Windows Terminal Source Code

Re:Windows Terminal Source Code by Maursault on Thursday May 12, 2022 @12:27PM (#31356372)

And that is expected, because graphics takes up a lot of space, so this comparison is not intellectually honest. But I'd like to see you try running just the "Cocoa/UIKit, Quartz, Core*, drivers, etc" without the kernel and BSD userland. Without the GUI, we still have an operating system that is entirely OSS. With only the GUI, we have nothing that works.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows Terminal Source Code by babylonunited on Friday May 13, 2022 @06:13AM (#31365404)

> But I'd like to see you try running just the "Cocoa/UIKit, Quartz, Core*, drivers, etc" without the kernel and BSD userland

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Windows Terminal Source Code by tambourine_man on Friday May 13, 2022 @10:11AM (#31367869)

>because graphics takes up a lot of space, so this comparison is not intellectually honest

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]