# Apple owes FreeBSD



## makkie_messer (Dec 14, 2003)

Apple has borrowed a lot from FreeBSD. How about doing FreeBSD a favor by simply making a version of the standard QuickTime player for FreeBSD 5.1 ? 

It's not that much to ask. A few small changes and a recompile are probably all that's needed. This would be cheap and easy for Apple but it would mean a lot to FreeBSD users.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 14, 2003)

I'm not sure I would say Apple *owes* FreeBSD anything. Apple used 4.3/4.4BSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD elements before they started using FreeBSD. All of these are used under the same type of restrictions and Apple has made good on sharing it's advances with the rest of the BSD community.

Quicktime is not part of that. Quicktime is a proprietary software/format that Apple produces. Even then Apple shared much of it's work openly with MPEG4. Besides, as I recall the needed resources for making a Quicktime player are not restrictive from Apple's end (I have SGIs which I use for both playing and editing/capturing Quicktime content), it is the respective codec producers who set many of the restrictions Apple faces.

Things aren't nearly as easy when working with proprietary software as it is in the open source world. I thought Apple more than made up for any short comings with their lack of a player by providing the source for Darwin Streaming Quicktime server software for free. In the end, Apple can only release what is actually theirs, and is only going to release what helps (or at least doesn't hurt) their business.


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Dec 14, 2003)

all very true, a player is nothing without codecs.


----------



## fryke (Dec 14, 2003)

Racer said: "Things aren't nearly as easy when working with proprietary software as it is in the open source world."

But the opposite is true. ;-) Apple has much more freedom when working with their proprietary code. They decide what to release as source and what not - for which platform, too.

However: If Apple wanted to increase QuickTime's impact in the market, they'd try and make QuickTime available in binary form for more operating systems. However, that wouldn't necessarily help Apple's open source strategy. (They _do_ have one!)

But I hope that Apple really starts to propagate MPEG-4 more. For example, they should urge movie companies to provide trailers as MPEG-4. It's _the_ open standard.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 14, 2003)

fryke said:
			
		

> But the opposite is true. ;-) Apple has much more freedom when working with their proprietary code. They decide what to release as source and what not - for which platform, too.



If only we were talking solely about Apple's code. Like Rhapsody and Mac OS 8/9, other people have their hands in with licenses of their own. Why didn't Apple just release Rhapsody? They couldn't. They had to remove anything that wasn't open source or their own code from that software first.

The number one codec for Quicktime isn't made by Apple, it is made by Sorenson. My SGI can't play Quicktime movies made using Sorenson, but it can play and create Quicktime movies using some of Apple's own (or open license) codecs.

Like I said, proprietary code like Quicktime (and Rhapsody) aren't as easy to work with as open source. I very much doubt that anyone would consider Quicktime without third party codecs worth the trouble of downloading on a Linux or FreeBSD system. 

If Apple can get people to switch to MPEG4, this would all be much easier rather than the couple dozen audio and video codecs that currently come with Quicktime that Apple has no control over.


----------



## makkie_messer (Dec 14, 2003)

What is being suggested is a binary distribution of the QuickTime player for FreeBSD, just like the binary distribution Apple has already made available for Microsoft Windows. Port the QuickTime Player to FreeBSD.

Why should Apple do this for FreeBSD?

Much of OS X is based on FreeBSD. Apple is taking so much from FreeBSD that Apple boasts of incorporating the latest work from FreeBSD on Apple's website here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
where a web-link states that OS X is:
"Based on UNIX Industrial-strength stability, with X11 and FreeBSD 5."

Did you read that? OS X's "Industrial-strength stability" is based on "FreeBSD 5" by Apple's own admission. Where would OS X be without it's "Industrial-strength stability" ?

and if you follow that link you will go this URL:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
where at the top of the web page Apple declares boldly:
"Panther integrates features from state-of-the-art FreeBSD 5"
and brags that users can
"Use the latest commands and libraries from the popular FreeBSD distribution."

OS X's FreeBSD features are highlighted in a very good front-page article at this very website, called "Encoding an iMovie to SVCD", found here:
http://www.macosx.com/content/article.php?cid=38
where the first point in the requirements list is 'OS 10.2 or higher (with "BSD Subsystem" installed)'

Apple took Jordan Hubbard from "The FreeBSD Team" to develop for OS X.

