According to the proponents of this myth, Apple has abandoned their open source initiatives as they move to Intel, because they are afraid that, armed with the Darwin source code, pirate 3lit3 haxx0rs will p0wn them and have Mac OS X running on generic PCs. They're wrong, here's why.
Why the Myth was Woven
This myth was woven using the Two Phase Website Ad Ring System. The first cycle of the system is Sensationalist Conflict Creation. Here's how it works:
-
•A columnist happens upon a scrap of non-news
-
•He creates an absurd spin on it using exaggerated, vacuum-based speculation
-
•He writes up a story presenting these wild speculations as an epic battle between good and evil (or enemies)
-
•Incredulous readers flock to click on the website's ads, perpetuating the cycle.
Sensationalist Conflict Creation triggers the Incredulous Inflamed Reader Cycle. Here's how it works:
-
•Readers happen upon a website with a reputable brand, such as InfoWorld, Computerworld, or MacWorld.
-
•The site gives the impression that some degree of research or inside knowledge goes into its articles
The Myth Weavers
Unraveled with Extreme Prejudice
There are two elements to this myth. The first is that Apple has actually closed open source development for its kernel, or plans to do so; the second suggests that the reason for this has something to do with Mac OS X being used by pirates on generic PC hardware.
First off, let's examine whether Apple has plans to close its open source. Apple's Darwin site still provides access to the same kernel source that it always has; nothing has been pulled down. What has not yet been posted is the lower level kernel sources for Intel Macs. 
Yager's coverage of this "news" became a three part epic trilogy, published ad naseum under IDG’s various brands, examining the dire consequences of Apple's non-move. In the first episode, Yager reported that, for new Intel Macs:
Apple still publishes the source code for OS X’s commands and utilities. [...] The source code required to build a customized OS X kernel, however, is gone.
He then characterizes Apple's non-move as the "retreat to a proprietary kernel." With no move, how can one retreat? Yager isn't simply mistaken on this point; he knows he's making up crap. In the same context, he wrote:
Apple says that the state of an OS X-compatible open source x86 Darwin kernel is “in flux."
So truth be told, Yager knew Apple hasn't pulled files or closed anything down. He also knows the reason why Apple hasn't posted it yet, firsthand from his Apple sources. His original May 2006 article resulted in a quick clarification from Apple, but he basically regurgitated the same story again: once for his Enterprise blog, and again for print publication in this month’s InfoWorld.
Yager should also know that such a delay in posting source code updates is not unprecedented; there is a code release lag every time Apple makes major changes to Darwin. That's because open source is something extra Apple does for their developers, not the core of their own development efforts.
Comparing Apple, who does all of their own kernel level design, with Linux, BSD or any other kernel project is disingenuous, because those non-commercial projects are expected to have code available fast and promptly, simply because their developers are distributed in an open community. No outside community is engineering the Darwin kernel.
Yager actually quoted sources at Apple as describing his speculation as giving "a year-old story a fresh coat of paint," and that Yager had "sensationalized it for an audience that wasn’t affected by it." The only real story here is that Apple hasn't released their Intel kernel source yet. That nugget of non-news, exploited for dramatic effect by Yager, was clarified by Mac OS X's product manager, Ernest Prabhakar:
Just to be clear, Tom Yager was speculating about why we have - so far - not released the source code of the kernel for Intel-based Macs. We continue to release all the Darwin sources for our PowerPC systems, and so far have released all the non-kernel Darwin sources for Intel. [...] Yager (and everyone else) certainly has the right to speculate. But please don't confuse speculation with fact.
Who is it that desperately needs access to kernel level source code for Intel Macs? Yager speculates "about groups that value open source in its fullest sense," but can't mention anything specific about who would need to modify and recompile Mac OS X's kernel. Instead, he writes up a teary missive about broken promises and the suggestion that his invented conspiracy is critically important stuff, at one point declaring, "no story is more timely, or more broadly relevant, than this one." Wow.
Elevating non-news to the level of a catastrophic, universal crisis is the bread and butter of online columnists, faced with filling the ever shrinking space between the ads on their corporation's web pages. Unfortunately, in this case, Yager doesn't merely create a tempest in a teapot to keep his job; he also creates a semi-plausible story to feed the second half of this tech myth: that the reason behind all this is the piracy of Mac OS X for use on generic PCs. The idea, of course, is that pirates who want to steal Apple's new operating system need to exploit Apple's open source program. To stop them, Yager guesses, Apple is sealing off access to its kernel source, and along the way is poised to destroy all the helpless, innovative little guys in garages that desperately need to recompile Mac OS X's kernel to spur the innovations needed to herald the advent of the Singularity.
Yager even suggests that the next Steve Jobs is somewhere out there in a garage, waiting for Apple to release their Intel source code. Of course, the real Steve Jobs is not, and has never been, a software engineer, but is rather a product manager. Now, if he'd said the next Steve Wozniak or Hewlett and Packard, I might have wept real tears before realizing that his entire premise was complete crap. But no:
Cracked versions of Mac OS X are already working on generic PCs. Further, getting it to boot has nothing to do with users' recompiling the kernel. Mac OS X is not Linux; to add support for random PC hardware, you don't need to recompile Mac OS X's kernel from source, you simply copy a kernel extension into /System/Library/Extensions.
For anyone unconcerned with stealing Apple's IP, the lack of open source code for the Intel kernel isn't really an issue. The kernel has already been decompiled enough to patch. Scrip kiddies trying to mod the kernel don't need to recompile it, they can simply patch it using the same methods and tools used to crack the firmware on Sony's Playstation.
More Nails in the Coffin
Since stolen, patched-kernel versions of Mac OS X are already available on the Internet, what anti-piracy point would there be for Apple to "close" their Intel kernel source, code that has never been open? It's too late... wait, it's not even necessary, er... It's a completely unrelated, non-issue. Stop the insanity, Tom Yager!
Apple's efforts to stop piracy of Mac OS X hinge largely upon the introduction of new Intel Macs that are so desirable and affordable that most users will chose buy a Mac rather than steal bootleg copies of Mac OS X to fiddle with on their existing hardware. Then again, Apple did tie calls from Rosetta to TPM, and built parts of the system to expect hardware requirements that are not met by a lot of generic PCs. Those efforts have since been bypassed by crackers, resulting in a more complex system that won't work as reliably as a real Mac.
What does any of this have to do with the availability of open source kernel code for Mac OS X? Absolutely nothing.
If InfoWorld's columnists can't find real issues to talk about, why should readers bother seeking their insight?
Next Article:
This Series
| | Comment Preview
Read more about:
Send |
Subscribe |
Del.icio.us |
Digg |
Furl |
Reddit |
Technorati
Click one of the links above to display related articles on this page.
The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth
Friday, June 16, 2006
