That title is clickbaity.
MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
21–30 of 170 posts
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#22I 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'.
OK, but this page is made by Apple.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#23Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
'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'.
OK, but this page is made by Apple.
When you have a name for over a decade, you tend to have it hard coded in a bunch of places...
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#25Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#26no 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…
I can't believe this is a serious comment.
The majority of open source is crap, like 80% of it. People build what they need and forget about it. Often the code has no cohesion to the rest of the project and often it is of poor quality. Not to mention the ego's and lack of sociability of most projects.
Apple didn't become the most valuable company by following that principle. Instead it took the approach of an egotistical maniac who demanded perfection and required that all the pieces fit together as part of an elegant puzzle. No small feat and not really replicated today -- except for Tesla and SpaceX.
If I'm missing something, please name one other company today has has a "hit" product that unanimously loved (aka has insane sales and really high ratings) to the extent of the iPod, iPhone, Model S, etc..
Furthermore, I'd challenge you to name one open source project that can be shipped AS-IS as a product. Don't even say the Linux kernel, that has like what 2% market share?
No doubt the majority of HN folks are sharp but there is a huge lack of emotional intelligence. I've found this at many tech companies except Apple. Even when talking with Apple engineers I find myself talking to another HUMAN who happens to appreciate technology and understands it isn't the be all end all. Its sad to see such a company lose it soul but it was inevitable.
Disclaimer: I'm a kernel developer and contributor.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#27I have been drafting an 'Ideas' post about the following idea, but it's not done yet and this looks like as good a place as any to look for some early feedback. This might not have as much clarity as I'd like.
The general idea is to have a site that can track various projects that release their own copy of GPL (especially, but other licenses as well) software. So Apple ships their version of {bash, etc.}, and so does your router, and someone else's refrigerator. And this site ("GPL Hub?") just links to all the places that are hosting their own version of {bash, etc.}. Maybe it could even show how they've diverged, although that might not be so easy.
Recently it has become very trendy to host all code in one centralized location like GitHub. But GitHub isn't really that great at showing you the "forks graph" anyway. Many companies that ship GPL code have archives like this available on their own websites. This could help increase visibility and give users an easier time finding the source code. I'd love to know how many copies of different GPL projects are out in the wild. Maybe for the companies that don't publicly host their GPL code, someone who makes a successful GPL request could share the code on this same site.
Those are some of the ideas, I'd still love to finish the post sometime but it's a bit too vague for me to say anything concrete yet. Any direction to related works or explanations of why this is a bad (or good) idea would be much appreciated!
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#28Reading 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.
Microsoft gave me one at the end of my internship.
It is ok. It feels really clunky when compared to a MacBook but overall I would give it a thumbs up. My biggest complaint is that it is really back-heavy, so it wants to fall over whenever I sit it on my lap. Also, the docking station has a lot of weird issues (e.g., it will just stop working sometimes if it goes to sleep until I unplug it from the wall).
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#29Any 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.
Seriously the over reliance on Github is a systemic risk to the industry.