Even OS X's man pages are mostly taken from FreeBSD.

The list goes on and on.

After Apple has taken so much from FreeBSD, I think it would be only fair if Apple provided the FreeBSD community with a QuickTime player. It's not much to ask. I would even do the port for free, if Apple asked me to.

Apple made a QT-player for Microsoft Windows without any problems. Apple gives away the "QuickTime player for Windows" for free. Why not FreeBSD? What's the problem? And don't hand me any non-sense about codecs. Apple owns the QuickTime codec/format, it's theirs to do with what they will. Moreover, If leagal issues about codecs were a problem, Apple wouldn't have given Windows a free QuickTime player. Simply give to FreeBSD users what Apple gave to Windows users.

Apple doesn't have to release any source code for the QuickTime player or source code for codecs, simply make a binary distribution of the QuickTime player available through the FreeBSD "Ports" collection. OpenBSD and NetBSD users will be able to use this "FreeBSD QuickTime player" too, as all BSD's, on the same hardware, are binary compatible. Apple will be paying back the whole BSD community through this nice gesture.

Finally, this would increase traffic to Apple's own website where BSD users would go to use their new QuickTime players to watch movie trailers and, maybe, then buy Apple products. This is in Apple's best interest, from a marketing perspective.

Why would anyone be against increasing the number of people who use Apple products? I say increase Apple's market! Increase the number of QuickTime users!

Go Apple!


----------



## RacerX (Dec 14, 2003)

makkie_messer said:
			
		

> What is being suggested is a binary distribution of the QuickTime player for FreeBSD, just like the binary distribution Apple has already made available for Microsoft Windows. Port the QuickTime Player to FreeBSD.
> 
> Why should Apple do this for FreeBSD?
> 
> ...



And in both ways. Apple returns on it's development. Or do you honestly think it only goes one way?

Also, when you say _Apple took Jordan Hubbard_ are you saying they kidnapped him? He joined Apple freely as I recall.



> What's the problem? And don't hand me any non-sense about codecs. Apple owns the QuickTime codec/format, it's theirs to do with what they will.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MisterMe (Dec 14, 2003)

makkie_messer said:
			
		

> What is being suggested is a binary distribution of the QuickTime player for FreeBSD, just like the binary distribution Apple has already made available for Microsoft Windows. Port the QuickTime Player to FreeBSD.
> 
> ....


You miss a very important fact about the nature of UNIX, including FreeBSD. BSD is cross-platform. As such, software is distributed as source code or make files rather than binary code.


----------



## Ripcord (Dec 15, 2003)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> You miss a very important fact about the nature of UNIX, including FreeBSD. BSD is cross-platform. As such, software is distributed as source code or make files rather than binary code.



Well, programs are distributed as source code just as it is for Linux or other platforms.  In source code if it's allowed by the authors, in binary form if that's requested (or if someone gets around to building binary versions and "distributing" them)

There is DEFINITELY software for BSD that is distributed as binary-only.  Any commercial app, for example.

No particular software vendor has to write cross-platform code, anyway.  Just because I write code for BSD on PowerPC doesn't mean it's going to compile on Sparc or Intel without tweaks...


----------



## Arden (Dec 15, 2003)

FreeBSD is the technology that Apple has utilized to make their commercial product.  The fact that some people use it by itself is beside the point.  It would be like saying car companies owe the inventor of the combustion engine and should repay him.  The combustion engine is just a piece of technology other companies use in their product.  It is the engine of cars, just like FreeBSD is the engine of OS X.

Apple also receives millions of hits per day to their website.  They have one of the best places to find movie trailers, leading many Windows users there for that sole purpose.  They don't need the hits of a few extra FreeBSD users.


----------



## MisterMe (Dec 15, 2003)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> Well, programs are distributed as source code just as it is for Linux or other platforms.  In source code if it's allowed by the authors, in binary form if that's requested (or if someone gets around to building binary versions and "distributing" them)
> 
> There is DEFINITELY software for BSD that is distributed as binary-only.  Any commercial app, for example.
> 
> No particular software vendor has to write cross-platform code, anyway.  Just because I write code for BSD on PowerPC doesn't mean it's going to compile on Sparc or Intel without tweaks...


