4 ms·

> Apple should follow MS's example and open source its Terminal.app This is bellyaching about nothing. Instead, Microsoft should follow Apple's example and ope

> Apple should follow MS's example and open source its Terminal.app This is bellyaching about nothing. Instead, Microsoft should follow Apple's example and open source the operating system. The only part of macOS that is not open source is the GUI, i.e. Quartz Compositor, and the gui applications. Microsoft, meanwhile, is an incredible slouch when it comes to open source, only very recently changing their hostile "embrace, extend, extinguish" stance towards OSS.

melony 4y ago
Mac without the userland is mostly useless. At that point you might as well switch fully to FreeBSD.
- Maursault 4y ago
  This is a straw man, and also not entirely accurate. Darwin is BSD, and in theory just as useful as BSD, or FreeBSD, NetBSD, and useful to developers, and to anyone that can figure out how to install it and use it. [1] Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless. Thus, Linux. [1] http://www.puredarwin.org/ http://www.puredarwin.org/
  - ahtihn 4y ago
    > Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless. That is not my experience at all.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless. This is false. Source: Installed Windows 11 from official Microsoft ISO on a laptop from 2016 (6 years old) and runs buttery smooth. Please stop spreading FUD like this.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      If it were not true, Linux would never have become popular. Linux evolved beyond quickly fixing what Microsoft broke to take over the server space, but that was Linux's first practical reason for existing, to mitigate the problems with Windows slowly dying after about 2 years of being installed and used daily.
  - forgotpwd16 4y ago
    Is there a comparison of Darwin to other BSDs?
  - shadowfox 4y ago
    > Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless This seems like a massive exaggeration. I am currently running Windows 10 on a refurbished laptop I bought in 2012! (So, actual hardware is even older).
tambourine_man 4y ago
There’s orders of magnitude more closed source than open on macOS. But yeah, all software should be open source.
- Maursault 4y ago
  I probably shouldn't dignify this with a response, but yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. The kernel XNU is OSS. The BSD userland is OSS. This means that technically, the operating system is open source. If you go by file count, there is far more OSS in macOS than not. But if you want to go by file sizes, then the only closed source parts of macOS, again, are the GUI, the Quartz Compositor, and a lot of Apple's installed applications, which are bound to have large file sizes. So it is deceptive and frankly false to claim speciously there are, plural, "orders of magnitude more closed source than open in macOS." But every release Apple releases more open source software.[1] No other proprietary operating system vendor releases more open source than Apple. So, yeah, you're just wrong. [1] https://opensource.apple.com/releases/ https://opensource.apple.com/releases/
  - mrtweetyhack 4y ago
  - babylonunited 4y ago
    I think a lot of value comes with the Frameworks, with them you get at least source compatibility with macOS and without them the core operating system will just be another Unix operating system without much hardware supports. So I personally put much more weight on the Frameworks over XNU and BSD userland. There is a reason GNUStep is less dead than PureDarwin :D
    - Maursault 4y ago
      That's fine, but the frameworks are not installed with macOS. In order to get them, one must sign up for a free developer account, at least, and install Xcode, which is massive, but I'm not sure how you can say it is part of the OS when most people never install it.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Microsoft should follow Apple's example and open source the operating system 1. Apple did not open-source MacOS. Hell, I can't even buy a copy of it and run it on a PC but instead I have to buy Apple HW to get it, while at least I can download a copy of Windows and run it (even unregistered) on any cheap PC HW and develop SW for it, without paying for Microsoft hardware, or even for the OS itself (gray legal area), unlike Apple where the only way I can run MacOS and develop SW for it is by buying Apple hardware which is a far more restrictive way, from a monetary perspective, to get someone on board 2. Microsoft cannot open-source Windows as it contains a lot of third party code for which it has no licensing rights to open source. They've explained this multiple times. I assume the same applies to modern MacOS.

melony 4y ago

Mac without the userland is mostly useless. At that point you might as well switch fully to FreeBSD.

Maursault 4y ago
This is a straw man, and also not entirely accurate. Darwin is BSD, and in theory just as useful as BSD, or FreeBSD, NetBSD, and useful to developers, and to anyone that can figure out how to install it and use it. [1] Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless. Thus, Linux. [1] http://www.puredarwin.org/ http://www.puredarwin.org/
- ahtihn 4y ago
  > Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless. That is not my experience at all.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless. This is false. Source: Installed Windows 11 from official Microsoft ISO on a laptop from 2016 (6 years old) and runs buttery smooth. Please stop spreading FUD like this.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    If it were not true, Linux would never have become popular. Linux evolved beyond quickly fixing what Microsoft broke to take over the server space, but that was Linux's first practical reason for existing, to mitigate the problems with Windows slowly dying after about 2 years of being installed and used daily.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  Is there a comparison of Darwin to other BSDs?
- shadowfox 4y ago
  > Meanwhile, Windows without hardware less than 2 years old is absolutely worthless This seems like a massive exaggeration. I am currently running Windows 10 on a refurbished laptop I bought in 2012! (So, actual hardware is even older).

tambourine_man 4y ago

There’s orders of magnitude more closed source than open on macOS. But yeah, all software should be open source.

Maursault 4y ago
I probably shouldn't dignify this with a response, but yeah, you don't know what you're talking about. The kernel XNU is OSS. The BSD userland is OSS. This means that technically, the operating system is open source. If you go by file count, there is far more OSS in macOS than not. But if you want to go by file sizes, then the only closed source parts of macOS, again, are the GUI, the Quartz Compositor, and a lot of Apple's installed applications, which are bound to have large file sizes. So it is deceptive and frankly false to claim speciously there are, plural, "orders of magnitude more closed source than open in macOS." But every release Apple releases more open source software.[1] No other proprietary operating system vendor releases more open source than Apple. So, yeah, you're just wrong. [1] https://opensource.apple.com/releases/ https://opensource.apple.com/releases/
- mrtweetyhack 4y ago
- babylonunited 4y ago
  I think a lot of value comes with the Frameworks, with them you get at least source compatibility with macOS and without them the core operating system will just be another Unix operating system without much hardware supports. So I personally put much more weight on the Frameworks over XNU and BSD userland. There is a reason GNUStep is less dead than PureDarwin :D
  - Maursault 4y ago
    That's fine, but the frameworks are not installed with macOS. In order to get them, one must sign up for a free developer account, at least, and install Xcode, which is massive, but I'm not sure how you can say it is part of the OS when most people never install it.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>Microsoft should follow Apple's example and open source the operating system 1. Apple did not open-source MacOS. Hell, I can't even buy a copy of it and run it on a PC but instead I have to buy Apple HW to get it, while at least I can download a copy of Windows and run it (even unregistered) on any cheap PC HW and develop SW for it, without paying for Microsoft hardware, or even for the OS itself (gray legal area), unlike Apple where the only way I can run MacOS and develop SW for it is by buying Apple hardware which is a far more restrictive way, from a monetary perspective, to get someone on board 2. Microsoft cannot open-source Windows as it contains a lot of third party code for which it has no licensing rights to open source. They've explained this multiple times. I assume the same applies to modern MacOS.