Comment Re:Which Apple supports to a great extent!!! (Score 1) 734
I guess you did since Apple makes contributions to GCC, and releases those back into the codebase. (snip)
OK, I can admit when I'm wrong; I had no idea Apple released code into GCC. Although I personally have no use at all for Objective-C support, I like the fact that Apple contributed a lot of the code making that possible. Apple went up more than a few notches in my book tonight.
Do you honestly place no value whatsoever in helping people make use of open source applications? (snip) Well OS X ships with all of them installed for one thing, which is as noted helping to spread use of them
Of course, I like that. It would be a tremendous disservice to overlook that- as our friends in Redmond have. Unfortunately, helping people make use of open source applications is nowhere near as valuable as sharing your own expertise and code to the community- and not just a tiny subset of it.
You mean how they want to hold the keys to it in order to strangle the life out it? I guess you must really love DRM to want to see it live forever outside Apple's control.
You mean the iPods that can play MP3 from anywhere, and can run Linux Or perhaps the iPhone - which is just getting an SDK... Which is as I said based greatly on open source (such as Darwin) and also makes use of a huge number of open source UNIX applications to add value.
In retrospect, I regret bringing up these specific instances. They detracted from my point, and gave you a easy list to nitpick. See below.
Why you typed up a whole message only to blow your own point is beyond me.
I didn't blow my point, I just failed to state it clearly. In short, you can tout all of these episodes in which Apple assisted in or contributed to promoting open source software, but the end point still remains: Apple is a commercial entity intent on maintaining its proprietary modus operanda and the profits it results in. They're selfish. Closed. Restrictive. Bossy. Ask yourself why they provide the services and goods they do. For the betterment of the community? No, it's for the betterment of Apple Inc.. I don't like that, and that's why I have a beef with Apple.
Before you suggest that I'm condemning all businesses or capitalism as a whole, one quick google search of 'largest kernel contributors' should show you some multinational corporations that I like and respect, in comparison to Apple and their half-assed open source support.
Please, please do all of us a favor and at least read the Ars Technica material on OS X before you embarrass yourself further. Basically you are chastising a company that has done far more for open source than you ever will in your whole lifetime.
I don't see a need to make this personal, but apparently you do. Also, I think you see by now that don't need to- or care to- read whatever manual that is. If I was looking for enrichment or enlightenment, my time is better spent at http://www.gnu.org/ .
OK, I can admit when I'm wrong; I had no idea Apple released code into GCC. Although I personally have no use at all for Objective-C support, I like the fact that Apple contributed a lot of the code making that possible. Apple went up more than a few notches in my book tonight.
Do you honestly place no value whatsoever in helping people make use of open source applications? (snip) Well OS X ships with all of them installed for one thing, which is as noted helping to spread use of them
Of course, I like that. It would be a tremendous disservice to overlook that- as our friends in Redmond have. Unfortunately, helping people make use of open source applications is nowhere near as valuable as sharing your own expertise and code to the community- and not just a tiny subset of it.
You mean how they want to hold the keys to it in order to strangle the life out it? I guess you must really love DRM to want to see it live forever outside Apple's control.
You mean the iPods that can play MP3 from anywhere, and can run Linux Or perhaps the iPhone - which is just getting an SDK... Which is as I said based greatly on open source (such as Darwin) and also makes use of a huge number of open source UNIX applications to add value.
In retrospect, I regret bringing up these specific instances. They detracted from my point, and gave you a easy list to nitpick. See below.
Why you typed up a whole message only to blow your own point is beyond me.
I didn't blow my point, I just failed to state it clearly. In short, you can tout all of these episodes in which Apple assisted in or contributed to promoting open source software, but the end point still remains: Apple is a commercial entity intent on maintaining its proprietary modus operanda and the profits it results in. They're selfish. Closed. Restrictive. Bossy. Ask yourself why they provide the services and goods they do. For the betterment of the community? No, it's for the betterment of Apple Inc.. I don't like that, and that's why I have a beef with Apple.
Before you suggest that I'm condemning all businesses or capitalism as a whole, one quick google search of 'largest kernel contributors' should show you some multinational corporations that I like and respect, in comparison to Apple and their half-assed open source support.
Please, please do all of us a favor and at least read the Ars Technica material on OS X before you embarrass yourself further. Basically you are chastising a company that has done far more for open source than you ever will in your whole lifetime.
I don't see a need to make this personal, but apparently you do. Also, I think you see by now that don't need to- or care to- read whatever manual that is. If I was looking for enrichment or enlightenment, my time is better spent at http://www.gnu.org/ .
