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

Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

researchkit.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#61

Post by CHY872 »

criley2 wrote: post #51
baldfat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.

"Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history." To me, this is like calling someone who occasionally eats a vegan diet a "Fairly decent Vegan". No, if you eat meat or cheese on a regular basis you're a terrible Vegan! Just because Apple releases the source code as read-only doesn't really make them fairly decent with open source. To me, if you're not willing to pull commits from outside your walled garden or allow e…

The Wikipedia article does not mean that they have to reincorporate the changes of others into their code.

Nevertheless, they are doing so.

https://github.com/ResearchKit/ResearchKit/pull/20

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#62

Post by saurik »

baldfat wrote: post #5
xasos wrote: post #2

Here's a link to the current project's source if anyone is interested: https://github.com/researchkit Love that Apple is going open-source, and hopefully they do this for more of their code (pssssttt...Swift)

EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.

When Apple stops releasing things on that website for iOS and Xcode (and yes: they do still have some things that are at least LGPL in those distributions, and no: it is not sufficient to give me very-similar-but-slightly-different code from OS X) only when I get around to making a public statement (which I absolutely hate doing) over things they don't send me when I request them via email, maybe they will have some right to getting the praise you are deciding to lavish. (Speaking of which, I have given them months to respond to my most recent requests for a bunch of things; I have gotten so used to Apple giving open source the finger, and thereby have backup plans involving disassembles for most of the things I care about at this point, I had forgotten to even follow up on them failing to release anything :/.) (As for Oracle, I think Apple is much more harmful, as at least Oracle is upfront about where you stand, so the greater community knows to handle them with care and avoid putting them in the center of something they will later come to regret.)

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#64

Post by qzervaas »

It's interesting to see how code is structured when it comes from Apple (or vendors they're working closely with).

Surprising some of their best practices aren't followed, such as hard-coding English strings instead of using something like NSLocalizedString()

(e.g. https://github.com/ResearchKit/GlucoSuccess/blob/master/Diab...)

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#65

Post by hobarrera »

DannyBee wrote: post #15

While it's wonderful they did this, as a short rant: I hate when companies just feel the urge to add a random sentence or two to an existing license, particularly in cases like these: "3. Neither the name of the copyright holder(s) nor the names of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. No license is granted to the trademarks o…

While pointless (since it adds no additional protection), I don't think this avoids this code from being integrating into larges BSD codebases, since this restriction would only apply to this file, and not affect the rest of the codebase (nor would that code's it's license affect this code).

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#66

Post by hobarrera »

baddox wrote: post #27
DannyBee wrote: post #15

While it's wonderful they did this, as a short rant: I hate when companies just feel the urge to add a random sentence or two to an existing license, particularly in cases like these: "3. Neither the name of the copyright holder(s) nor the names of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. No license is granted to the trademarks o…

> Either this clause is needed for the entire world (since BSD is used for trademark'd software all the time), or it's not needed at all. I'm not sure I follow your argument. Obviously, different individuals/organizations desire different licenses for the software they produce. If that wasn't the case, one could argue that only one software license should exist. Also, as we all know, software licenses are a fairly tr…

The problem is this has different wording, not different legal consequences.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#67

Post by jshevek »

qzervaas wrote: post #64

It's interesting to see how code is structured when it comes from Apple (or vendors they're working closely with). Surprising some of their best practices aren't followed, such as hard-coding English strings instead of using something like NSLocalizedString() (e.g. https://github.com/ResearchKit/GlucoSuccess/blob/master/Diab... )

Surprising?

After learning of apple's goto bug, I'm never surprised to read about apple's failure to follow best practices.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#68

Post by jshevek »

suyash wrote: post #6
baldfat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.

I can sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here. Oracle is one of the major contributor to open source, see the lineup here, chances are you're using some of them: https://oss.oracle.com/ starts with Java

Publishing lots of code under an OS license does NOT make one a valued contributor to the open source world, especially when you have a history of anti-OS litigation.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#69

Post by jshevek »

yellowapple wrote: post #28
suyash wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here. Oracle is one of the major contributor to open source, see the lineup here, chances are you're using some of them: https://oss.oracle.com/ starts with Java

Hahahahahahahahaha. Fucking no. Effectively all of Oracle's "open source" things come from Sun Microsystems, upon which Oracle happily latched onto and sucked dry. Oracle has what's called the "sidaM Touch". It's like the Midas Touch, but instead of gold, everything Oracle touches turns to shit: Java -> shit (though maybe slightly less so now). Solaris -> shit. OpenSolaris -> shit, now dead (thank the Lord for illumo…

Yes. I'm honestly baffled that anyone thinks that Oracle has a admirable history of contributions to open source. When a software company is so large (and especially when they buy a company like Sun) one can always cherry pick examples in oracles favor, but on the whole, I see oracle trying to exploit open source software, and they don't seem to play nice with others.

Re: Apple ResearchKit on GitHub

#70

Post by yellowapple »

jshevek wrote: post #69
yellowapple wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Fucking no. Effectively all of Oracle's "open source" things come from Sun Microsystems, upon which Oracle happily latched onto and sucked dry. Oracle has what's called the "sidaM Touch". It's like the Midas Touch, but instead of gold, everything Oracle touches turns to shit: Java -> shit (though maybe slightly less so now). Solaris -> shit. OpenSolaris -> shit, now dead (thank the Lord for illumo…

Yes. I'm honestly baffled that anyone thinks that Oracle has a admirable history of contributions to open source. When a software company is so large (and especially when they buy a company like Sun) one can always cherry pick examples in oracles favor, but on the whole, I see oracle trying to exploit open source software, and they don't seem to play nice with others.

I can't even find a single example from Oracle that would be cherry-pickable as evidence for their supposed open-source-friendliness. Literally every open-source project that Oracle owns has stagnated at best (aside from maybe Java; while I'm personally unimpressed by Java 8, I know there are a few people who would disagree with me), and at worse has significantly deteriorated, died entirely, been shoved off onto some other organization, or resulted in a fork, and sometimes all of the above has happened (see also: OpenOffice).

Like, I'm a pretty well-natured person in general and am happy to give even some of the most despicable companies the benefit of the doubt on occasion, but I seriously can't find a single reason to do so for Oracle. They're just that fucking irredeemable.

Post reply on HN