/tech/ - Technology

>>546370

> OSX

>people will be much freer

>hardware lock

>no UI modification

>people will be much freer

WTF am I reading? Is this what 8chan has become in 2016?

>>546379

OSX is built upon a libre core, it is therefore more libre than Windows comparatively in terms of software freedoms.

>>546380

I guess that makes Windows NT 4.0 open source, then. :^)

Once you step into the Microsoft enterprise ecosystem every creative and fun aspect of developing is gone.

>>546383

1) We're not talking about open source, we're talking about libre software

2) NT isn't Libre, XNU/Mach aka Darwin, is: https://opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1228.0.2/

>>546379

Majority is web developers on fag OS.

>>546380

The post said nothing about software freedoms (which in itself is an oxymoron, because most software isn't a conscious entity), but about people freedom and people are obviously a lot less free if they use OSX.

>>546392

From OP

>though OSX is not libre it is based on libre software so compared to Windows people will be much freer

>>546394

But that's ridiculous. Software is either libre or it isn't, there's no middle ground and if a piece of software does not allow for the four basic software freedoms it is no better than any other non-libre software.

>>546386

>1) We're not talking about open source, we're talking about libre software

I know but the logic to claim that OSX is free/libre in any way is so flawed that one might consider the NT 4.0 leak open source.

>2) NT isn't Libre, XNU/Mach aka Darwin, is

But OSX is not. It doesn't matter if they release their code if the end product is not free. It does not make you any more free than using Windows or some other non-free OS.

>>546399

OSX is not one piece of software, just like Ubuntu isn't nor Mint. Just because Mint has proprietary elements, does not mean that everything in it is proprietary.

No one is claiming OSX is open source, the assertion is that OSX is more compatible with other unix-like systems.

>>546400

>I know but the logic to claim that OSX is free/libre in any way is so flawed that one might consider the NT 4.0 leak open source.

That literally makes no sense.

>But OSX is not. It doesn't matter if they release their code if the end product is not free. It does not make you any more free than using Windows or some other non-free OS.

I never said that OSX was libre, I said that compared to Windows it is *more libre*.

>>546403

I meant more libre

>>546405

For God's sake dude, if something has more libre elements than something else, then it is the lesser of two evils because it still has more freedoms than the other. Windows is basically 100% locked down, while OSX is only 50%, it's like if you got GNU/Linux and put your own proprietary sprinkling on top (ok, it's a bit more than sprinkling but still), the kernel would still be libre, coreutils would still be libre, etc, just the proprietary sprinkling on top wouldn't be libre.

>>546419

>I have no actual refutation for your point

>>546370

I can see this being true. Get any developer to try programming on Linux, and they'll forever want to go back to Linux. I tried this on a friend of mine and he always mentions how he wants to code on Linux now and not Wangblows.

>>546370

>OSX is based on libre software so compared to Windows people will be much freer

In what manner precisely? This sounds like bullshit. Just because Chrome uses open-source libraries doesn't make it any more freedom-respecting. Likewise, what user freedom can actually come from the OS X kernel being libre?

>>546455

Yes it's bullshit, proprietary is proprietary.

>>546455

>In what manner precisely?

People can make distributions based on the kernel, you can check that the kernel has no botnet, you can modify the kernel to your needs, fixing bugs without needing to wait on Apple, you can better understand the inner workings of the OS. If the kernel were to be closed up, it would mean that a developer would have a very hard time understanding the inner workings of a kernel feature (such as a syscall) that has little or no documentation.

>>546439

Similar thing happened when I decided to try "Emacs, the meme text editor". It is currently my favourite text editor.

>>546609

Nice pipedream, fatty.

>>546613

Fight me IRL

>>546604

That is what started my interest in Linux. Once you try a few of these things out, you realize how shitty the offerings from MS and Apple are.

This board was a huge motivator for giving Linux an honest shot on physical hardware. When I got a spare laptop with semi-okay specs, I threw it on there on day after reading topics on this board, and ended up using the laptop more than my new Computer.

>>546478

>People can make distributions based on the kernel

The fact that people can make BSD-based operating systems does not make OS X users any freer.

>you can check that the kernel has no botnet

Again, does not practically affect OS X users.

>you can modify the kernel to your needs

implying OS X users world be doing kernel modification

>fixing bugs without needing to wait on Apple

This is basically a corner case even in Linux, it's not as if anybody using OS X is going to recompile their kernel just to fix some bug 6 months earlier than Apple would if you contacted them about it and then paid $200 for the upgrade

>you can better understand the inner workings of the OS. If the kernel were to be closed up, it would mean that a developer would have a very hard time understanding the inner workings of a kernel feature (such as a syscall) that has little or no documentation.

OK, that one is a legitimate point.

>>546673

>The fact that people can make BSD-based operating systems does not make OS X users any freer.

Yes it does, it means that someone can give a copy to a friend as long as they strip the proprietary sprinkles off (but tbh, this is impractical, I may as well just build Darwin from source). Also, Darwin is not BSD, it is a fork that has been heavily modified.

>Again, does not practically affect OS X users.

>Knowing that your kernel isn't data mining you doesn't practically affect you

>implying OS X users world be doing kernel modification

This is a stupid assumption, just because someone won't do something doesn't mean that having the freedom to do so is not a point.

>it's not as if anybody using OS X is going to recompile their kernel

I would if I were still on OSX

>just to fix some bug 6 months earlier than Apple would if you contacted them about it

Sometimes 6 months is too long, sometimes people have deadlines

>and then paid $200 for the upgrade

OSX upgrades are actually free in price in case someone needed me to say that

Might I also mention that the APSL is FSF approved https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

>>546392

Software freedom means all people have unrestricted access to the code, and they are able to do anything with it (except to restrict other people's access to the same code or derived from it).

>>546689

And when annoying developers who don't get why Wangblows and Visual Shittios sucks finally shut the fuck up about them.