Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kennethmac2000 · Mar 21, 2003, 11:52 PM

ROTFL. On Apple's new Students microsite, in the Computer Science section, they say this:

"Unlike Windows, Mac OS X is an open-source operating system. So you can explore its source code, and even modify or replace it."

Hahahahahaha. I wonder if someone at Apple thought it would be funny to post that.

::maroma:: · Mar 22, 2003, 12:05 AM

But some of it is, isn't it?

kennethmac2000 · Mar 22, 2003, 12:32 AM

An open source foundation to an OS does not an open source OS make.

Of course Mac OS X contains open source software. That is a fundamentally different thing from claiming that Mac OS X is an open source operating system.

MindFad · Mar 22, 2003, 12:47 AM

Well, close enough....

stew · Mar 22, 2003, 05:22 AM

They're partially right

It just depends on your definition of "operating system", some folks claim the GUI is not part of an OS.

Coxy · Mar 22, 2003, 08:55 AM

If you exempt the various Frameworks and the GUI, you hardly have Mac OS X, but you do have an Open Source operating system.

Obviously, this is only listed for buzzword compliance.

Millennium · Mar 22, 2003, 11:57 AM

Some people draw a distinction between the graphical frontend and the operating system. To be perfectly frank, I think these people are idiots, and I view the fact that Apple has come to take this attitude with nothing but dismay.

However, if you were to draw this distinction, then OSX (or, to be more accurate, Darwin) would be an open-source operating system. However, you would also have to say that OSX is not an operating system in and of itself, but rather a distribution of an operating system.

Let's put this to the test, shall we? If one were to distribute Darwin with X11, GNOME or KDE, and a bunch of other things typical of a Linux-esque OS distribution, would Apple still allow it to be called OSX? If they would, then yes, OSX is Open-Source, because they consider Darwin and OSX to be synonymous. If not, then this "OSX is an Open-Source operating system" bit is just doublespeak.

cwasko · Mar 22, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Let's put this to the test, shall we? If one were to distribute Darwin with X11, GNOME or KDE, and a bunch of other things typical of a Linux-esque OS distribution, would Apple still allow it to be called OSX? If they would, then yes, OSX is Open-Source, because they consider Darwin and OSX to be synonymous. If not, then this "OSX is an Open-Source operating system" bit is just doublespeak.

I think we all know the answer to this. The whole problem could have been avoided by Apple by shoosing better words, i.e., "The core of Max OS X is Open Source."

Vanquish · Mar 22, 2003, 12:45 PM

...Apple by shoosing better words, i.e...

better words yeah...

cwasko · Mar 22, 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Vanquish:
better words yeah...

LOL. Well, if that damn 'Check spelling' would stay checked in Safari...

OwlBoy · Mar 22, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by cwasko:
LOL. Well, if that damn 'Check spelling' would stay checked in Safari...

I agree arrrgggg!

-Owl

Toyin · Mar 22, 2003, 03:32 PM

That's funny, I've got Open Office, Gimp,..etc running on my machine. That makes OSX open source enough for me

It's all semantics.

coolmacdude · Mar 22, 2003, 03:52 PM

Basically, Darwin, the unix core is open source. Apple's custom Mach kernel, along with all the GUI stuff (Aqua, Quicktime, opengl) is not.

mmj_ngen · 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Some people draw a distinction between the graphical frontend and the operating system. To be perfectly frank, I think these people are idiots...

or they work at a lower level, or less abstracted level than you do and realize that a GUI is just an avenue of communication with the system (depending on the system of course).

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that Apple's comment is very misleading. But, if I was creating a back-end distributed server environment, I think that Mac OS X would basically equal Darwin for all intents and purposes. Generally speaking, I really wouldn't care about Aqua, AppKit, etc. It isn't necessary for operation. If all I did was make cheesy consumer applications, or I was was an average consumer, then the GUI would be part of the OS. It really comes down to the context of use.

You usually have reasonable comments, but this one was just, well, wrong. Then again, I, admittedly, could very well be an idiot

.

stew · Mar 22, 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by coolmacdude:
Basically, Darwin, the unix core is open source. Apple's custom Mach kernel, along with all the GUI stuff (Aqua, Quicktime, opengl) is not.

