babylonunited

I think the chemtrail truthers are the ones who believe this closed AI marketing bullshit.

If this is close to be true then these AI shops ought to be closed. We don’t let private enterprises play with nuclear weapons do we?

The system frameworks e.g. Cocoa, Foundation, CoreServices come with every installation as binaries. These are the building blocks of the GUI and mac default apps. They act as the abstractions to the underlying BSD and Mach system and basically what define a macOS system. [1][2]

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 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.

I think a lot of value comes with the Frameworks, with them you get at least source compatibility with macOS and without them the core operating system will just be another Unix operating system without much hardware supports.

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