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

Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

openradar.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#11

Post by techrat »

0x0 wrote: post #3

The opensource.apple.com website provides less stuff for every OS release. iOS releases stopped at iOS 6.1.3 (nothing for 7.0.x, 7.1.x, 8.0.x, 8.1.x). OSX releases are usually delayed for quite a while (10.10 is not yet there, for example). The trend here has been to close up more and more stuff for quite a long while already :(

Are we honestly surprised? Apple has a history of being quite hostile to consumers despite their image as a trendy company. Nothing they do is done unless there's an actual threat to their bottom line, whether it's finally offering larger screens for the iPhones, finally making iTunes (partially) DRM free or closing up code/eliminating venues for cross compatibility.

Apple is about anti competitive as they get.

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#12

Post by macwarlock »

Apple keeps touting itself as the only company able to offer such end to end integration between hardware/software/services. If this is true, it would be nice to see them make a real effort to open more of it's code base to help improve the software ecosystem overall. Hell, they could open source all of OSX and I doubt it would have any effect on their overall revenue/market position, while gaining them serious brownie points in tech circles. I know it's not a huge incentive, but a geek can dream.

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#13

Post by geden »

techrat wrote: post #11
0x0 wrote: post #3

The opensource.apple.com website provides less stuff for every OS release. iOS releases stopped at iOS 6.1.3 (nothing for 7.0.x, 7.1.x, 8.0.x, 8.1.x). OSX releases are usually delayed for quite a while (10.10 is not yet there, for example). The trend here has been to close up more and more stuff for quite a long while already :(

Are we honestly surprised? Apple has a history of being quite hostile to consumers despite their image as a trendy company. Nothing they do is done unless there's an actual threat to their bottom line, whether it's finally offering larger screens for the iPhones, finally making iTunes (partially) DRM free or closing up code/eliminating venues for cross compatibility. Apple is about anti competitive as they get.

DRM in iTunes was solely at record companies request. Not an Apple choice. This has been repeatedly covered before.

http://news.cnet.com/Apples-Jobs-calls-for-DRM-free-music/21...

I would argue that Apples strength is it's ability to make daring technology choices which drives the whole market forward. (Adoption of USB, dropping floppies, CDROMs, introducing iPhone, iPad) and in the long run that is very pro-consumer.

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#15

Post by palunon »

rwmj wrote: post #7
stereo wrote: post #5

It looks like a maths library, what was so special about it, and why does Apple needs to make its own?

If you have loads of engineers, special hardware of your own (ARM), and secret insights into other hardware from your suppliers (Intel), then I can see it could make a lot of sense. That doesn't mean it's a nice thing to do. Was this derived originally from FreeBSD code? This could be why the GPL is a good thing.

That's exactly what the GPL is for.

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#16

Post by pascal_cuoq »

rwmj wrote: post #7
stereo wrote: post #5

It looks like a maths library, what was so special about it, and why does Apple needs to make its own?

If you have loads of engineers, special hardware of your own (ARM), and secret insights into other hardware from your suppliers (Intel), then I can see it could make a lot of sense. That doesn't mean it's a nice thing to do. Was this derived originally from FreeBSD code? This could be why the GPL is a good thing.

While I cannot claim to have read the entirety of any OS X libm version that were (and remain) available, I have read enough of that to make a general prediction:

OS X's libm contains only assembly functions re-written from scratch, originally in PowerPC assembly and then in IA-32 and x86-64, to be faster, more accurate and more standards-compliant than the FreeBSD versions.

I hope that this announcement will at least result in some interest in the versions that have been released as open-source and are still available, because this is beautiful code. But I am an optimist.

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#17

Post by Nanzikambe » 

   $ cd source/Libm
   $ git status
   ... snip ...
           new file:   Source/Intel/nsa_random_number_generator.c
           new file:   Source/Intel/nsa_random_number_generator.h
   **CARRIER LOST**
Disclaimer: yes yes I know, it's discouraged, but the point remains that it has become virtually impossible to trust a closed sourced OS, and steps backward like this do little to improve things.

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#18

Post by Terretta »

techrat wrote: post #11
0x0 wrote: post #3

The opensource.apple.com website provides less stuff for every OS release. iOS releases stopped at iOS 6.1.3 (nothing for 7.0.x, 7.1.x, 8.0.x, 8.1.x). OSX releases are usually delayed for quite a while (10.10 is not yet there, for example). The trend here has been to close up more and more stuff for quite a long while already :(

Are we honestly surprised? Apple has a history of being quite hostile to consumers despite their image as a trendy company. Nothing they do is done unless there's an actual threat to their bottom line, whether it's finally offering larger screens for the iPhones, finally making iTunes (partially) DRM free or closing up code/eliminating venues for cross compatibility. Apple is about anti competitive as they get.

> history of being quite hostile to consumers

That's going to need some really impressive fact-based justification.

I think a good case could be made Apple's the only PC maker focused on making mass market consumers happy (vs enterprise or technology buyers).

They've also seemed more focused on the product experience than on market share.

- - -

Some TL;DR specific thoughts on each of your examples:

- "finally offering larger screens for the iPhones" -- the giant screen move feels anti-Samsung, not pro-consumer. There is an ideal one handed screen size, and the 6/6+ are not it. The 5 series was already pushing it. The problem for Apple is in the big box or mobile store, bigger looks better. In every day use, once the phone is part of you, one handed becomes natural when right sized. (If you've only used bigger, you don't know any better.) In the store handling with two hands, you don't realize it won't go well. Buying experience and using experiences are at odds here, though I grant the bigger screens are nice when you are not mobile.

- "finally making iTunes (partially) DRM free" -- it's well documented that movie, TV, and record industry execs were the problem here, not tech providers, and Apple's fight to liberate music was quite public.

- cross compatibility -- this is a bugaboo (something that causes fear or distress out of proportion to its importance). with rapidly evolving technologies, it's extraordinarily difficult to have an end to end ecosystem 'just work' for normals not interested in diagnosing why it fails. Apple controls that end to end to make sure it works. Even then, things happen, like the Airport Extremes and iOS 8 WiFi, but because they control both, they can release updates to both to fix it. They don't have to support the lowest common denominator, they can push for performance and stability both. The bargain a user makes with Apple is "buy into the ecosystem, get peace of mind and eliminate the need for a tech guru."

Re: Apple: We have decided to no longer release Libm source (2013)

#20

Post by CoffeeDregs »

I'm very much for open source and all, and I'd love to see Apple as the bad guy here (since I think they're a Bad Guy), but I'm not sure what is the big deal. AFAICT, every CPU vendor has a libm implementation. Apple wants to be tight-lipped about its hardware. [Maybe] Since hardware reviewers seem to get their information on the hardware from compilers, Apple is removing as much information as practical to avoid competitive information leaking.

It's a bummer to see a reduction in the amount of open source, but their license is fairly clear and I can't say that I blame Apple for trying to keep competitors away. Further, it looks as though most implementations is closed-source-y since the source code is highly tied to CPU idiosyncracies...

Links:

Apple's libm license: http://opensource.apple.com/source/Libm/Libm-315/APPLE_LICEN...

Intel: https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-math-kernel-...

AMD: http://developer.amd.com/tools-and-sdks/cpu-development/libm...

Android: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/li... (from FreeBSD?)

Post reply on HN