4 ms·

FYI, Xcode 11.2.1 is out and fixes several issues.

by zionic 7y ago

novaRom 7y ago
and introduces some new. Seriously, why don't they open source it? There are so many so bad security issues in Apple software last years.
- kick 7y ago
  What incentive do they have to free it? Morals don't count. There's no incentive, so they won't. That Apple freely releases anything is tied directly to Stallman resisting Jobs's snow jobs during the '90s, and later Jobs's Flash snuff.
  - Razengan 7y ago
    > That Apple freely releases anything is tied directly to Stallman resisting Jobs's snowjobs during the '90s, and later Jobs's Flash snuff. What does this mean?
    - kick 7y ago
      One of the excuses Jobs used for not putting Flash on the iPhone was that it was closed-source, and that he believed that web standards should always be "open-source." This was a convenient excuse to snuff Adobe that he only got to use because Webkit was LGPL'd (by KDE's doing, not Apple's), but it did stop critics from complaining as much. Most free software that Apple has released around the web was because of this. Jobs was notorious for snowing out free software people. If you don't know what that means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snow%20job https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snow%20job A primary example was when Jobs tried to convince Stallman to allow NeXT to break the GPL, Stallman resisted, and a bit of NeXT got released under a GPL-compatible license. From a mail exchange between him and the developer of clisp: I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer. What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program, rather than how it is labeled. So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed by the GPL. The direct result of this is that we now have an Objective C front end. They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but since I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free. So I don't think the GPL actually requires a correction for this. But perhaps it would be a good idea to add a note explaining this.
  - farisjarrah 7y ago
    Do you know that Apple releases a lot of open source software and even maintains the open source CUPS print server, which is heavily used in Linux and Unix systems? Furthermore, just about all of their past releases of MacOS, iOS and OS X Server are open sourced as well. There's a great incentive to open source software. It literally invites developers to make your platform better for you, for free. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta give Apple some credit here where its due. https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > just about all of their past releases of MacOS, iOS and OS X Server are open sourced as well More accurately, specific projects from certain releases of macOS and iOS have had parts of them posted online.
    - kick 7y ago
      Do you know that Apple releases a lot of open source software False. Proportionately they release an insignificant amount. even maintains the open source CUPS print server, which is heavily used in Linux and Unix systems? This is only because no vendor or developer would use anything compatible with mac OS were it only supporting macOS. just about all of their past releases of MacOS, iOS and OS X Server are open sourced as well This is false, and you haven't done due diligence. (XNU being free software (though usually not anything touching ARM) does not mean macOS, iOS and OS X Server are free software. It literally invites developers to make your platform better for you, for free. Last I checked Apple doesn't take external commits. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta give Apple some credit here where its due. They are due no credit.
  - jki275 7y ago
    wut? Apple releases BSD code, not GPL. They've never played Stallman's game.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Apple still ships a number of components licensed under the GPL.
      - jki275 7y ago
        Maybe where they haven't replaced them yet. It was a few years ago they pretty much ripped all the GPL out of OSX and replaced it with either their own or a BSD implementation.
    - kick 7y ago
      Stallman encourages a BSD license in some circumstances.
- ReptileMan 7y ago
  Open source piece of crap will smell just the same. If there are serious problems in Xcode open sourcing it will only amplify them since a lot of the stuff will be fix by people without deep knowledge of the codebase and probably introduce some new. Keep in mind - I am not pro or against open sourcing it - just I don't think it will help currently at all.
  - dreweckert 7y ago
    What reasoning do you have to say that open sourcing it would amplify problems because it allows it to be fixed by people without deep knowledge of the codebase? So confused by how enabling someone to see the source code will somehow hurt the code that would still be maintained by apple. It would still be up to them on whether or not to include a fix that was proposed by someone that viewed their code and tried to fix it. Also, I think that fresh eyes on a problem can be quite beneficial. I believe a tunnel vision can occur when one group of individuals are trying to fix the same problems for years.

