Does anyone have a screenshot of the OS? I can't see it on their Twitter page. I am quite curious about how beautiful the OS looks.
User sdrinf added a link to screenshots in this thread.
Airyx OS
201–210 of 258 posts
Re: Airyx OS
#202So you ripped off helloSystem, basically.
https://github.com/helloSystem/hello
Why?
Re: Airyx OS
#203So you ripped off helloSystem, basically. https://github.com/helloSystem/hello Why?
Having a similar idea is not the same as ripping off.
Re: Airyx OS
#204So you ripped off helloSystem, basically. https://github.com/helloSystem/hello Why?
Having a similar idea is not the same as ripping off.
It's literally a copy of hello which makes it a ripoff.
It also has the exact same stated goals, regarding macOS.
So when the goal is the same my question is legit, why?
What will be different to hello?
Why not just contribute to hello?
Re: Airyx OS
#205More information and motivation in the git repo[0], the link to which I didn't spot easily in the site header. The main design goals are: * source compatibility with macOS applications (i.e. you could compile a Mac application on Airyx and run it) * similar GUI metaphors and familiar UX (file manager, application launcher, top menu bar that reflects the open application, etc) * compatible with macOS filesystems (HFS+…
Is there a particular reason to reimplement a proprietary FS (a gargantuan task) when FreeBSD already has a world class (cross-platform!) FS in ZFS/OpenZFS? Is there something about Mac apps that rely on HFS+/APFS-specific features?
I assume some of those apps may not work with case sensitive file systems. Which I believe is supported by ZFS.
Re: Airyx OS
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many years has the Wine project been running? There is absolutely no equivalent for macOS frameworks. GNUStep is a tiny part of the picture, and in addition has not kept up with the fairly radical changes that Apple has introduced to the frameworks that GNUStep does correspond to.
That's a practical question, not related to the legal question.
The legal question I was referring was related to my perception that the goal was "source code compatibility for macOS applications" now, not after some essentially unbounded engineering task.
That may have been incorrect.
Re: Airyx OS
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
The goal was "source code compatibility with macOS applications".
Most Mac apps never call into the Darwin layer directly.
Lots of macOS applications need to drop to a few Darwin related features from time to time, if only to work around bugs in the frameworks. In addition, lots of applications run on macOS that use POSIX APIs, which are (typically) implemented in Darwin and not in the user-space frameworks.
But yet, I misunderstood the GP comment, and what I said was not really appropriate in that context.
Re: Airyx OS
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Darwin can run limited MacOS applications provided they don't use a proprietary Apple MacOS library. Airyx is so limited and doesn't have a lot of users to be worth suing over I think.
Probably cheaper and easier for apple to kill them while small/young
They haven't done anything illegal or immoral. Giant company tries to use nonsense lawsuits to illegally destroy competition doesn't make for great PR.
Re: Airyx OS
#209Airyx’s developer may want to say hello to the developers of Hello, who are doing something very complementary to this with UX—and are quite far along already. https://hellosystem.github.io/docs/
I probably missed a lot of things, but didn’t Gnome already achieve this? Weren’t most of the people behind its design from Apple?
Gnome shares some of the same aesthetic choices and its co-founder famously went on the record as preferring Macs but I'm not aware of any substantial connection between Apple and Gnome. Gnome is strongly connected with Red Hat which naturally supports a lot of Linux development.
Re: Airyx OS
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does sometimes seem like they are designing to impress other designers at talks and conferences, rather than to make users happy. But I respect anyone who develops open source end-user software. To say it is thankless is quite an understatement.
Yes, it is, and I respect them too. I just wish UIs would be considered finished once the major UX and implementation bugs were fixed. The reason I won't touch eithet Gnome or KDE is that there have been so many reimplementations of their UI that I simply don't want to learn them again. And again. And again. Especially as they bring nothing new to the table, just more "flashiness".
As someone who has used KDE 3, 4 5 I would say the only really big change was 3 -> 4 and many aspects of it have been refined/improved. I think if you plunked someone down who had only used KDE 4, released in 2008, in front of the current version in 2021 they would require minimal learning to catch up.
Growth requires change and if you don't have a billion dollars up front you do this iteratively in small pieces by necessity.