I wonder why they still write "OS X". Intentional or just due to somebody's lack of attention to detail?
probably CBF updating the page to say macOS
MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
41–50 of 170 posts
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#42Reading this from the new Surface Book I bought today to replace my MacBook Pro...
I'm not sure that is constructive to the topic in any way
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously the over reliance on Github is a systemic risk to the industry.
Is it? Every repo contains the complete history, github crashing tomorrow would be more of an inconvenience than a disaster.
It doesn't contain the bug tracking, the wiki or the project sites. It doesn't include the team organization and access control. It doesn't include the bot integration. And it doesn't include the merging workflow that people are really starting to rely on.
GitHub going down would be a major inconvenience.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#44Long time ago, they used to also publish a bootable ISO of Darwin + all of those OSS packages. They did publish an updated Darwin core / kernel a few releases back, but it seems to be closed again. Too bad, I think someone with some determination could have gotten am hypervisor based container tech running on this. Of course the test would not run, but APIs shims could have made whole software compile (but not link).…
If Apple open sourced all of macOS maybe that would put more pressure on Microsoft to intentionally[1] open source Windows. [1]: It has been open sourced in the past: https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-... http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1030335/leaked-wind...
> [1]: It has been open sourced in the past:
I am really hoping that you were joking.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#45Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#46Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? Every repo contains the complete history, github crashing tomorrow would be more of an inconvenience than a disaster.
It doesn't contain the bug tracking, the wiki or the project sites. It doesn't include the team organization and access control. It doesn't include the bot integration. And it doesn't include the merging workflow that people are really starting to rely on. GitHub going down would be a major inconvenience.
Project sites are already github repos. Bug tracking etc should be backed up (https://backhub.co/), or did we forget how to make backups?
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#48I 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'.
Not really. "iOS" is standard and no resistance has been noted.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 egotist…
> 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?
GitLab. Postgres. Atom. Docker (debatable). I could go on, but to be fair I am a bit of a hoarder of interesting oss.
Re the Linux kernel: isn't it way higher than 2% if you count commercial and industrial usage? Also Android devices.
Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 egotist…
> Don't even say the Linux kernel, that has like what 2% market share?
87% on mobile. Surely majority on servers. Lots in routers etc.
I don't reslly see your point, though. If something is available for free, obviously it won't sell a lot. If that must be your definition of success, it seems you just have a preconcieved notion.
Also, ovviously 99 % of all open source is garbage. But who cares? No one is forcing me to use it all.