God fucking dammit apple.
>>51732599
this is wrong in so many ways.
Apple - 'nuff said.
Sue them.
>>51732599
so what other major computer companies are making open source development a key part of their software strategy?
>>51732666
Microsoft is massively pushing into open source territories since Nutella took over. Also, many Linux-Kernel devs are actually MS employees.
>>51732599
But Apple gave us CUPS.
>>51732666
pic related, for example
>bonus points for "FOSS Outreach Program for Women"
>>51732666
<
>>51732674
but nobody likes CUPS
>>51732674
But Apple invented open-source anon.
>>51732666
Sun or RedHat eventually
>>51732692
also Android is open source
> the first major company
NOPE.
https://github.com/Microsoft/dotnet
>>51732674
>Microsoft is massively pushing into open source territories since Nutella took
Apple (and NeXT) has been releasing open source since early 1990s or so.
>>51732692
>jewgle spyware shit
kek'd.
>>51732710
>Sun or RedHat eventually
Sun? HAHAHAHHAHA
>>51732722
>also Android is open source
AOSP != Android®
Don't buy the "Android is open source" whitewashing. They just do code drops of some parts as open source where it suits them, but keep large parts as closed source when profitable/convenient. And the open source parts aren't useful on their own, because the proprietary parts are essential parts of the system's value. And then of course come the services and the platform's tight coupling to them. The services are even more closed - unnecessarily.
Real open source systems have outside contributors and stakeholders, and developer communities. Android mostly just has app developers and a "hacking" scene (xda etc).
Yes there's a small band of Quixotic guys trying to make an open source fork limp along but it's comparable in size (and odds of success) to Amiga users/developers. It's an unusable tech experiment that only runs on a couple of antiquated phones and has no services, not the Android that people know.
The only openness-related reason to prefer Android over iOS is that the app store policies are slightly less draconian than Apple's.
Android is for Google, by Google. The source is put someplace public each release, but development is completely behind closed doors. There is little transparency at all, on roadmaps, status of what is being worked on, status of existing bugs, etc.
If you aren't going to be part of the virtuous cycle of the Android ecosystem / OHA in general and license GMS, it makes less sense to use it as a base for something as grand.
I think this is the way Google designed it.
>>51732674
But Microsoft literally just started this year even releasing open source, If were arguing about the first computer company to support OSS that would probably be something like Sun defimitely not Microsoft.
The linux kernel dev thing is wrong. They once made a few contributions to support their own virtualization stack HyperV, thats about it.
>>51732753
>And the open source parts aren't useful on their own
what?
They're completely usable
source: built AOSP for my N5 from source, becuse why not
>>51732753
Isn't that just like apple?
>>51732735
Didnt sun create openoffice and also open source java?
>>51732786
>Isn't that just like apple?
Yes, exactly. There's very little difference between them. Google is all about locking you in with services and Apple's all about locking you in with devices. It's the same thing really.
There are some projects that try to make a truly open Android but those are so far behind, very little stuff actually works. Nt even Wifi or cell connections work on those forks.
Anyway, don't fall for "Android is open source" bullshit. It's not.
>>51732820
>Nt even Wifi or cell connections work on those forks
because those require proprietary drivers you daft cunt
That's like saying
>hurr durr Linux isn't open source because my wifi doesn't work
Who cares? Their main target group belevies anything they say anyway.
Why are people still surprised to see shit like this from Apple? And as long as there are idiots on this planet Apple will thrive anyway.
>>51732666
AMD of course
>>51732725
Are you retarded? This was released just months ago, apple has been continuing to release open source since the 90s.
Microsoft still has to open source their kernel and c compiler btw, something Apple already does.
>>51732836
Fucking retard.
What about "Play Service Framework", which is a collection of APIs added to Android but theoretically independent of it? There's so many of these closed APIs that your phone would not work without them.
>>51732912
>There's so many of these closed APIs
no
certain apps that rely on that framework (GCM, Cloud Sync, whatever) would not work
But the base system would
It's real fucking easy to try it out
Grab CyanogenMod and don't install GApps
Boom, you have Android without any of Google's proprietary stuff
>>51732666
Oracle
Lying faggot
>>51732599
>apple invents open source software
thank you appel
>>51732599
ambiguous statements:
- major computer company (what counts as a major computer company?)
