Hacker News Reader

>Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet.

Let's not let our enthusiasm blind us to reality.

He is almost true in the pragmatic sense that a lot of the OS is open sourced and it certainly lends itself well to running and developing open source.

Of course it isn't open in the Stallman sense of "if you don't melt the ore yourself, it's not open" but then again Linuxes and others aren't, too.

Pardon my ignorance, Or may be I'm just out uninformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X - mentions, its under a proprietary EULA.

Mac OS X as a whole package might not be open source, but many of its individual components (Darwin, Webkit, ...) are open. (See http://opensource.apple.com/)

The problem with your argument is that you appeal to the idea that open source is more virtuous than proprietary software, and you want that virtue to rub off on Apple, but unless you explain why open source is virtuous, nobody can refute your implication that Mac OS X has almost as much of this virtue as Linux does.

I would almost certainly be running OS X even if none of it were open source, and I tend to believe that that is true of most OS X users (even those users like me who can program). In contrast, the fact that parts of OS X are open source does not seem to help OS X gain traction in markets where completely open-source software stacks are vastly more popular than OS X, like embedded systems, supercomputing and internet servers.

I am not an expert on all of the reasons developers and admins of embedded systems, supercomputers and internet servers prefer completely open-source ecosystems to OS X, but I tend to believe a lot of it has to do with not wanting Apple to be able to jerk them around and has to do with the fact that if they started to use OS X, Apple would be able to jerk them around almost as much as they would be able to if Darwin, Webkit, LLVM and TextEdit were not open source.

> I can assure you, controlling everything is the last thing Apple wants. Apple is not proprietary. Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet. The Safari web browser is just a thin shell around webkit. Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them, instead they innovate on them and give them away (and yet so called "open source" fans actually complain about this.)

Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com but alas, that's just a random assortment of parts which I'm limited to using for "internal research and development".

Gotta be careful with sarcasm. Done right, everyone grins with wry amusement. Sadly, it's much easier to do wrong, and you end up dancing around your point instead of making it persuasively and directly. Brevity helps.

Not trying to be persuasive, I was just entertained by seeing Apple fanboyism raised to the point where people think OS X is now open source, and figured I'd have some fun and spend a few points on the inevitable downvotes.

> Not trying to be persuasive

Ah, in that case, bravo!

> Wow! This is great news. I've been waiting for this to happen so that I can go ahead an run OS X on any computer I choose. Kindly point me to the link? I would have guessed it was at http://opensource.apple.com ...

You have the URL wrong. I will kindly point you to a link:

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components that are supported. Did you know Windows Server 2008 doesn't have drivers for early Intel Gigabit Server NICs, so you can't run that OS on an unsupported computer? Just as you can't run Windows on "any computer you choose", only on ones with supported hardware, it's the same thing with OS X.

Another link, laptops this time:

http://www.mymacnetbook.com/compatibility-chart/

The following listings of Hackintosh compatible computers, parts, motherboards and drivers (kexts) should be helpful in your endeavor:

http://www.hackintosh.com/#hackintosh_compatible

Happy hacking!

// Yes, I realize your request for a link was rhetorical.

> It's not "any computer you choose", but any desktop or laptop with hardware components that are supported. Did you know Windows Server 2008 doesn't have drivers for early Intel Gigabit Server NICs, so you can't run that OS on an unsupported computer? Just as you can't run Windows on "any computer you choose", only on ones with supported hardware, it's the same thing with OS X.

Nobody said that Windows was open source or could run on any computer. However, as I type in a Windows vm running on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, I can honestly say that are certainly a much larger number of choices, since neither of those are options with OS X.

The Hackintosh stuff is not really relevant either as a) it is not open source, and b) violates the EULA of OS X. I won't go so far as to say it's "illegal" but I don't see any overriding moral reason to violate Apple's wishes here.

"You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

Open Source does not imply platform independence.

> However, as I type in a Windows vm running on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, I can honestly say that are certainly a much larger number of choices, since neither of those are options with OS X.

On the contrary, running in a VM, and running in a VM on a computer assembled from commodity hardware, are both certainly options with OS X.

Running both server and desktop OS X in a VM is now even allowed in the EULA, which previously only authorized virtualizing OS X Server.

