• sibachian@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    considering Darwin (unix/BSD) is open source and what MacOS, iOS, watchOS, tvOS, iPadOS and bridgeOS runs on (and by law, they can’t close that source code), I can’t see Apple arguing in favor of closed source software. Assuming they don’t have an entirely new inhouse OS in the pipelines that they’re planning to replace Darwin with.

    • const_void@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Assuming they don’t have an entirely new inhouse OS in the pipelines that they’re planning to replace Darwin with.

      They created their own CPUs. A new OS doesnt seem out of the realm of possibility.

      • ganymede@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        not to nitpick, ‘core’ parts of that cpu were licensed. not saying they didn’t do a good job with it, they certainly did.

    • NFT screenshotter@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      Darwin (unix/BSD) is open source […] and by law, they can’t close that source code

      Darwin is open source to avoid having to open source other components to macOS while still adhering to various licenses for software it depends on for. If Apple could legally close source that part of the OS they would in a heartbeat, they’ve already gone out of their way to make it nearly impossible to use by (iirc) obfuscating the compiler forcing users to reverse engineer the compiling process for newer versions of darwin.

      • sibachian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        they would if they could. which is my point. without a replacement OS in the pipes, apple would be shooting themselves by demonizing open source software in front of the government.