Apple publishes open-source code for OS X El Capitan

Posted:
in macOS
Apple has officially released the open-source components behind OS X El Capitan, making good on the licensing requirements of the code.




Numerous file directories for El Capitan were added to the company's open-source site overnight. Together the components help form Darwin, a Unix-based OS that OS X's proprietary technology sits on top of. No installer is included however, meaning that the code is mainly of interest for people wanting to see how Apple has forked the software.

El Capitan originally shipped on Sept. 30. Critics have sometimes complained that Apple can be slow to publish open-source code, even though licenses demand that those parts be freely shared.

The company also shares some of the code in iOS, but most components are privately developed or licensed -- there are just six open-source downloads listed for iOS 9.

Earlier on Tuesday Apple released OS X 10.11.2, a maintenance update for El Capitan. The software fixes problems with wireless connectivity, as well as things like importing iPhone photos via USB.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    Will this be a good decision? Damn, I don't know.
  • Reply 2 of 9
    ksecksec Posts: 1,551member
    fallenjt said:
    Will this be a good decision? Damn, I don't know.
    Apple had always had those Open Source, it is just they are used to post the Open Source Code months later after release.
  • Reply 3 of 9
    felix01felix01 Posts: 237member
    I wonder why Apple didn't migrate this over to GitHub (which is where they put Swift)?
  • Reply 4 of 9
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    ksec said:
    fallenjt said:
    Will this be a good decision? Damn, I don't know.
    Apple had always had those Open Source, it is just they are used to post the Open Source Code months later after release.
    Considering that the only people who benefit from the Open Source Darwin core are the Hackintosh people. I wouldn't fault them too much for it. It's one thing to release an complete OS that works on any piece of x86-64 kit, it's another to just release the parts that benefit almost nobody.

    It's like forks for OpenOffice, OpenSSL and MySQL. It did absolutely no good to fork them, but they were forked for political agenda reasons, not functionality reasons. 

    Essentially, there is no point to using the Darwin "OS" over something like FreeBSD or Linux because without the rest of the Mac OS X parts it's like having a car with none of the parts that make it road-worthy.


  • Reply 5 of 9
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,720member
    fallenjt said:
    Will this be a good decision? Damn, I don't know.
    It isn't a question of good or bad, it is a requirement if they use the code.   The whining from the open source community is often the result of Apples slow release schedules of such software.   There is probably an argument to be made though that releasing software before you are done with it doesn't make sense either.  As long as it eventually gets released we are all good.  


  • Reply 6 of 9
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,720member

    misa said:
    ksec said:
    fallenjt said:
    Will this be a good decision? Damn, I don't know.
    Apple had always had those Open Source, it is just they are used to post the Open Source Code months later after release.
    Considering that the only people who benefit from the Open Source Darwin core are the Hackintosh people. I wouldn't fault them too much for it. It's one thing to release an complete OS that works on any piece of x86-64 kit, it's another to just release the parts that benefit almost nobody.
    It isn't that simple really. Much of the code is in fact used elsewhere. Even if it isn't over say used elsewhere, Apples solutions to problems can be very enlightening to other developers.



    It's like forks for OpenOffice, OpenSSL and MySQL. It did absolutely no good to fork them, but they were forked for political agenda reasons, not functionality reasons. 

    Essentially, there is no point to using the Darwin "OS" over something like FreeBSD or Linux because without the rest of the Mac OS X parts it's like having a car with none of the parts that make it road-worthy.



    The forking if OpenOffice was one of the reasons I gave up on that package (in all forms) as the blatant political agendas frankly demonstrated that most of the people involved are not trust worthy. Especially in the case of the various OpenOffice forks which seemed to be the result of an especially sick stupidity. Now I just use Apples solutions for the little bit of "office" computing I need done. The OpenOffice plunge into stupidity is why poorly thought out knee jerk reactions are never a good thing.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member
    misa said:

    It's like forks for OpenOffice, OpenSSL and MySQL. It did absolutely no good to fork them, but they were forked for political agenda reasons, not functionality reasons.

    Eh....Out of the 3 you listed, only one of them actually forked out of majorly political reasons(Open Document Foundation/LibreOffice)

    MariaDB forked MySQL for both political and functionality reasons, such as Oracle locking away the bug database, failing to provide proper test cases for new code, questionable incoming code quality from Oracle developers, Removing entire features to "fix" bugs, failing to publish new features despite completion and testing, pricing MySQL dis-competitively against Oracle Express and lack of communication with the community. among other reasons.

    LibreSSL forking OpenSSL politically is flat out wrong. That was an entirely technical decision. In the first week alone, LibreSSL combed away 90,000 lines of legacy C code deemed to be vunerable and began the process of rewriting the majority of it with better security practices. El Capitan itself uses LibreSSL in place of OpenSSL.

    Can't say the same for BoringSSL admittedly that one you might have a point on.

    The best example of political forking one could have used tbh would simply be going through the various linux distros. Entire distros are forked over proprietary elements, choice of desktop environments, audio plugins ect...more than a few are simply forks of commercial derivatives essentially amounting to being the same thing as their commercial versions just without paid support or trademarks.(Ex. CentOS from RedHat)

    Anywho apologies for wall of text. Have a good one.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 8 of 9
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,149member
    fallenjt said:
    Will this be a good decision? Damn, I don't know.
    That was my immediate reaction too ...
  • Reply 9 of 9
    misa said:
    ksec said:
    fallenjt said:
    Will this be a good decision? Damn, I don't know.
    Apple had always had those Open Source, it is just they are used to post the Open Source Code months later after release.
    Considering that the only people who benefit from the Open Source Darwin core are the Hackintosh people. I wouldn't fault them too much for it. It's one thing to release an complete OS that works on any piece of x86-64 kit, it's another to just release the parts that benefit almost nobody.
    You mean other than all the users that don't have to put up with an obnoxious bug anymore because some kid at home downloaded the source, fixed the bug, and sent in a patch?

    Not to mention developers who can incorporate small bits of APSL code into their own projects.

    At any rate, Apple has been doing this for as long as OS X has existed.
    edited December 2015
Sign In or Register to comment.