Who are the "enemies" of open source "?

Who are the "enemies" of open source "? -- Linux general technology-Linux technology and application information. For details, refer to the following section. Author: Ridge migration

Open-source software is always a topic, let alone Apple and Microsoft.

At the end of last week's OSCON 2008, Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu Linux, proposed that the Linux desktop operating system should surpass Mac OS to become the second largest desktop operating system within two years, considering the performance and development momentum of the previous Linux desktop operating system, we have reason to believe that this goal can be achieved. According to my own predictions, when Linux has a market share of 4-5% or more, it will become the second largest desktop operating system. When it reaches the market share of 10%, currently, issues that restrict the popularity of Desktop Linux, such as poor hardware and software compatibility and insufficient commercial application software support, can be solved substantially. The Desktop Linux application and the popular "laying hens paradox" can also be solved. In this way, Linux can leave Apple's mac OS far behind, to compete with Microsoft's Windows desktop implementation chamber, and the pattern of the software industry has also undergone major changes. Over the years, our country has been committed to promoting Desktop Linux applications and popularization, as well as the promise of domestic platforms.

I have had many contacts and exchanges with Mark Shuttleworth, the world's first commercial astronaut, and I also appreciate Ubuntu's philosophy. At the meeting, he proposed that apple, rather than Microsoft, is the real competitor of Linux. This is an interesting proposition. In the open-source circle, BSD and Linux are two main camps. Some people in BSD also make unfriendly remarks on open-source software on different occasions. Apple's MAC OS is developed based on BSD. From the perspective of open source, Apple and Microsoft are at the opposite of open source to a certain extent (Microsoft is currently trying to change its relationship with open source ). However, from another perspective, Apple developed using open-source software (its mac OS is based on BSD), but its contribution to open-source software is basically not. The virtues of China's traditional culture tell us that drinking water doesn't forget to dig wells and drinking water and thinking sources. Technically, Apple is not doing well in this respect. In a radical statement: "apple is the enemy of Open Source !"

Apple's software has a good customer experience and is attractive to some extent. It can still occupy a certain market share under Microsoft's Windows squeeze, and has a group of stable Fans, this is what we see. Apple's software is basically "Private software", but most of Apple's software is developed based on open-source software. The number of software that Apple has is based on open source software is unknown.

There is a question: what license agreement is Apple's Open Source Software Based on? If the open-source software based on is similar to BSD and other broader open-source license protocols and does not need to open the source code that has been modified or improved, we will not be able to open the source code. If the open-source software based on GPL and other requirements need to open-source protocols that can be modified, Apple violates the requirements of the license agreement, this is a serious problem.

Apple is a hardware-selling company. With a complete software strategy, Apple attaches the software to its hardware platform to obtain higher profits than the general PC. Apple's business model: Software + hardware. Hardware is actually just a form of expression, and its software is fundamental and soul. Without such software, Apple's hardware will be worthless. To control users for a long time, Apple has adopted some shameful technical means, such as chip encryption and Software Encryption, so that Apple's machines cannot run other OS. This is a binding; more and more proprietary file formats and DRM technologies are adopted by Apple on Mac platforms, which are not recognized by the open-source software industry. The release of GPL V3 should aim to sanction and constrain behaviors similar to Apple.

In contrast, although many of Google's products (mainly services) are built based on open source, he hasn't made public or fed back more code to the open-source community (at least the open-source games currently allow this), but he has worked with the open-source community in many ways.

I don't want Apple to be the enemy of open source. After all, Apple is also the beneficiary of open source software. When Microsoft sought more cooperation with open-source software, I hoped Apple could open up and become a positive representative of its success based on open-source software.