3 ms·

Apple makes open source Swift, LLVM, Clang, WebKit, darwin. They already spend millions on open source. Google makes open source Android, Chromium, Go, Dart, F

by nox101 3y ago

Apple makes open source Swift, LLVM, Clang, WebKit, darwin. They already spend millions on open source. Google makes open source Android, Chromium, Go, Dart, Flutter, Lit, ANGLE, Dawn. They also spend millions on open source. Microsoft makes C#, F#, VSCode, Electron, Powershell, and further Microsoft is providing free hosting for probably 95% of all open source projects (github) as well as free CIs (github actions) and free JS/TS library distribution (npm). They're spending millions on open source too. I don't know what Meta provides except React and LLaMa but that's still millions Taxing requires administration so what you'd really be doing is giving a bunch of non-developers money in the form of salaries. The rest they'd give for their friend's projects, or whoever bribed them with kickbacks etc...

madsbuch 3y ago
> Apple makes open source Swift, LLVM, Clang, WebKit, darwin. They already spend millions on open source. Perfect, they would on the same terms as everyone else be able to apply for funding from the OS-fund to support this development – given they comply with license restrictions, etc.
bilbo0s 3y ago
Yeah. The scheme that was posited could potentially land us in a really perverse place. We'd be paying Apple way more than they put in because they don't use much but they pour out projects that others use. My suspicion is that this probably works for some of the big companies, but for places like Apple, we don't want to get into this situation at all. This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  > This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway. If Apple is a net creator of useful open-source software, I don't see this as much of a problem. If it results in a more viable/better open-source ecosystem overall, I'm more than happy to see all the large contributors to that benefit. (I'm ideologically for open-source software; I'm not ideologically anti-Apple/anti-company.)
- mcny 3y ago
  > This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway. A little off topic but this line of reasoning scares me. The end result of this kind of thought is "demonstrated need". I sincerely believe there should be an end to means-testing and anyone should be eligible for public benefits regardless of income or assets.
j7ake 3y ago
Meta also made pytorch, one of the most popular frameworks for ML.
ho_schi 3y ago
Looks like mixing somewhat open-source with free-software? Again. Remembers me of late 90ies. And the intentions. It is fine to care about individual requirements but not all target the common society. Flutter and Chrome (Blink) are mere exclusive Google projects, they just shall strength Android, ChromeOS and their cloud business. Same for Microsoft stuff, they add stuff which strength their cloud business - with Linux - or WSL. WebKit is developed in cooperation and there is WebKitGtk. This benefits the common. Also LLVM helps the common. But Apple tries to avoid the GPL whenever they can. The core of WebKit is luckily LGPL. This is also one of the reasons why many prefer GCC (GPL). btw. The sovereign tech fund (from Germany) is a good idea. A state must be interested in good infrastructure. Software and especially Linux is infrastructure. America had once back in time something similar by pure luck. AT&T was restricted to enter new markets. Out of nowhere they started developing UNIX, and C and provided the source and documentation. Sadly the restrictions where lifted. As far as I know this was the last time that BigIT was actively regulated in America. It was good and accelerated literally everything.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Before AT&T was broken up it was illegal to connect a fax machine or any other unauthorized equipment on their network.
  - ho_schi 3y ago
    I think this wasn’t an either/or decision for the (drumroll) Regan administration. I’m also afraid that our Fax machines were even a priority. btw. Germany has a law which enforces the endpoint and declares that customers attach their own modems. Democracy allows citizen to decide - we can prioritize people’s needs over companies?
    - detourdog 3y ago
      I was just setting the environmental expectations the American phone network. The real disruption was the move to data networks. Architectural I think AT&T needed to set-up an out of band channel to control the network separate from the data channels. This channel I think was the A channel of an ISDN line which had 2 b channels. I once had a Cabbie in NYC tell me about Citibank getting the first Fax Machines installed in NYC. They connected the Manhattan Office tower with the Queens office. They remember it getting installed and there was a long lang time before anybody used. The opinion was that it didn't make sense compared to all the better ways to move documents.

by nox101 3y ago

madsbuch 3y ago

> Apple makes open source Swift, LLVM, Clang, WebKit, darwin. They already spend millions on open source. Perfect, they would on the same terms as everyone else be able to apply for funding from the OS-fund to support this development – given they comply with license restrictions, etc.

bilbo0s 3y ago

Yeah. The scheme that was posited could potentially land us in a really perverse place. We'd be paying Apple way more than they put in because they don't use much but they pour out projects that others use. My suspicion is that this probably works for some of the big companies, but for places like Apple, we don't want to get into this situation at all. This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway.

sokoloff 3y ago
> This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway. If Apple is a net creator of useful open-source software, I don't see this as much of a problem. If it results in a more viable/better open-source ecosystem overall, I'm more than happy to see all the large contributors to that benefit. (I'm ideologically for open-source software; I'm not ideologically anti-Apple/anti-company.)
mcny 3y ago
> This would just be a new revenue stream for Apple for doing something that they would have done for free anyway. A little off topic but this line of reasoning scares me. The end result of this kind of thought is "demonstrated need". I sincerely believe there should be an end to means-testing and anyone should be eligible for public benefits regardless of income or assets.

j7ake 3y ago

Meta also made pytorch, one of the most popular frameworks for ML.

ho_schi 3y ago

Looks like mixing somewhat open-source with free-software? Again. Remembers me of late 90ies. And the intentions. It is fine to care about individual requirements but not all target the common society. Flutter and Chrome (Blink) are mere exclusive Google projects, they just shall strength Android, ChromeOS and their cloud business. Same for Microsoft stuff, they add stuff which strength their cloud business - with Linux - or WSL. WebKit is developed in cooperation and there is WebKitGtk. This benefits the common. Also LLVM helps the common. But Apple tries to avoid the GPL whenever they can. The core of WebKit is luckily LGPL. This is also one of the reasons why many prefer GCC (GPL). btw. The sovereign tech fund (from Germany) is a good idea. A state must be interested in good infrastructure. Software and especially Linux is infrastructure. America had once back in time something similar by pure luck. AT&T was restricted to enter new markets. Out of nowhere they started developing UNIX, and C and provided the source and documentation. Sadly the restrictions where lifted. As far as I know this was the last time that BigIT was actively regulated in America. It was good and accelerated literally everything.

detourdog 3y ago
Before AT&T was broken up it was illegal to connect a fax machine or any other unauthorized equipment on their network.
- ho_schi 3y ago
  I think this wasn’t an either/or decision for the (drumroll) Regan administration. I’m also afraid that our Fax machines were even a priority. btw. Germany has a law which enforces the endpoint and declares that customers attach their own modems. Democracy allows citizen to decide - we can prioritize people’s needs over companies?
  - detourdog 3y ago
    I was just setting the environmental expectations the American phone network. The real disruption was the move to data networks. Architectural I think AT&T needed to set-up an out of band channel to control the network separate from the data channels. This channel I think was the A channel of an ISDN line which had 2 b channels. I once had a Cabbie in NYC tell me about Citibank getting the first Fax Machines installed in NYC. They connected the Manhattan Office tower with the Queens office. They remember it getting installed and there was a long lang time before anybody used. The opinion was that it didn't make sense compared to all the better ways to move documents.