8 ms·

Why are you saying that Apple will not update bash? Wouldn't that be in the best interest of its users?

oblio 10y ago
GPLv3.
teddyh 10y ago
It would indeed be in the best interest of its users, but Apple has apparently decided that it would not be in its own best interest: http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ […] Anyway, the message is pretty obvious: Apple won’t ship anything that’s licensed under GPL v3 on OS X. Now, why is that? There are two big changes in GPL v3. The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship. The second is that it carefully prevents TiVoization, locking down hardware so that people can’t actually run the software they want. So, which of those things are they planning for OS X, eh? I’m also intrigued to see how far they are prepared to go with this. They already annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people with the Samba and GCC removal. Having wooed so many developers to the Mac in the last decade, are they really prepared to throw away all that goodwill by shipping obsolete tools and making it a pain in the ass to upgrade them?
- bitserf 10y ago
  Or, it could just switch the default shell to Z shell. First thing I do on a new Mac, is chsh -> zsh. Ships with an up to date (enough) version of that.
  - mitchty 10y ago
    zsh was even the default shell for an OS X release, 10.3 or 4 can't remember at this point.
    - em500 10y ago
      Nope, before switching to bash in 10.3, tcsh was the OS X default.
      - mitchty 10y ago
        Yep looks like you're right, I could have sworn that zsh was after tcsh then bash from there on out. Went looking in my Mac OS X for unix geeks book and it was right on the transition so bad memory no cookie. I'll punish my brain with beer for its transgressions.
  - ajsalminen 10y ago
    It could, but "just" switching shells is definitely an inconvenience to your users as well.

oblio 10y ago

GPLv3.

It would indeed be in the best interest of its users, but Apple has apparently decided that it would not be in its own best interest: http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/ […] Anyway, the message is pretty obvious: Apple won’t ship anything that’s licensed under GPL v3 on OS X. Now, why is that? There are two big changes in GPL v3. The first is that it explicitly prohibits patent lawsuits against people for actually using the GPL-licensed software you ship. The second is that it carefully prevents TiVoization, locking down hardware so that people can’t actually run the software they want. So, which of those things are they planning for OS X, eh? I’m also intrigued to see how far they are prepared to go with this. They already annoyed and inconvenienced a lot of people with the Samba and GCC removal. Having wooed so many developers to the Mac in the last decade, are they really prepared to throw away all that goodwill by shipping obsolete tools and making it a pain in the ass to upgrade them?

bitserf 10y ago
Or, it could just switch the default shell to Z shell. First thing I do on a new Mac, is chsh -> zsh. Ships with an up to date (enough) version of that.
- mitchty 10y ago
  zsh was even the default shell for an OS X release, 10.3 or 4 can't remember at this point.
  - em500 10y ago
    Nope, before switching to bash in 10.3, tcsh was the OS X default.
    - mitchty 10y ago
      Yep looks like you're right, I could have sworn that zsh was after tcsh then bash from there on out. Went looking in my Mac OS X for unix geeks book and it was right on the transition so bad memory no cookie. I'll punish my brain with beer for its transgressions.
- ajsalminen 10y ago
  It could, but "just" switching shells is definitely an inconvenience to your users as well.