Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Oct 2017 21:40 UTC, submitted by AaronMiller
Mac OS X

Apple has always shared the kernel of macOS after each major release. This kernel also runs on iOS devices as both macOS and iOS are built on the same foundation. This year, Apple also shared the most recent version of the kernel on GitHub. And you can also find ARM versions of the kernel for the first time.

The code was pushed to Apple's open source site, as well as to their official GitHub mirror.

Thread beginning with comment 649433
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by FlyingJester
by FlyingJester on Mon 2nd Oct 2017 22:36 UTC
Member since:

It's important to remember that compared with Microsoft, Apple is way, way more open.

They open sourced their entire kernel (which is not required by the license of the BSD components). They lead the way for the ports of dtrace and ZFS out of Solaris, and they have fully open sourced their mDNSResponder implementation.

Edited 2017-10-02 22:36 UTC

Reply Score: -1

RE: Comment by FlyingJester
by galvanash on Mon 2nd Oct 2017 23:57 in reply to "Comment by FlyingJester"
galvanash Member since:

It's important to remember that compared with Microsoft, Apple is way, way more open.

No offense meant, but I hate comments like this...

Both Apple and Microsoft are large multi-national corporations. They both make good and bad software, they both do good and bad things. For every seemingly positive thing you can name Apple does, I can name 10 negative ones (same goes for Microsoft).

When companies like this open source software (or do anything really), they do it out of economic self interest - nothing more. Altruism is not a word you can use to describe a corporate entity. People are altruistic, corporations exist to make their share holders money - and that is literally the only thing they exist for.

I like Apple products. I use them everyday. I'm a fan. That said, Apple's board of directors would happily kill small children if it made them lots of money and they knew they could get away with it... So would Microsoft's, or Google's, or any other large corporation. If you believe differently your delusional. Laws stop them from doing such things, not morals...

Can we all just stop trying to humanizing these companies? They are not people. They don't have feelings, or dreams, or emotions, or anything of the sort. They are not forces of good, or evil, they simply exist to make more money than last quarter. If you think Apple "has a heart", its just because their marketing department is very good at their job and you happen to be their target demographic...

Rant off. Sorry if I sound like an ass, I'm not directing anything at you personally, your comment just triggered me...

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by FlyingJester
by judgen on Tue 3rd Oct 2017 06:48 in reply to "RE: Comment by FlyingJester"
judgen Member since:

The owers are people, they are responsible to their actions and the actions of the company. However in the west "regulation" has caused those interest and liabilities of public good to evaporate. Today most companies can do horde style shit and the stock holders would have no responsibility.

Lets disable those regulations and make the shareholders responsible for what their comany sells.

Reply Parent Score: 5 Member since:

Microsoft engages linux and open development communities much more than apple does.

They improve linux hyper-v support, they integrate the linux subsystem in windows, they develop powershell and windows ssh server in the open. they even put mssql server on linux, which is finally gearing up for a release.

But they do all that to get a piece of the cloud and container action, to stay relevant in the server market. It's pretty obvious that containers and cloud technology really kicked them hard in the profits.

Apple took over a few linux/unix tools (like CUPS) and they keep maintaining them in the open. It's probably less of a contribution than the ones from ms, although a welcome one. Apple's kernel source release - i have no clue why they do it, unless they expect some sort of kernel contributions. If someone knows, i'll be glad to listen.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by FlyingJester
by bryanv on Thu 5th Oct 2017 00:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by FlyingJester"
bryanv Member since:

No no, laws _punish_ them for doing such things, not _stop_ them.

There's a difference.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by FlyingJester
by cade on Thu 5th Oct 2017 02:35 in reply to "RE: Comment by FlyingJester"
cade Member since:

Hmmm ....

How about you start your own "good will" software/hardware/IT/etc. company to protect us from those "evil" mega-corporations ?

Abit hard I think.