Commercial application software for UNIX tends to be very expensive. At those prices, the vendor has the incentive to produce software for such a small market. QuickTime is system software, not application software. Non-Macintosh distributions require a substantial fraction of the MacOS to be ported to the target platform. That is a very costly endeavor. The only compensationn that Apple receives is $29 for the professional version of the QuickTime player from the few users who chose to pay it. Bottomline: It ain't gonna happen.


----------



## ApeintheShell (Dec 16, 2003)

What good is market share if new users *might* buy your products?

iTunes was ported to Windows to sell iPods.

Quicktime player is free, but you get more with Quicktime Pro.

Would you also like Appleworks to be ported to FreeBSD?
 I'm sure Apple will have the entire bsd community at their feet begging for Appleworks 8! 

Bias aside, X-racer has more knowledge on this subject, but i do know that porting an application to another platform doesn't always increase marketshare.


----------



## Ripcord (Dec 16, 2003)

ApeintheShell said:
			
		

> Quicktime player is free, but you get more with Quicktime Pro.
> 
> Would you also like Appleworks to be ported to FreeBSD?
> I'm sure Apple will have the entire bsd community at their feet begging for Appleworks 8!



Quicktime actually exists to promote the Quicktime technology.  Without a wide variety of Quicktime users, there'd be no motivation for content producers to buy Quicktime authoring products (like, but not limited to Quicktime Pro), Quicktime servers, license Quicktime technology, etc.  Providing a free Quicktime player helps provide market share.

...Which actually is the best reason to port Quicktime player to BSD.  Additional untapped marketshare.  However, I think it would be an incredibly difficult sell inside Apple considering the resources required and potential payoff.  BSD isn't a particularly feasible platform for a desktop-oriented app like this - it has an incredibly small user base outside of the computer room - only a very small portion of the already small BSD segment are desktop users who would even WANT a Quicktime player.  But it's a chicken-and-egg problem - how do you get the app developers without users, how do you get users without the apps (Apple might know a thing or two about this).

Linux, on the other hand, is becoming a more and more attractive platform to develop for (however, though it's becoming more mature and more popular on the desktop, it's still an **incredible** kludge to develop desktop apps for).  I'd expect to see a Linux version long before a BSD version.  Of course, once a Linux version is done, the BSD port isn't too far of a cry (the really difficult stuff is the GUI handling stuff.  At that point Linux and most BSD platforms are close enough that it's not nearly as big an investment to port)


----------



## Pengu (Dec 16, 2003)

You guys know there is an opensource project to make a quicktime compatible player for linux right? search on sourceforge.net


----------



## Powermaster (Dec 16, 2003)

It would help apple to make a quicktime for freebsd hence the users would then be using a Apple Product.


----------



## Arden (Dec 16, 2003)

How many devoted FreeBSD users are there out there, anyway?  I can't see there being a lot; I can't see a Quicktime Player for FreeBSD bringing droves of new people to the market.

Read my post above, if you missed it the first time around.  That should set it straight.


----------



## Pengu (Dec 16, 2003)

How does this help apple? the apple version is not necessarily going to provide any better functionality than the open version. As much as i love apple products, look at Quicktime for Windows. you have to admit, its pretty crappy.


----------



## btoneill (Dec 16, 2003)

makkie_messer said:
			
		

> Apple took Jordan Hubbard from "The FreeBSD Team" to develop for OS X.



You really need to get your facts straight. Jordy went to Apple and said "I'd love to work on OS X, it's amazing." and Apple said "sure, here's a job, we'll pay you to work on the OSS portions of OS X and work with the FreeBSD community to help with information sharing". Jordy started falling in love with OS X from the first beta he got, and the love kept growing.

