Any thoughts on why they wouldn't have released this under a Github repo?
[deleted]
MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
11–20 of 170 posts
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#12Heh emacs-22.1. Wonder where that's used. Scripting in elisp?
It was the default editor of the Apple (NeXT) Darwin UNIX distribution. Given how much effort they have put in this list in the last 15 years, I guess it just wasn't curated much unless legal said to do so.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#13no USBAudio? Again? So much for open source
No IO80211Controller (the bane of all Hackintosh developers...) either, but not surprising since Apple are probably only open-sourcing code that they are legally obligated to by license, or for which they feel the release of "doesn't negatively affect their core philosophy and business model", to use a vague yet suitable phrase that I've heard of as justification for other source releases.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#14Heh emacs-22.1. Wonder where that's used. Scripting in elisp?
emacs is distributed with the OS, so the GPL requires Apple to make the emacs source available. (Even if they haven't changed it.)
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#15Reading this from the new Surface Book I bought today to replace my MacBook Pro...
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#16Reading this from the new Surface Book I bought today to replace my MacBook Pro...
How do you like the Surface Book? I'm very tempted to buy one.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#17no USBAudio? Again? So much for open source
Either they don't want to release it or they can't (a third-party contract/NDA), at least right now. Open sourcing is often seen by big-businesses as potentially "helping" competitors undermine, replicate, sue, make interoperable wares which may threaten the "Golden Goose." It sucks, but that's the situation... lawyers can't force them to release other code unless they're caught TiVoizing some GPL 3 code or something similar.
You'd think Apple would want to invent the next cool kids bandwagon, maybe invite some community goodwill and crowdsource maybe some new features like fixing time synchronization to have a high-precision ability or working on another actual replacement for HFS+, or adding Windows compatibility. Maybe developer pressure could sway them, and wouldn't it be a good PR move to eventually relent after a long, drawn-out public debate which buys some time for the Apple Car or whatever else is cooking next to be readied? Ive and Cook have massive shoes to fill, which they and the Apple team helped fill, but many people don't think that right now, at least not yet.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#18I wonder why they still write "OS X". Intentional or just due to somebody's lack of attention to detail?
'macOS' is just too much of an affectation to ask for in styling capitalization. You'll notice a lot of people resisting it, defiantly writing 'MacOS'.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#19Any thoughts on why they wouldn't have released this under a Github repo?
Because not all open source software has to be distributed via GitHub.
Think about what happened to SourceForge, and be glad that the Internet hasn't become totally centralised around a few major websites yet.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#20no USBAudio? Again? So much for open source
Either they don't want to release it or they can't (a third-party contract/NDA), at least right now. Open sourcing is often seen by big-businesses as potentially "helping" competitors undermine, replicate, sue, make interoperable wares which may threaten the "Golden Goose." It sucks, but that's the situation... lawyers can't force them to release other code unless they're caught TiVoizing some GPL 3 code or something…
They are working on APFS to replace HFS+ and sierra ships a beta already, at least :)