If you want to run it in a VM under Windows 7 (granted, not in the EULA), here's a link:

Install OS X Snow Leopard in VMware Windows 7

http://www.redmondpie.com/how-to-install-os-x-snow-leopard-i...

I stand partially corrected, you can apparently run OS X in a VM, but only on an OS X machine you buy from Apple.

"to install, use and run up to two (2) additional copies or instances of the Apple Software within virtual operating system environments on each Mac Computer you own or control that is already running the Apple Software"

So no, unless I missed something, you cannot run it in VMWare Workstation, and I still cannot run it on the $1800 (including Win 7 Pro) box I put together that has better specs than a $4500+ Mac Pro.

You do realize that not including excess drivers for components that Apple doesn't use in its own hardware is part of that "better user experience" talked about above...

You may disagree with Apple's approach of bundling hardware and software but you would be foolish to expect a company taking that route to produce software that runs on other devices. Notice that the cheapest Windows 7 option is $120 while Lion is $20. Apple is not selling software to run on other devices. They are selling devices with their software. I hope you understand the difference between a hardware and software company.

On the contrary, you certainly can.

This is one of those pedantic situations where the difference between "can" (have the ability to) and "may" (have permission to) becomes relevant.

You absolutely can run it in VMWare Workstation, as the link tells you how, on Windows 7, as the link tells you how.

You may not be permitted (depends on your jurisdiction and legality of the EULA), but you can.

Open Source = Open + Source

"Apple could have kept both closed and innovated on them"

Webkit is based on GPL code from KDE, so Apple had no choice but to release the source.

They didn't have to start http://webkit.org and run it as a public open source project. They did far more than simply comply with the GPL.

After a big PR scandal.

Originally they just threw useless code patches back at KHTML to minimally comply with the license (LGPL, iirc).

There was no scandal and only GPL "enthusiasts" would be mad at someone for complying with the license... only not in the style they might want. Reality is, they're just bigots who hate Apple and are looking for any excuse to bash them. Really, you're not fooling anyone.

When you look at how much effort and time Apple has put into WebKit, I think Apple could have written WebKit from scratch without spending too much time on it.

Remember, Apple had experience web engine developers on the team from day 1. They knew exactly what was needed and how it should be done.

There's also the work that Apple did on LLVM/Clang, as well as Grand Central Dispatch. They weren't obliged to release that.

They kinda were. I don't know all the in's and outs, but as it was explained to me, GPL v3 is not very attractive for them since they're shipping devices that are closed ecosystems. The specific issue has to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

The purpose of using LLVM was so that they could stop relying on the GPLed gcc. The reason GPL is not attractive is because it restricts freedom. It limits people from using GPL software.

Webkit didn't need to be based on that open source project, and could have been done from scratch by Apple.

I agree, and it has puzzled me also why so many people just doesn't get it. Apple operates as dependently as a clock. You can see from a mile away what their intentions are when they've done something (or haven't done something), and they are often honest and upfront about it.

And yet, people think Apple have some sort of unlikely agenda of world domination. Jesus christ. They just want to make the best products possible, what is so hard to understand about that?

For the last decade, I've been wondering why people "just don't get it", not only about Apple, but about politics, economics, history, etc.

I've been forced to reach the conclusion that they don't get it because they don't want to. They are driven by ideology. Notice I was called a "fanboy" for defending Apple. The person who called me that name has substituted an ideology for their decision making, and thus, because I said something that pokes holes in the ideology, they must attack me personally.

Further, in the case of Apple, the fact that they are so good at being good, inflames the of people who are jealous or upset, because Apple isn't following their ideology. Richard Stallman, for instance, has been kicking Apple since they were down, and doing so while giving bigger companies like IBM, Google and Microsoft a complete pass.

They don't get it because reality disagrees with their ideology.

> Hell, Mac OS X is the most popular open sourced operating system on the planet.

No. Linux.

OTOH iOS has bigger market share in web browsing than desktop linux…

I would be surprised if Linux had it over the TRON Project ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_Project ), but then again, TRON and Linux are in different 'leagues' as far as 'operating systems' go.

%23 of personal computers sold these days are Macs.

What percentage are running Linux? (combining those that ship with Linux and those that ship with Windows but are reformatted.)

> Here it is 14 years later.

Indeed. Also telling is a lot of the stories on folklore.org - You see a lot of what was described in this article, from yet another unique perspective.