XNU, MacOS X' kernel is open source and a part of Darwin.

libraryguy · Mar 22, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by coolmacdude:
Basically, Darwin, the unix core is open source. Apple's custom Mach kernel, along with all the GUI stuff (Aqua, Quicktime, opengl) is not.

I thought OpenGL was open source.

stew · Mar 22, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Toyin:
That's funny, I've got Open Office, Gimp,..etc running on my machine. That makes OSX open source enough for me

It's all semantics.

Funny, I have OpenOffice and Gimp running on Windows XP. It doesn't mean anything.

stew · Mar 22, 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by libraryguy:
I thought OpenGL was open source.

OpenGL is an open standard and there are several open source implementations (e.g. MESA and SGI's reference implementation).
Apple's OpenGL implementation is not open sauce.

t_hah · Mar 22, 2003, 05:42 PM

Oh, well...it is just wording. As some of you guys mentioned before, it is close enough. Apple must have hired some of the MS guys to do this ad for them.

Toyin · Mar 22, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by stew:
Funny, I have OpenOffice and Gimp running on Windows XP. It doesn't mean anything.

...and I'm sure you have thousands of open source applications available for Xwindows systems running on XP. What I meant is for the average user, you benefit from the open source movement and if you're able you can contribute to it. I'm not a 'nix guru, but it seems that OSX gives you all the benefits of an open source OS and the benefits of a traditional OS.

Also Apple never said that OSX is completely open source.

stew · Mar 22, 2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Toyin:
I'm not a 'nix guru, but it seems that OSX gives you all the benefits of an open source OS and the benefits of a traditional OS.

Let's just be realistic about what having an open source OS is giving you and what not: Open source applications like Gimp, OpenOffice, Evolution or Mozilla can work on any operating system - most of them just require POSIX and X11, so the underlying system does not have to be a full-featured Unix. Having an open source OS doesn't give you much for driver support either: All you need for a driver is some header files, a stub to link against and some documentation, things that any closed source OS can offer you just as well.
Open source operating systems are useful when you want to do customizations (like some embedded Linux versions) or fix urgent security issues without having to rely on vendors. For teachin operating systems, it is not only more comfortable to have an OS running inside a virtual machine like Bochs but it's also easier to understand if you use a more academic and well-documented system like Minix. The real-world operating systems have quite an amount of workarounds and rather hacky stuff that make them not as easy to understand for a beginner in that matter.

At least, that's my �0.02.

sleepyrenderer · Mar 23, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Toyin:
...and I'm sure you have thousands of open source applications available for Xwindows systems running on XP.

Thousands? Yup.

A whole lot of open source software gets cross developed for Win32 and even more is available through cygwin and uwin. Then there's all the Win32 only opensource and freeware software. XP has far, far more available to it than OS X.

Sarah31 · 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Some people draw a distinction between the graphical frontend and the operating system. To be perfectly frank, I think these people are idiots, and I view the fact that Apple has come to take this attitude with nothing but dismay.

you have to be able to draw this distinction. GUIs are a very difficult thing to manage and use as most oses were never designed to be enything but text interfaces. a graphical interface is merely intefacing with the operating system. it's icons and tools are just frontends to commandline features designed to use the operating system. if you separate a gui from its os it is just lines of code that serve no purpose other that to numb the mind. on the other hand what is left when you strip the pretty interface away is a fully functional operating system.

in other words anyone who thinks the gui interface is a funtional operating system is an idiot imho.

However, if you were to draw this distinction, then OSX (or, to be more accurate, Darwin) would be an open-source operating system. However, you would also have to say that OSX is not an operating system in and of itself, but rather a distribution of an operating system.

and just what would it be a distribution of? freebsd? i am very sure that users and developers of freebsd would say that apple has made enough changes to warrant the fact that darwin is indeed its own operating system. just run the two side to side and look at the filesystem hierarchy and you will see. open a terminal and delve into the /dev directory and then compare it to the contents of a bsd and you will see. i could try to get more technical but i just can't because i am not used to the setup of OS X to comment.

