Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

opensource.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 170 posts

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#141

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

yarrel wrote: post #40
flukus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't the just point to the gnu repo?

No. They're distributing the binaries, so they have to provide the source code to users of the binaries on request. Publishing it like this satisfies that requirement.

I think you're mixing up the two options that GPL provides. My understanding is that you can either limit your distribution of source to the same parties to which you provide binaries (by "accompanying" the binary with the source), or you can require a request, but you must accept such requests from everyone.

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#142

Post by duaneb »

astrodust wrote: post #56
doomlaser wrote: post #18

Earlier 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'.

Traditionally "Mac OS" -> "[Mac] OS X" -> "macOS" It was often compacted to MacOS for various reasons, like brevity, keyword searchability and tagging.

I dunno, it's hard to get better search ability than what we had with "osx". Among other things, there are a lot of code bases with Mac OS 9 code hanging around in directories named "macos".

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#143

Post by duaneb »

pjmlp wrote: post #75
__david__ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's included so the there's a nice editor in Terminal by default (yes, I'm just kidding, I know vim is there). It's so old because it's the last version of Emacs released under version 2 of the gpl (and Apple hates version 3). It's the same reason the default Bash is so old.

> Apple hates version 3 Google as well.

As does any corporation with software distribution and a breathing legal team.

If you want your code to be usable by people who don't know what "fsf" stands for, don't use gpl3.

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#145

Post by tedmiston »

vacri wrote: post #65
tedmiston wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought it was pretty clear to say "os ecks" myself, but I've heard internally / correctly people say "oh es ten". It's hard to break the habit after 5+ years though.

It was never really meant to be "OS 10", despite what the 'correct way' to say it was. Pure marketing. If it was really meant to be "OS 10", then they wouldn't have versions like "OS X 10.6", they'd just have "OS X.6" or "OS X.VI". How many people do you hear saying "OS ten ten point six"?

I've heard employees try to avoid using the dot notation when they speak in favor of just saying the codename.

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#146

Post by pjmlp »

duaneb wrote: post #143
pjmlp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple hates version 3 Google as well.

As does any corporation with software distribution and a breathing legal team. If you want your code to be usable by people who don't know what "fsf" stands for, don't use gpl3.

Having had to gather licenses for such legal teams, in corporations that never contributed a single comma change to any of the code they take for free, I bet in around 10 years FOSS advocates will start to miss the GPL.

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#147

Post by pjmlp »

geon wrote: post #50
ta12345 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 87% on mobile.

Using Java and a subset of POSIX APIs that make it irrelevant which kernel Android is actually using, to anyone but driver writers.

Google likes this so much that Brillo has even less layers and Fuchsia is being built with their own inhouse micro-kernel.

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#148

Post by pjmlp »

MaxfordAndSons wrote: post #49
ta12345 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I could have an Android device using another kernel and the majority of PlayStore apps wouldn't notice.

For the NDK ones, using the set of official APIs would be also enough.

The only ones that would fail, would be the ones that try to bend the rules of official APIs.

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#149

Post by pjmlp »

toyg wrote: post #115
throwaway4891a wrote: post #17

Earlier 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…

> You'd think Apple would want to invent the next cool kids bandwagon They don't care. Objective #1 is selling more iDevices. Objective #2 is selling more iDevices. Objective #3 is selling more iDevices. Everything else is a mean to that end. Take Swift: it only exists to make it easier to build iOS apps, so that they can sell more iDevices. APFS is being introduced so that flash-based systems can work better, so tha…

Outside of the UNIX loving geeks, there are many of us that find lots of macOS architecture stack cool.

Re: MacOS 10.12 Open Source Components

#150

Post by rimantas »

astrodust wrote: post #56
doomlaser wrote: post #18

Earlier 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'.

Traditionally "Mac OS" -> "[Mac] OS X" -> "macOS" It was often compacted to MacOS for various reasons, like brevity, keyword searchability and tagging.

Apple has now standardized the names: iPS, tvOS, watchOS, macOS.
Post reply on HN