Originally Posted by TenoBell
My point is that UNIX is open Windows NT is not.
Yes MS has been forced to submit its media standards for open source because this is the only way they have a chance of being widely used. As the market moves away from MS proprietary software.
Yes, generally ANY company that wishes for their formats, in this decade anyway, to be widely adopted will submit them to a standards body, and generally any company that wishes for any interoperability of any kind or at least does not want to waste time remaking the wheel will adopt other open standards. UNIX has been reduced to a spec, I don't consider it a standard even if you can "certify" it and be able to use it's trademark, common UNIX software has long since been ported to Unix-like systems, BSD ended up rewriting UNIX but is still considered UNIX, OSs based on System V like Solaris and AIX can claim to have original UNIX source code, but if a Linux distributor had the money they could iron out anything in their distro that's not compliant, make it compliant, then submit it the Open Group and be proud licensees of a name, at least POSIX is a real standard, but even that's not important to anybody except management government agencies.Edit:
I wanted to add, that Microsoft also opened up some of .NET, including the CLR and the C# language, and I'm sure that if we had a comparison chart of which open standards (not open source, the two are not the same thing at all) are supported along with the level of support (bare minimum or all of it), we'd find Microsoft on a bare minimum, on par with Apple, and more likely, ahead of Apple. But such a comparison would be worthless because in the end they both support a metric assload of standards, some of which they started, mostly those they didn't, and they both take two different approaches to developing their OSs, Microsoft with a mostly closed source model, although Singularity is an open source research project, and Apple with their mostly open source kernel and userland but mostly closed source APIs, frameworks, and bundled apps and tools. I'm in preference of Apple's model over Microsoft's, but still think Apple would benefit from opensourcing all of their APIs and frameworks, even if they don't have the incentive to right now.
I brought up Linux as an example to say that open source doesn't necessarily work the way you claim it would for OS X.
Linux is a kernel that supports more architectures and probably more drivers (a Linux driver project claims it does anyway, I'd believe it simply because while it lags behind in newer hardware for wireless chipsets and graphics cards, less so recently but to an extent, it's support for older hardware is likely unparalleled when compared to any other kernel) than any other operating system in the world, I say that substantiates my claims that it would lead to Mac OS X being ported to more architectures and with a larger library of drivers so better hardware support as well, sadly it seems the kernel developers focus more on server performance than desktop performance, but there are patch sets to improve desktop performance. Of course if Mac OS X were ported to more architectures, then of course software could be compiled in a fat mach-o binary to support those other architectures, I've always wondered how it would run on the Cell.