this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2022
31 points (97.0% liked)

Open Source

30339 readers
1268 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Windows97@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

this sounds like a great idea, invite the big tech corporations who make almost all their profit off of closed source software to discuss the security of open source software with the US government

[–] sibachian@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 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.

[–] Windows97@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 2 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.

[–] mekhos@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Mr president there's a huge risk we'll struggle to profit if this open-source rediculosness is allowed to get out of hand. A real hotbed of anarchy shakes head dangerous stuff.

[–] AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

Apple to cry foul when people call bullshit on their unverifiable privacy claims and prefer open, auditable, reproducible software instead.

[–] Thann@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm assuming the "risk" is to the indiscriminate dragnet spyware

[–] ganymede@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago

how the conversation should go "so you fuckers were making millions off these projects you refused to support?"

[–] ericbuijs@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

"men bileve not lyghtly hym whiche is knowen for a lyer"

[–] loki@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Apple:

-create walled ecosystems

-make developers pay an pricey subscription fee to publish app on proprietary app store

-disallow alternative appstore

-extend review time for open source software as a security review (especially for security updates)

-people will then lose trust in open source software

-PROFIT

[–] oh_jeez_rick@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Make it illegal! /s

[–] lowercase@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

An apple, an orange and a preacher walk into a bar...

[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nothing will happen from this. Apple can't influence politics.

[–] libre_warrior@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Or that's at least the impression I get from reading the comments.