wait, they pretty much just merged when RH bought JBOSS.

The author will certainly miss his ability to hack OSX. However OSX might not be around at all if other products were left able to make free copies of all its internal mechanisms.

Apple should immediately reverse this rather boneheaded move. Not only have they alienated a large portion of their user base, but it is highly illegal, as it breaches parts of the BSD liscense.

As others have commented on slashdot (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/06/05/17/1453206.shtml), All of the parts of Darwin x86 that have always been open on PowerPC are still open on x86 with the exception of one notable item: xnu (the kernel). Pieces like WebKit, Open Directory, Streaming Server, as well as all the GPL-licensed portions are all still open source! The fact is most developers who use Darwin never even have to touch the kernel. So the fact that they don't have sources to the x86 kernel does not hamper the progress of the majority of Darwin developers. Several major developers in the community have stated that the missing kernel sources were nothing but "barely a blip on our radar".

With the initial Darwin x86 release (on the first Intel Macs), Apple released only certain GPL-licensed portions of Darwin. There was an initial concern that this was all Apple was going to release. As it turns out, though, it was simply a delay due to the fact that Apple has very few people in charge of delivering the sources to the community. As it stands, Apple now releases both PowerPC and x86 Darwin component sources to the community with each release, again with the exception of ONE component: xnu for x86.

And besides all that, can you remember how long ago Apple released their first Intel Mac? That's how long ago this happened. The subject is simply OLD NEWS by now!

This is sensationalist journalism at its best - something I am personally ashamed to say America is getting more and more used to these days. I guess Tom Yager decided it would be better for him to sensationalize the issue to make this non-issue look worse than it really is rather than doing five minutes of real work (research on the subject), and spit out this excuse for an article. If that was his aim, I'd say he hit it square on the mark. Bully to him.

This comes up every once in a while. Last time I remember this article(not THIS article, but the same content) was when Tiger was released and Apple came through eventually, right? People forget that it ALWAYS takes longer to release the source. And why shouldn't it? Anyone who has worked a day of their life in the world of software development knows that the initial version isn't perfect because you NEED to get to market before the other guys. The time spent cleaning up the code (when they don't need to, based on the BSD licence) comes at considerable cost to them. Pay no mind to the author, he's just trying to get some linkage.

Of course the no matter what decision his imperial majesty steve jobs makes, people like monoclast will find away to justify it. If apple switches to Windows Vista next year then I can see monoclast defending that move as "the right thing" its incredible. When will these people ever think for themselves instead of parroting the apple mantra of the day?

monoclast states: "All of the parts of Darwin x86 that have always been open on PowerPC are still open on x86 with the exception of one notable item: xnu (the kernel)."

Er this is the main component of the OS. Besides the closed source GUI the kernel is the only other piece that make OS-X what it is. duh! most of the GNU stuff well duuhh! they cant close source that stuff. Its not theirs to begin with. What's amazing to me is the fact that they put the X86 kernel out in the community. The community points out flaws and sends them fixes then the close it off from the very community that they accepted fixes from. This is why Apple with NEVER get to any meaningful marketshare. Their arrogance is amazing.

monoclast - this is not sensationalist journalism- Apple hasn't had the courage to acknowledge the closing of the source, people were disputing it in all forums.

It's news because Apple dishonestly markets themselves as an "Open source" company - and they're not.

Though this is old new, it is still relevant that Mac users, at least a majority of them, have lost there intrest in Macs because closing the source limits the potential greatly. Windows is closed source and it wasn't designed to be user edited, but Macs were and changing that is like switching day and night.
In response to a previous comment, the mistake Apple made was not putting in an x86 architecture it was using slow 32-bit processors instead of newer better 64-bit processors. I use a 64-bit AMD and I will tell you right now it can easily out perform an Intel that's in any computer, including a Mac.

This move is warranted. Piracy of MacOS X has been very rampant since the move to the Intel CPUs. Thousands of people have been using MacOS X on generic whitebox hardware, despite Apple's best efforts to prevent this from happening. Unlike MSFT, Apple depends on their hardware revenues to subsidise the MacOS X software development effort.

Staying with PPC was not really an option for Apple because IBM/Motorola did not feel it made business sense to invest in high speed PPC CPU chip development.