As for giving back to the community, I think Apple has given a great deal back, and gives back more all the time. You seem to have this idea that Apple stole all this stuff that the FreeBSD team wrote from scratch, well, alot of it got into FreeBSD because it came from BSDlite, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or even *cringe* Linux. Do you see the NetBSD people complaing that the FreeBSD team should port FreeBSD-ports project to NetBSD because they are using some NetBSD code? Do you see the OpenBSD folks complaining (ok, bad example, they always complain about something...). Oh wait, NFS/NIS, that was created by Sun, maybe FreeBSD people need to start porting all their stuff to Solaris... 

As for the whole Quicktime issue, it won't happen. There are too many issues to deal with, including licensing rights. If enough FreeBSD users were willing to pay for Quicktime Pro to pay for it's development, I'm sure Apple would love to port it, and work out the licensing rights (easy to work them out when you can pay for it), but, most FreeBSD users who would be using Quicktime are cheap.

Brian


----------



## RacerX (Dec 16, 2003)

Powermaster said:
			
		

> It would help apple to make a quicktime for freebsd hence the users would then be using a Apple Product.



Why use an Apple product just because it is an Apple product? Apple makes Sherlock, I use Watson. Apple makes Safari, I use OmniWeb. Apple makes iPhoto, I use Curator. Apple makes Preview, I use Acrobat.

I use the product I like the most, not the product that Apple puts out.

On the other hand, I've been happy with TextEdit (and AppleWorks for some things), Mail, Address Book and iTunes. And I still use a Newton PDA.

It is cool that Apple makes some great products, but just because Apple makes a product doesn't make it the only choice or the best choice.


----------



## Krisneph (Dec 17, 2003)

Well guys I don't know much on this subject, but the best codec out there seems to be 3vix. Just wanted to point that out. I know that it's not included with Quicktime but the newest version will play on QT 6 with out having to dowload the codec, isn't that cool. Please don't rip on me kinda clue less here!


----------



## Randman (Dec 17, 2003)

My question is: Why? Apple's under no obligation to do favors if it doesn't benefit the company any. I've spent lots of $$$ and time on Apple products and the company could do me a favor by getting me a top-of-the-line G5 with cinema screen and a bag of Funyuns, but I don't expect it to happen.


----------



## makkie_messer (Dec 17, 2003)

prior poster wrote:
"How many devoted FreeBSD users are there out there, anyway? I can't see there being a lot..."

prior poster wrote:
"BSD isn't a particularly feasible platform for a desktop-oriented app like this - it has an incredibly small user base..."

////////////////////////////////////

Surprise! If you use "OS X", you are a FreeBSD user! 

For Apple's sake, you had better hope the number of BSD users grows, even if its only by the sale of Apple's "OS X".

Some of you people are arguing against supporting your own team. If Apple is like this inside their own company it would certainly explain the stock price.

Apple is constantly taking new ideas and software from FreeBSD, as I've already pointed out. Every single one of you should be telling the world how great FreeBSD is, because what's good for FreeBSD is good for Apple. 

I would like to see more evidence that the reverse is also true, in the form of a QuickTime Player.

It's not much to ask for.

footnote: prior poster mentioned the 3ivx codec from http://www.3ivx.com


----------



## Arden (Dec 17, 2003)

Surprise!  FreeBSD provides the basis for OS X while it also has a number of technologies stacked on top.  Just try using QT Player while booted into single-user mode, for example.  I think the issue here is that you want QT ported to the standalone version(s?) of FreeBSD, which OS X _isn't_, and the number of people who use it as such can't be great.

Again, with the cars: FreeBSD is the engine powering the automobile of OS X.  The inventor(s) of the combustion engine certainly contributed quite a bit to the automotive industry (to say the least), but that does not mean that Ford, GMC, Toyota, etc. "owe" them anything.  They shouldn't turn around and give the engine's inventors wind shield wipers, for example.  (This analogy is slightly flawed in that no one uses combustion engines by themselves, while people do use FreeBSD by itself, but the point stands.)


----------



## Pengu (Dec 17, 2003)

Well said Arden.


----------



## Arden (Dec 17, 2003)

Tyvm.


----------



## btoneill (Dec 17, 2003)

OS X is based alot on FreeBSD, but it's not FreeBSD, saying "if you use OS X you're a FreeBSD user" is just plain wrong. FreeBSD uses a monolithic kernel, OS X uses a Mach based kernel. There are some _major_ differences in the two. FreeBSD bases it core system/drivers on C code, OS X bases theirs on Objective C. There is a major difference in the design between C and Objective C. 

