4 ms·

OSX is much more than the kernel. Darwin is open source, even. What are you talking about?

leereeves 10y ago
How much of Apple's investment in OS X was in Darwin, and how much was in proprietary technology? Apple built a proprietary product using open source technology, and are now building proprietary products using open ML research. But it seems they're doing so for their own profit, not to benefit the open source and research communities.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Apple built a proprietary product using open source technology You say it as its somehow contradictory. Open Source licences allow (LGPL etc), and some even welcome (BSD, MIT, Apache) creating proprietary software based on open source technologies. Besides, Apple also did extend open source technologies (as open source) a hell of a lot. Webkit past Apple is 100x bigger/fancier/better than the puny KHTML it started from. Tons of LLVM work, especially all the early stuff, has been sponsored by Apple. Swift was made Open Source just recently...
  - leereeves 10y ago
    Apple's core "product" is the user experience. Darwin is open source, Carbon and Cocoa are not. I think that philosophy will continue as they use ML tools. They might share the ML equivalent of plumbing like Webkit/LLVM/Swift, but probably not improvements to the user experience like Siri's brain.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Apple's core "product" is the user experience. Darwin is open source, Carbon and Cocoa are not. So? Why should they open source and commoditize their core product? Besides, I don't know any company that did it and got much out of it, except for some gratitude from OSS fans.
      - leereeves 10y ago
        I'm not saying they should, I'm saying they wouldn't (and probably shouldn't).
- posterboy 10y ago
  That's what the top level comment said, you are only adding noise.
  - leereeves 10y ago
    I added a question. My impression is that Apple invested vastly more in the closed parts of OS X than the open parts.
    - posterboy 10y ago
      a rhetorical question, i thought
koko775 10y ago
The truth of that statement is dwindling rapidly with time, however. XPC is closed-source, and with launchd being subsumed into it as it has become more important to macOS's system, Darwin hasn't had a working init system for years. It's been effectively TiVo'ed, or turned into shared-source-ish instead of open enough to run it as a real OS.

How much of Apple's investment in OS X was in Darwin, and how much was in proprietary technology? Apple built a proprietary product using open source technology, and are now building proprietary products using open ML research. But it seems they're doing so for their own profit, not to benefit the open source and research communities.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 10y ago
>Apple built a proprietary product using open source technology You say it as its somehow contradictory. Open Source licences allow (LGPL etc), and some even welcome (BSD, MIT, Apache) creating proprietary software based on open source technologies. Besides, Apple also did extend open source technologies (as open source) a hell of a lot. Webkit past Apple is 100x bigger/fancier/better than the puny KHTML it started from. Tons of LLVM work, especially all the early stuff, has been sponsored by Apple. Swift was made Open Source just recently...
- leereeves 10y ago
  Apple's core "product" is the user experience. Darwin is open source, Carbon and Cocoa are not. I think that philosophy will continue as they use ML tools. They might share the ML equivalent of plumbing like Webkit/LLVM/Swift, but probably not improvements to the user experience like Siri's brain.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Apple's core "product" is the user experience. Darwin is open source, Carbon and Cocoa are not. So? Why should they open source and commoditize their core product? Besides, I don't know any company that did it and got much out of it, except for some gratitude from OSS fans.
    - leereeves 10y ago
      I'm not saying they should, I'm saying they wouldn't (and probably shouldn't).
posterboy 10y ago
That's what the top level comment said, you are only adding noise.
- leereeves 10y ago
  I added a question. My impression is that Apple invested vastly more in the closed parts of OS X than the open parts.
  - posterboy 10y ago
    a rhetorical question, i thought

koko775 10y ago

The truth of that statement is dwindling rapidly with time, however. XPC is closed-source, and with launchd being subsumed into it as it has become more important to macOS's system, Darwin hasn't had a working init system for years. It's been effectively TiVo'ed, or turned into shared-source-ish instead of open enough to run it as a real OS.