Apple should be applauded for their support of open source in situations where they can release source code without losing massive amounts of business. The choice here is between Apple remaining supportive of lots of open source software (but not everything since they need to prevent piracy) and not having Apple around at all. Apple customers won't pay more than they do at present for the MacOS X software, but the current OS pricing doesn't nearly cover Apple's software development costs. So there really is a narrow box and Apple has few viable options.

Apple's proprietary hardware can be "pirated" by simply writing software device drivers that fool the rest of the OS into believing the software is running on Apple hardware when it is really running on generic white box hardware. On that, Tom is wrong.

Who cares about OS X? If you value freedom, you'll use free software. Otherwise, enslave yourself to proprietary software --- doesn't make much difference if it's Mac OS X or Windows. Because in the end, the proprietary vendor will lock you in.

I'm not sure the average Mac user cares about Open Source. The appeal of the Mac has always been an entirely integrated system.

Apple allows a bit of choice, but always within certain boundaries. Their control of the hardware is just one aspect of this control.

The benefit of Apple's control is that the system has pretty good quality engineered in. The so-called Out of Box Experience is positive, and the system largely just works.

The downside is that a price premium is on the table. There's also a less expansive list of choices available.

I have background on the IBM iSeries (formerly AS/400), and the business and technological parameters for that system are much the same. IBM sells you an integrated system and everything really does work awfully well. And if it doesn't, you go back to IBM. Just don't complain too much when you see how much they charge you!

Remember the old Mac OS, version 9 and previous? That was closed source and no one seemed to care much then.

It's naive to think that any company with a payroll to meet is going to open source their bread and butter. Apple users are notorious for not upgrading - free (as in beer) is what Apple users are demanding.

In the end the only thing for sure is change is a constent. Apple is moving quikly in many direction to capitalize a groing market share, much to the amysement of Microsoft. They could slip and lose grip.

How can you close source and open source project? Well ask Microsoft to open their OS up and see how much Open Source was used.

But what comes up, usually comes down. Why Apple went with Intel really beats the heck out of me unless they see something we don't. Why not go with AMD at least? And should Apple lock itself out of everything by taking such measure, even if for a shrt while, it could recreate what Microsoft and Apple have done to kill BeOS in the past. I'm sure some folks will pick the PPC structure development until some gant picks up on it and capitalizes on it yet again. Corporate America has too big a stomach and is caught up in a frenzy race where users end up paying.

This is tiring!

Here's the way I see it. There are still older versions of the open sourced kernel out there. That kernel can still get tweaked and will probably become a different fork with an open community of dedicated volunteers who will continue to massage things. Folks will substitute this kernel, reverse engineer things so that it will work properly. In the end, the open source fork of the kernel (which is BSD anyway) will eclipse the closed source kernel in features and performance. Apple's hardware is nothing special and its overpriced. I'm happy with Linux. It does everything that I need it to do from desktop to server. I use several different distributions.

The real piece that Apple really doesn't want to go opensource with is cocoa. The opensource community is hard at work reverse engineering things.

Interesting, Curtis. Would be interesting to see. Basically what I read on the Net is that everyone mainly loves Apple for it's GUI. I thought originally they took allot of the UI from KDE.
Sure people would fork this and start up an open project but the UI really is Apple's Hot point probably.
If Steve Jobs is the reason for that I wish he would create a free alternative.

Uhm, the Mac OS X kernel is *not* BSD -- or at least not BSD alone -- but Mach. See the technical specs at http://images.apple.com/macosx/pdf/MacOSX_UNIX_TB_v2.pdf

Amazing that they're not keeping it open. Are they insane, or just stupid? Of course they should open it back up.

I would like to see the OS X kernel be open. I think it would be a smart marketing move for Apple to do so. I think it would generate a lot of goodwill in the public (and head off more criticisms). Plus they would only benefit from the contributions of others.

Apple would be insane to close source now. Losing the developers associated with open source would be rediculously stupid.

In the few cases that Apple has actually "given back" to open source, it's usually been forced by the license, and almost universally been useless for the open source community; overall, I cannot think of a single useful open source contribution out of Apple.

So, in the end, this doesn't bother me: it's entirely in character for Apple, and xnu won't be missed.

It doesn't make buisness sense for Apple to go close-source even if they are going the Intel way. Most of the advanced features that go in the Mac kernel are either in direct influence from the open source community or port from the open source to close source.