Let's put this to the test, shall we? If one were to distribute Darwin with X11, GNOME or KDE, and a bunch of other things typical of a Linux-esque OS distribution, would Apple still allow it to be called OSX? If they would, then yes, OSX is Open-Source, because they consider Darwin and OSX to be synonymous. If not, then this "OSX is an Open-Source operating system" bit is just doublespeak.

well darwin is freely distributed in just such a format and since they did not rename it is suppose you are wrong.
on the other hand it is not called OSX so maybe you are right. but os x is just a catchy name for plain old darwin. darwin is not a familiar or catchy name so if apple had dropped their standard OS naming for darwin i think it would have been a mistake. OS X is much more catchy. As well the name difference is to account for the presence of the proprietary GUI interface. now everyone knows that there is OS X in all its pretty gui-ness and Darwin the unix-like open source core.

so all i see this is being is an arguement of semantics. the important coresystem of OS X is free the gui is not so the comment is basically true. but comming from a year (almost two) of using linux the distinction is so much easier to make.

just my 2 cents.

Cipher13 · Mar 23, 2003, 07:50 AM

Saying "Mac OS X is an open source operating system, therefore..." is entirely misleading... it should read something like "Mac OS X is based on an open source blah blah".

*shrug*

Superchicken · Mar 23, 2003, 05:09 PM

hmmm if apple's OS is open source.. they wouldn't mind if I installed it on multiple computers with only one licence would they?

Chuckit · Mar 23, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
hmmm if apple's OS is open source.. they wouldn't mind if I installed it on multiple computers with only one licence would they?

Open source doesn't necessarily mean free. This is one possibility, but all the term "open source" really entails is that you can look at the source code.

wataru · Mar 23, 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by stew:
Apple's OpenGL implementation is not open sauce.

mmm... open sauce

VEGAN · Mar 24, 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by kennethmac2000:
ROTFL. On Apple's new Students microsite, in the Computer Science section, they say this:

"Unlike Windows, Mac OS X is an open-source operating system. So you can explore its source code, and even modify or replace it."

Hahahahahaha. I wonder if someone at Apple thought it would be funny to post that.

WTF. Did anyone look this site up or are you just speculating. I can't find the "citation" on the provided site.

So..?

wulf · Mar 24, 2003, 12:29 PM

It's actually on the Computer Science page.

And in this context, the statement is understandable (albeit still technically incorrect). For computing students, OS X has a lot more open source code than Windows, plus you can still run Word on it, for writing those pesky papers

Agent69 · Mar 25, 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Some people draw a distinction between the graphical frontend and the operating system. To be perfectly frank, I think these people are idiots, and I view the fact that Apple has come to take this attitude with nothing but dismay.

However, if you were to draw this distinction, then OSX (or, to be more accurate, Darwin) would be an open-source operating system. However, you would also have to say that OSX is not an operating system in and of itself, but rather a distribution of an operating system.

Your second paragraph is correct, although some may wish it otherwise. What we call Mac OS X really is nothing more than a GUI/API combo sitting atop the OS known as Darwin.

What's funny is that I can still remember in 1993 (back in the System 7 days) when Mac users would often imply that Windows 3.1 wasn't a real OS because it was just a GUI on top of a command line OS (DOS). Now, ten years later, that is exactly what MacOS X is: a GUI on top of a command line OS (Darwin).

Karma: ain't it a bitch?

frawgz · Mar 26, 2003, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Agent69:
What's funny is that I can still remember in 1993 (back in the System 7 days) when Mac users would often imply that Windows 3.1 wasn't a real OS because it was just a GUI on top of a command line OS (DOS). Now, ten years later, that is exactly what MacOS X is: a GUI on top of a command line OS (Darwin).

So what about Windows 95? Really, though, Windows 3.1 wasn't even a tenth the operating system that Windows 95 is. It was only a shell on top of DOS. I don't know if what I'm saying is entirely accurate, but anyone who's used both can attest to the light years of difference.

Agent69 · Mar 26, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by frawgz:
So what about Windows 95? Really, though, Windows 3.1 wasn't even a tenth the operating system that Windows 95 is. It was only a shell on top of DOS. I don't know if what I'm saying is entirely accurate, but anyone who's used both can attest to the light years of difference.

Windows 95 (and 98/ME as well) still has a real DOS underneath it, DOS 7 in fact; you just couldn't buy it on it's own. A technical author named Brian Livingston proved this a long while ago, showing not only that DOS was still there but many a lot of Windows 3.1 as well. Oversimplified, Win95 was basically a unified DOS/Win 3.1 combo with improved Win32s APIs and graphical shell.

Of course, DOS provides no where near the services that Darwin provides but both MacOS X and Win95 are similiar in that they can't run without their juicy command line cores.