The current/potential negativities you attributed to those corporates originate not from the corporation per-se but from the collective "human fodder" that empowers these corporate entities. The "top-dogs" at the CEO level get away with what they can (be it good or bad) because of the underlying human-based support structure. Remember, we humans aren't perfect, can be stupid, can be hypocritical, etc. and it's no surprise that mega-corporations exist with certain "deficits";
e.g. In a one year period, Obama signs a "drone order" to eliminate 60 terrorists and the result is about 1000 peoples get annihilated due to collateral damage;
"collateral" --> {young boys/girls, mothers, fathers} not related to terrorist activity}. Where was the massive outcry by the free peoples of the west, where was the reform. Nothing. Still, with this and other tainted-marks on Obama's record, too many think he's an okay guy. Note: This is an example and that "imperfections" can be found in many other leaders. Not meant to be a purely "obama hit piece".

The problem here is that it appears you are a person of weak-mettle with, apparently unknowingly, a hypocritical nature. I say these things in regards to your statements. To elaborate:
- you believe/recognize/hypothesize/? that "corporate evilness" does exist (e.g. the "evil" Apple) with "economic self-interest" being one of the main-drivers of this "evilness"

- the ideal is for humans to be associated with the "good"

- the inference is that "corporate evilness" is a negativity and, in an ideal/? world, should not be tolerated (or at least should be avoided by the "good" people of the world)

- Finally, the "moment of clarity", you have deep/strong understandable/passionate reservations about the "evil" corporation but still you are a "fan" of products made by that "evil" corporation (Apple in this case). Is it because:
- you cannot do your lifestyle/study/work without Apple products
- you face peer-group pressure if you avoid Apple products
- Apple products give you a relatively hassle-free workflow and you have been accustomed to this workflow and the notion of using a non-Apple workflow is just non-existant due to the "comfort-zone" imparted by the Apple ecosystem (the psychological effect of companies like Apple, which in my experience can sometimes make people "weak")
- ?.

This all reminds me about my decision to go Microsoft-free. In terms of my primary {OS, software development platform}, I have been Windows-free since early 2009. I switched to OSX back in 2009 (iMac) and has been a good "it just works" experience. However, I am steadily migrating to FreeBSD platform due to Apple's non-interest in maintaining OpenGL and Apple's lack-lustre GPU support.

My software/programs are first developed on a unix box and optionally ported to Windows if required. My {build/software tools, code libraries} are compatible with cross-platform development and this is a big bonus. For software construction, a unix type system is just "too great". I was never happy back then about Microsoft's monopolistic tricks but dropping Microsoft stuff was more for pragmatic reason in that a unix-type environment offered/offers better software development workflows.

While I do agree that there are corporate entities that are not across the board "well-natured" I do believe that:
- people make corporations and the collective "fault" of the people gives rise to the uber-fault of the corporation
- people are not perfect
- there can be a middle point where you can agree to disagree and still be able to have some "pseudo" comfort from the "good" output provided by a corporation
- if someone passionately believes that a "corporate" entity has done an unforgivable "wrong" or "wrongs" then that person should definitely seek solutions outside that corporate's technological offerings. This way, that person can escape the hypocrite-tag.

For me at least, the last point reminds me of Intel's criminal behaviour in attempting to cancel AMD's access to lucrative computing sectors (e.g. Intel paying Dell/etc hundred-of-millions (near-billion) dollars of annual "rebates" so that AMD gear is not purchased. This was a massive crime to the consumers of the world, all thanks to Intel. My response to this is for my next box to be a AMD Ryzen-based one. If I considered my next system to be a new-generation Intel-based one even if it were cheaper then I would be a hypocrite. But the way it stands, the new AMD Ryzen platform is better bang-for-back and a more interesting platform.

FYI, these are just some philosophical "ramblings" and in no way meant represent any personal attacks.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by FlyingJester
by FunkyELF on Tue 3rd Oct 2017 17:47 in reply to "Comment by FlyingJester"
FunkyELF Member since:

The stuff the promised to open up they never did... like Facetime.

Reply Parent Score: 4

darknexus Member since:

The stuff the promised to open up they never did... like Facetime.

I don't think they can. If I remember right, there was a patent troll involved with some of the aspects of FaceTime. Then again, given the reception they've gotten from the so-called open source community so far, why take the trouble? They'd just be told it wasn't open enough anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: Comment by FlyingJester
by zima on Wed 4th Oct 2017 12:23 in reply to "Comment by FlyingJester"
zima Member since:

MS also opensources a lot lately, and code which they not simply ~adopted from the outside (as is the case with majority of Apple contributions) but developed in-house (.Net framework comes to mind)

Reply Parent Score: 3