FYI, Xcode 11.2.1 is out and fixes several issues.

by zionic 7y ago

FYI, Xcode 11.2.1 is out and fixes several issues.

and introduces some new. Seriously, why don't they open source it? There are so many so bad security issues in Apple software last years.

kick 7y ago
What incentive do they have to free it? Morals don't count. There's no incentive, so they won't. That Apple freely releases anything is tied directly to Stallman resisting Jobs's snow jobs during the '90s, and later Jobs's Flash snuff.
- Razengan 7y ago
  > That Apple freely releases anything is tied directly to Stallman resisting Jobs's snowjobs during the '90s, and later Jobs's Flash snuff. What does this mean?
  - kick 7y ago
    One of the excuses Jobs used for not putting Flash on the iPhone was that it was closed-source, and that he believed that web standards should always be "open-source." This was a convenient excuse to snuff Adobe that he only got to use because Webkit was LGPL'd (by KDE's doing, not Apple's), but it did stop critics from complaining as much. Most free software that Apple has released around the web was because of this. Jobs was notorious for snowing out free software people. If you don't know what that means: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snow%20job https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snow%20job A primary example was when Jobs tried to convince Stallman to allow NeXT to break the GPL, Stallman resisted, and a bit of NeXT got released under a GPL-compatible license. From a mail exchange between him and the developer of clisp: I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer. What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program, rather than how it is labeled. So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed by the GPL. The direct result of this is that we now have an Objective C front end. They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but since I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free. So I don't think the GPL actually requires a correction for this. But perhaps it would be a good idea to add a note explaining this.
- farisjarrah 7y ago
  Do you know that Apple releases a lot of open source software and even maintains the open source CUPS print server, which is heavily used in Linux and Unix systems? Furthermore, just about all of their past releases of MacOS, iOS and OS X Server are open sourced as well. There's a great incentive to open source software. It literally invites developers to make your platform better for you, for free. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta give Apple some credit here where its due. https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > just about all of their past releases of MacOS, iOS and OS X Server are open sourced as well More accurately, specific projects from certain releases of macOS and iOS have had parts of them posted online.
  - kick 7y ago
    Do you know that Apple releases a lot of open source software False. Proportionately they release an insignificant amount. even maintains the open source CUPS print server, which is heavily used in Linux and Unix systems? This is only because no vendor or developer would use anything compatible with mac OS were it only supporting macOS. just about all of their past releases of MacOS, iOS and OS X Server are open sourced as well This is false, and you haven't done due diligence. (XNU being free software (though usually not anything touching ARM) does not mean macOS, iOS and OS X Server are free software. It literally invites developers to make your platform better for you, for free. Last I checked Apple doesn't take external commits. I'm not an Apple fanboy, but you gotta give Apple some credit here where its due. They are due no credit.
- jki275 7y ago
  wut? Apple releases BSD code, not GPL. They've never played Stallman's game.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Apple still ships a number of components licensed under the GPL.
    - jki275 7y ago
      Maybe where they haven't replaced them yet. It was a few years ago they pretty much ripped all the GPL out of OSX and replaced it with either their own or a BSD implementation.
  - kick 7y ago
    Stallman encourages a BSD license in some circumstances.
ReptileMan 7y ago
Open source piece of crap will smell just the same. If there are serious problems in Xcode open sourcing it will only amplify them since a lot of the stuff will be fix by people without deep knowledge of the codebase and probably introduce some new. Keep in mind - I am not pro or against open sourcing it - just I don't think it will help currently at all.
- dreweckert 7y ago
  What reasoning do you have to say that open sourcing it would amplify problems because it allows it to be fixed by people without deep knowledge of the codebase? So confused by how enabling someone to see the source code will somehow hurt the code that would still be maintained by apple. It would still be up to them on whether or not to include a fix that was proposed by someone that viewed their code and tried to fix it. Also, I think that fresh eyes on a problem can be quite beneficial. I believe a tunnel vision can occur when one group of individuals are trying to fix the same problems for years.