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.
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.
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
My point is I put more value on the closed source parts more than the core OS and even the GUI itself. If these were to be open sourced, practically means possibility of source compatibility (even binary compatibility) on Linux and that is huge deal for the public. On the other hand, I'm not sure how can anyone besides compiler and driver developers can benefits from Darwin being open source.
[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ma... [2]https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ma...
>>…but the frameworks are not installed with macOS
To paraphrase Maursault, he has no idea what he's talking about and we shouldn't dignify him with an answer.
But since I can't link to them and neither can you, we're just going to keep saying the other one is wrong in a web forum.
That's the point we can't because they are binaries (with strict EULA at that) but make it open source I can guarantee they will be ported to Linux within a year :D
> Without the GUI, we still have an operating system that is entirely OSS. With only the GUI, we have nothing that works.
entirely OSS operating system that lacked hardware supports to be useful, what is the point over something like Linux. Even FreeBSD supports more hardware.
I've written “by line count”. It's more code, lots of it, not binary size.
>Without the GUI, we still have an operating system that is entirely OSS. With only the GUI, we have nothing that works.
You're discussing merits, I've been arguing about an absolute value: lines of code.
But if you want to discuss merit, here's another objective data: Darwin has been open source for 20 years. No one runs it. Because all the value is at the top layers and lower closed source ones. See the trouble folks at Asahi Linux are going through to reverse engineer the M1's GPU graphic driver.
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.
That is not my experience at all.
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).
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.