The argument you're making is the same as saying "if you use FreeBSD you're a BSDlite 4.4 user".  Acura built the RSX on the Civic chassis, does that mean if you drive an Acura RSX you're really driving a Civic?

Brian


----------



## RacerX (Dec 17, 2003)

makkie_messer said:
			
		

> Surprise! If you use "OS X", you are a FreeBSD user!



No , you would be a Darwin user. Darwin is a derivative of Rhapsody. Rhapsody used elements of 4.3/4.4BSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD on top of Mach. Apple has just thrown FreeBSD into that mix as of Darwin.

While nice for all concerned, still far from Mac OS X being FreeBSD, or _Mac OS X users_ being _FreeBSD users_. Considering the heritage, a more factually correct statement might be _Mac OS X users are BSD users_, but that ignores the fact that both Darwin and FreeBSD use Mach which was not originally part of BSD.

On the other hand, the idea of using Mach with BSD was NeXT's idea long before FreeBSD was started using the same concept.

In 1985 Avie Tevanian was a grad student at CMU working on the original Mach project when he met Steve Jobs for the first time. By 1988 NeXT had developed an operating system based on 4.3BSD running on top of Avie's Mach (five years before FreeBSD was started).

It sure seems like FreeBSD owes NeXT (which is now Apple) the concept which lead to it.



> Some of you people are arguing against supporting your own team.



I have pointed out the facts of _"why"_. I would love if Apple did made Quicktime for FreeBSD. I would love if they did it for Darwin.

But then again, I would love if a replacement for X windows was finally developed. That, in the end, is what we are really talking about isn't it? An X version of Quicktime. X is so hacked at this point that it should be completely replaced. The fact that it is the foundation of so much of Unix based computing is scary. Motif is better, maybe even GNUstep would be a good alternative, but writing for X should be a task left to those who hacked it together in the first place.

So would you be happy if Apple made Quicktime for CDE on FreeBSD? That at least would be a semi realistic possibility. And would you mind if it only had the codecs which Apple had complete control over? Again, that would be realistic as Apple paying to expand licensing for all of them for a free product that doesn't help sell hardware definitely isn't.

And a final point on the _team_ aspect: Are you running Darwin? And if you aren't, why not? Join the team. FreeBSD has borrowed from Darwin ever since Apple first released it in 1999.



I guess in a way, if you are using FreeBSD you are a Darwin user.


----------



## btoneill (Dec 17, 2003)

> but that ignores the fact that both Darwin and FreeBSD use Mach which was not originally part of BSD.



FreeBSD is not Mach based, it's a monolithic kernel. OS X is Mach based, NeXTStep is Mach based, Mach 10 was Mach based, GNU Hurd is Mach based, FreeBSD is no where close.

Brian


----------



## RacerX (Dec 17, 2003)

btoneill said:
			
		

> FreeBSD is not Mach based, it's a monolithic kernel. OS X is Mach based, NeXTStep is Mach based, Mach 10 was Mach based, GNU Hurd is Mach based, FreeBSD is no where close.



I was under the impression that the kernel used by FreeBSD was a modified version of what started out it's developmental life as Mach (primarily for it's memory management features as I recall). I may have been mistaken, but my studies of FreeBSD lead to that conclusion.


----------



## fryke (Dec 17, 2003)

From some other place...


```
> Is freeBSD on the mach kernel these days? Strange I see no mention of it
> on there web site.

No, it doesn't.

FreeBSD does use a radically changed Mach VM subsystem, though.

> There are a lot of other cute ideas behind Mach as well, but the userland
> demons is the main one.

Indeed, such as kernel stacking.  MacOS X, for example, stacks a
FreeBSD-like kernel on top of the Mach one, which allows it to use
the FreeBSD code base for a lot of the userland, and especially
network layer, functionality.
```

Btw.: It's "its developmental life", not "it's developmental life", RacerX. (Yes, I've got some teacher genes in my blood.) ;-)


----------



## RacerX (Dec 17, 2003)

fryke said:
			
		

> Btw.: It's "its developmental life", not "it's developmental life", RacerX. (Yes, I've got some teacher genes in my blood.) ;-)



I'll forever be a "C" student.


