open sourcetypes might like Apple (although Slashdot is always filled with anti-Apple vitriol whenever they post a story):
- Apple is viewed as the only real competitor to Microsoft on the desktop. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" feeling applies here.
- For the most part, the Open Source community is comprised of hackers who love seeing a great hack or a paradigm shift in computing. Apple's innovation with Lisa/Macintosh (and before you start shouting at me - yes I know about PARC, but even the people who were there at the time say that Apple did much more than simply steal WIMP from PARC) was such a shift. That Microsoft basically stole the interface for Windows 95 helps to reinforce the first point.
- Finally, yes, Apple isn't an Open Source company. However, they do release products under an open source licence. They also contribute improvements to the GCC compiler. I would imagine this endears them to the community somewhat.
As for the rest of Dave's rant, I fail to see who he's talking about. Most of the open source proponents that rose to fame during the dot-com boom had no problems with working with proprietry companies, and believed that the worlds should co-exist and cooperate. The only person who fits Dave's description is Richard Stallman, who has been around for over twenty years, and isn't going anywhere. I also don't understand the section about how open source
excluded many well-intentioned hard-working developers. Surely, open source is more inclusive than the traditional methods of software development? The only reason I can think of people being excluded is for patent/trademark issues, like with the Mono Project. This has less to do with Open Source, and more a damning indictment on how the software industry abuses patent/trademark law to prevent competition.