3 ms·
"Apple. How can they name their mostly API-level visual customizations of the existing projects "OS X" and be accepted as serious? Such things were called skins
by kunai 13y ago
"Apple. How can they name their mostly API-level visual customizations of the existing projects "OS X" and be accepted as serious? Such things were called skins and themes.
What is really original there apart from the visual design elements and the UI customizations to allow them calling their contribution an "OS"? Just that they actually write some code? Where are their own kernel and their own drivers? Aren't they just a derivative BSD/Mach distro?"
- acqq 13y agoIf you ever looked at Darwin and compared it with any other kernel, you'd know it's a serious, big real OS work, far from any "UI" you mention. Reading what you wrote, however, I don't believe you did something like that, or even that you'd be able to. I see there's no point arguing in such case.
- kunai 13y agoDarwin was created using portions of FreeBSD's kernel and the work done for Mach at Carnegie Mellon. It's not Apple's sole creation in the slightest.
- SkyMarshal 13y agoThat's how OS X is now, after ~10 years of closed development. When it first started it was open source FreeBSD and Mach. I even remember the FOSS community's disappointment when Apple close sourced the project. Who knows how eOS will look in ten years, and the state of OS X now is certainly no basis for criticism of brand new OS.