----------



## btoneill (Dec 17, 2003)

The inital FreeBSD kernel was built from 386BSD. Infact the original FreeBSD was not much more then a patched 386BSD along with some things brought in from the NetBSD project. There are some design elements from Mach in the current FreeBSD kernel, but that by no means makes it a Mach kernel. 

The entire way the system works between a monolithic kernel and a Mach (which uses a microkernel) system works is completely different. In a monolithic kernel a very large portion of the system functionality is handled in the kernel, which is basically one large program that handles everything, hardware access, memory managment, file i/o, scheduling, networking, etc. In a microkernel based syste, the kernel is really small, and handles only very general things such as controlling hardware access, it uses seperate applications to handle the rest. In a Mach system, you have a microkernel that uses message passing to control communication between seperate processes that handle functionaity such as network stacks, filesystems, etc.

Brian


----------



## MisterMe (Dec 17, 2003)

RacerX said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> But then again, I would love if a replacement for X windows was finally developed. That, in the end, is what we are really talking about isn't it? An X version of Quicktime. X is so hacked at this point that it should be completely replaced. The fact that it is the foundation of so much of Unix based computing is scary. Motif is better, maybe even GNUstep would be a good alternative, but writing for X should be a task left to those who hacked it together in the first place.
> 
> ...


X is the X Windowing System. Motif is a CDE-compliant windows manager from the Open Group. Motif requires X. You can learn more 
here. Read and be wise.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 17, 2003)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> X is the X Windowing System. Motif is a CDE-compliant windows manager from the Open Group. Motif requires X. You can learn more
> here. Read and be wise.



Will I doubt that you could bring much to the discussion as I know about the interdependence of Motif and X. It comes from years of working with and setting up such systems (I currently have 5 Motif based UNIX systems here at home).

The question here is what would Apple be writing to. I have Quicktime on my SGIs right now.

You did have a point, right?

Reread and be wise.


----------



## RacerX (Dec 17, 2003)

btoneill said:
			
		

> There are some design elements from Mach in the current FreeBSD kernel, but that by no means makes it a Mach kernel.
> 
> -and-
> 
> ...FreeBSD is no where close.



But it does refute your original _no where close_ statement. I would say it is _some_ where close by what you have posted. Maybe not a direct use of Mach itself, but you provided enough to show they are not completely disconnected.

Thanks.


----------



## fryke (Dec 17, 2003)

Neither do have anything directly to do with the topic at hand, though. ;-) Please don't let this thread escalate into an "I know more about several flavours of UN*X than you do" flame.

The original statement was that Apple owes FreeBSD and that Apple should pay in QuickTime. However: Apple pays in source code just as the license states. Therefore, I'd say, the thread is solved. ;-)


----------



## btoneill (Dec 17, 2003)

fryke said:
			
		

> Neither do have anything directly to do with the topic at hand, though. ;-) Please don't let this thread escalate into an "I know more about several flavours of UN*X than you do" flame.



If we move the thread to the UNIX forum can we continue the "I know more about several flavors of UNIX than you do flame"? 

Brian


----------



## Ripcord (Dec 17, 2003)

fryke said:
			
		

> From some other place...
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



oooh, getting schooled on your English by the Swiss!  Now that's bad =)


----------



## Pengu (Dec 17, 2003)

Because the americans have done so well with english on their own..


----------



## Randman (Dec 17, 2003)

Crikey mate, you should be happier than Larry that we Yanks bring our FLAVOR of inglisch to y'all (ahhs-sees). Word, Ace.


----------



## Pengu (Dec 17, 2003)

But why do you need different spellings? I mean. OK, if you're all illiterate hicks, then fair enough. we'll allow you things like color, and apologize. But for gods sake, just admit that you don't know how it's supposed to be spelt.


----------



## Randman (Dec 17, 2003)

Just because we don't bow to the Queen anymore, doesn't mean we owe y'all anything. Besides, what's up with footy and gridiron? Talk about inventing words.
  OK, to keep on thread, I think Apple should port an (Ozzy) version of QT with just a  big play button so it's not too technical.

