3 ms·

Depends on what you call open and what the 'opposite' you refer to is. Open as in 'welcoming to users'? Open as in 'it has hinges on the device that open'? Ope

Depends on what you call open and what the 'opposite' you refer to is. Open as in 'welcoming to users'? Open as in 'it has hinges on the device that open'? Open means many things. If you refer to Open Source in terms of the OSI, then no, macOS is not that kind of open. It's also not entirely closed as there is plenty of 1-to-1 source code available, also under OSI-approved licenses (but not all of it). If you refer to Open in terms to 'the ability to add and remove at least some components so you can do your work', then macOS is plenty open. Want to get rid of Pages and install Microsoft Word? No problem.

shmerl 6y ago
Apple for example refused to support Vulkan and don't allow anyone else to provide drivers for it. It means they have control over what features you can use - you have no say in it. Even Windows being as closed as it is doesn't have such restrictions. So I'd say macOS is closed to a sickening level and it's completely disingenuous to call it open. May be if you compare it to iOS which is closed in even worse ways, you could say macOS is "open". But it's like comparing something that's rotten to something that's rotten even more. Both are rotten.
- oneplane 6y ago
  That's a rather extremistic view. Apple doesn't support vulkan because they tried to get OpenGL and OpenCL working. Nvidia didn't play ball and AMD wasn't in the picture back then. The result was that Apple had to come up with something else (Metal) and that has worked out great with them. But unless you are writing a graphics engine (which almost no user does) that doesn't even matter. Regarding your openness, you still haven't provided with a description as to what you describe as open or closed. Is Windows open? No. None of it is, except a few example apps and things like the calculator. You don't get kernel sources, you don't get library sources, and you can't run any custom versions. With macOS you can. Same goes for DirectX if you want to stay with graphics stacks (Direct 3D to be more specific). That's about as closed as it gets: you can't remove it, you can't use it elsewhere, you can't get the sources and you can't modify it. You can still run Vulkan on macOS if you want -- you are free to implement it, run it, make shims or layers if you wish etc, just not with Apple's support. What you call open or closed isn't clear, but the fact that you use the word 'rotten' signals to me that you are emotional about it and probably not really looking for a discussion.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    I don't really care for their excuses why they don't do it. Even if anything of that applied in the past, they have no excuse today. The bottom line - they don't do it and don't allow let's say hardware makers to provide drivers, like they can do even on Windows. That alone is an indication that it's anything but open. > You can still run Vulkan on macOS if you want -- you are free to implement it, run it, make shims or layers if you wish etc, just not with Apple's support. You aren't free to do that. Hardware drivers for macOS are all controlled by Apple. Otherwise you'd see AMD, Intel and Nvidia providing native Vulkan for macOS already. The only thing you can do is to provide translation into Apple's Metal lock-in (like MoltenVK, gfx-rs and so on). macOS is one of the worst examples of closed systems.
    - oneplane 6y ago
      > You aren't free to do that. Hardware drivers for macOS are all controlled by Apple. No, they are not. Apple ships some drivers themselves because they obviously support the hardware they deliver, but you are free to get your text editor out and write one yourself, compile it, and load it.
      - shmerl 6y ago
        Apple won't allow you to run any hardware driver without them signing it. And Vulkan would require GPU driver support for it. So they are the gatekeeper who is preventing this from happening. Keyword here is gatekeeper. "Open" system much? In open systems gatekeepers aren't in the way of the user.

shmerl 6y ago

Apple for example refused to support Vulkan and don't allow anyone else to provide drivers for it. It means they have control over what features you can use - you have no say in it. Even Windows being as closed as it is doesn't have such restrictions. So I'd say macOS is closed to a sickening level and it's completely disingenuous to call it open. May be if you compare it to iOS which is closed in even worse ways, you could say macOS is "open". But it's like comparing something that's rotten to something that's rotten even more. Both are rotten.

oneplane 6y ago
That's a rather extremistic view. Apple doesn't support vulkan because they tried to get OpenGL and OpenCL working. Nvidia didn't play ball and AMD wasn't in the picture back then. The result was that Apple had to come up with something else (Metal) and that has worked out great with them. But unless you are writing a graphics engine (which almost no user does) that doesn't even matter. Regarding your openness, you still haven't provided with a description as to what you describe as open or closed. Is Windows open? No. None of it is, except a few example apps and things like the calculator. You don't get kernel sources, you don't get library sources, and you can't run any custom versions. With macOS you can. Same goes for DirectX if you want to stay with graphics stacks (Direct 3D to be more specific). That's about as closed as it gets: you can't remove it, you can't use it elsewhere, you can't get the sources and you can't modify it. You can still run Vulkan on macOS if you want -- you are free to implement it, run it, make shims or layers if you wish etc, just not with Apple's support. What you call open or closed isn't clear, but the fact that you use the word 'rotten' signals to me that you are emotional about it and probably not really looking for a discussion.
- shmerl 6y ago
  I don't really care for their excuses why they don't do it. Even if anything of that applied in the past, they have no excuse today. The bottom line - they don't do it and don't allow let's say hardware makers to provide drivers, like they can do even on Windows. That alone is an indication that it's anything but open. > You can still run Vulkan on macOS if you want -- you are free to implement it, run it, make shims or layers if you wish etc, just not with Apple's support. You aren't free to do that. Hardware drivers for macOS are all controlled by Apple. Otherwise you'd see AMD, Intel and Nvidia providing native Vulkan for macOS already. The only thing you can do is to provide translation into Apple's Metal lock-in (like MoltenVK, gfx-rs and so on). macOS is one of the worst examples of closed systems.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    > You aren't free to do that. Hardware drivers for macOS are all controlled by Apple. No, they are not. Apple ships some drivers themselves because they obviously support the hardware they deliver, but you are free to get your text editor out and write one yourself, compile it, and load it.
    - shmerl 6y ago
      Apple won't allow you to run any hardware driver without them signing it. And Vulkan would require GPU driver support for it. So they are the gatekeeper who is preventing this from happening. Keyword here is gatekeeper. "Open" system much? In open systems gatekeepers aren't in the way of the user.