- software strategy (the fuck does this mean?)
- significant quantities (compared to what?)
>>51732599
Nice photoshop OP
I think maybe when they say "major computer company" they mean "computer manufacturer" which is also probably not true either
>>51732912
>There's so many of these closed APIs that your phone would not work without them.
been using android for years without gapps installed
so many programs seem to rely on it because you get your apps mostly or entirely from the play store, which is not the only place you can get android apps from
They've changed it already brehs
https://developer.apple.com/opensource/
>>51733106
>ambiguous
Welcome to marketing.
Its still a fact that apple did a few significant contributions to OSS: Darwin, LLVM, LLDB, Clang, WebKit and CUPS.
>>51732666
S U N
U
N
>>51733120
>>51733152
for a moment there i thought op trolled us good, i didn't check until anon said it was a photoshop
but no, wayback machine has a copy from 2 days ago, which indeed shows what op took
http://web.archive.org/web/20151205190734/https://developer.apple.com/opensource/
>>51733134
What computer company contributed to open souce before Apple did?
>>51733120
Actually no Photoshop, just not up to date
https://web.archive.org/web/20150721052415/https://developer.apple.com/opensource/
>>51732722
>>51732692
Cause Chrome and Android existed in the 1990's amiright?
>>51732790
Darwin predates Sun open sourcing OO and Java
That's true though. When Apple released Darwin as open source back in 2000 there was no major computer company doing the same.
Some anon put a link to an article talking about companies like microsoft or apple doing hand washing or something like that. Some kind of propaganda to tell people they are clean and do good stuff.
If someone could find it and post it, I'll be grateful.
Also. Didn't they made swift open source because apple was bad at it and made a slow language with a shitty compiler or something like that ?
>>51733447
never mind, found it.
>openwashing
http://techrights.org/2015/07/14/propaganda-of-assimilation/
>>51732694
Apple stole open-source
>>51733299
They were compelled to do so as it was tied in with open source components that they used from BSD.
>>51733477
http://techrights.org/2015/04/14/fooling-politicians-about-open-source/
>Based on what Martin told us yesterday in the IRC channels, Microsoft is now pressuring governments in Europe to adopt proprietary software with data in NSA PRISM (Azure) by pretending it’s Open Source
>>51732599
>buzzwords
>>51733200
Reminder that Apple nearly went bankrupt because of their commitment to openness, not just in their software either. People shit on them for being so restrictive when companies forced their hand, you simply cannot rely on sales of a product that you leave open. SUN is dead for this exact reason and the world is a worse place without them. People like to point to Redhat as if Redhat relies on selling GNU or Linux, they sell a service (support) not a product, Apple sells hardware and some software yet they still give a majority of their software away and push stuff upstream even when there is no legal obligation to do so. I'm surprised that a company like Apple can go through something like that yet still contribute so much to the public, I'm talking about code itself, paying for developer contracts who work on open source projects, and monetary + hardware donations to software foundations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLuoahTP_s
>>51733529
You should read the BSD license terms, there's no obligation for them to do so at all.
>>51733610
There was also stuff coming from NeXT that people are obsessed with today for some reason. The UI and IPC stuff.
>>51733610
Nobody cares shiteater. Keep sucking Steve Jobs' cock, you fucking faggot.
>>51733529
BSD licenses are permissive, my dear retard. There's no obligation to release the code.
>>51733666
>macfag calls others retards
Oh the Irony!
>>51733647
Because Mach IPC primitives like Mach ports are far superior to anything else. Meanwhile Linux is going to have the worst-designed IPC possible: DBus.
They also are great at having a code of conduct
just sayin
Reported this to the FTC. I hope you all do the same
>>51733685
I hear they've massively increased their suicide net deployment; it really shows you that Apple cares about their workers.
>>51733656
:^)
>>51733679
Sorry that came out wrong, I don't get the hype around the UI, the IPC stuff does seem very interesting. I'm hyped for Jordan Hubbard's work on BSDNeXT, it's a FreeBSD fork with Mach stuff rolled back in as well as some OS X stuff like launchd, I hear they're planning on forking and fixing launchd, things like swapping XML with UCL, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49sPYHh473U
Seeing that kind of thing outside of OS X and Darwin itself is interesting. Yet another big contribution to the public.
How long did it take for it to be changed to this?