Simplicity. Because some Australians get really confused by new words.


----------



## Ripcord (Dec 17, 2003)

Pengu said:
			
		

> But why do you need different spellings? I mean. OK, if you're all illiterate hicks, then fair enough. we'll allow you things like color, and apologize. But for gods sake, just admit that you don't know how it's supposed to be spelt.



That's "spelled".  There is no -t suffix.  Oh wait, this is English, the language of contradictory grammar and spelling rules.

Of course, that's why we speak "'merican"

Gallagher's diatribe on "-ough" words was one of my favorites.

I think this thread was about something else at one point, what was it again?


----------



## Pengu (Dec 18, 2003)

> Simplicity. Because some Australians get really confused by new words.


So it's on to abuse and slander now is it?
How about this:
Simplicity. Because no Yankee ***** Doodle can see that they are the most backwards country in the world. Every other major country understands how the metric system works. Yanks just ***** it all up and blow up multi-billion dollar space craft because they can't work out how to multiply something by ten or one hundred, or a thousand.

Or how about this:
Idiocy. Because every yank thinks they are the dogs *****, and every other country should be like them, and conform to what they think is right.

As for the rest.


> what's up with footy and gridiron? Talk about inventing words.


A) "footy" is a slang term, or nickname for Football, which you ***** are all fascinated with, whatever code it may be.
B) while the game gridiron does relate to an australian only game, so what? I made no complaint about making up NEW words. new words are made up whenever a new product is created/patented.

My issue is that you mis-spell words, and then try to pass them off as meaning the same thing. eg:
"their" means something completely different to "there"
by the same rule, "color" should mean something different to "colour". And since "colour" is the english (and correct) version, and has been around for many hundreds, if not thousands of years longer than the american spelling, "color" is in fact just a typo that every one of you stupid ***** makes whenever you write/type it.

So, given the fact that you couldn't even comprehend the message I wrote, and completely missed the point, why is it that WE need a simplified version of QuickTime?

And while we're throwing out slander, don't try to make Australia and/or Australians sound simple/stupid/etc, while you still spend millions of dollars a year on ***** like Jerry Springer, Ricki Lake and Oprah. And hey, who can forget the only country claiming to be democratic, ***** ***** ***** ***** [completely off-topic].

This will quite likely get edited, but I don't really give two *****. The admins are obviously quite happy to turn a blind eye when it suits them, so why should i expect any different when I happen to voice a different opinion?


----------



## fryke (Dec 18, 2003)

Your post wasn't edited because you've stated a 'different opinion', but because you completely ignored the board rules about swearing (for one thing) and have tried to turn a thread about something completely different into a flame-thread about different spellings in different versions of the English language.

Some of your arguments may be quite good, actually, but it doesn't matter. Stay away from flaming, pengu. And if you're getting angry, take a seat in the 'Café' forum and cool down. ;-)

And may I remind you that the beginning of all this (which was my comment about "its" and "it's") was just about a common mix-up. Nothing racist or anything. (And I think it's important that people learn to use "its" and "it's" in the right places...)


----------



## RacerX (Dec 18, 2003)

How did this have anything to do with what countries Fryke and I are from? 

I can't spell, oh well. Laugh it off and move on.


----------



## Ripcord (Dec 18, 2003)

So back to BSD/Quicktime/etc...

If Linux starts to gain market share on the desktop, which it looks like it may finally be poised to do in 2004 (especially on corporate desktops), how long do you think it will be before Apple decide to port the Quicktime player to Linux?  What do you think the requirements will be?  5% market share?  10?

As I said, once this port is finished it's much much easier to envision Quicktime being ported to other *nixes, though I'd say Apple would most likely consider it completely not worth the effort even at that point to port to, say, Solaris, BSD, AIX, etc.  There's just way too small a number of users on each platform that might want to use Quicktime, without much indication that that will change (I could see Irix, possibly, just because of the number of high-end graphic design folks using it...  Though that market is slowly disappearing and being replaced with Windows (if users stick with SGI)).


----------

