Windows or Mac?

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, because we all know Microsoft doesn't put any restrictions on their products.

Allow me to quote the terms for Microsoft Silverlight:

Agreed pertaining to Apple.

Now what has Linus Torvalds ever done to restrict linux in such a way?

If you're thinking of the kernel Linux, nothing.

If you're thinking of the actual OS using the Linux kernel, AKA GNU/Linux, it's built on the idea of software freedom. Visit gnu.org to see.

Given that the topic of this thread is "Windows vs. Mac", I don't see why Linux has to be involved. What I was objecting to was what appeared to be an implication that Apple is "evil" because they put restrictions on their products, while Microsoft isn't guilty of that at all.

Guys I was asking Ichinin what he thinks Torvalds has done to restrict users.

Well what can Torvalds do to restrict users? There's a difference between being powerless and unrestricting.

Thats what I am wondering. I mean, its all GPL. If Linus did something truly unpopular someone would fork the kernel and He'd be developed out of relevance.

I think Ichinin is mistaking him for someone from windows or hes just spreading FUD. His statement makes no sense.

Fuzzy, I think you misunderstood him. Here's Ichinin's post that I assume you're referencing:

Meaning, unlike with Apple products, a standard PC is not locked down or deliberately limited. Ballmer/MS and Torvalds/Linux appear to have neither the ability nor inclination to make the same kind of arbitrary restrictions that Apple makes on their consumers. Now, I disagree with the extent to which this is true of Ballmer/MS, and I'm sure you do too, but it looked to me like Ichinin's point was that you have more freedom and choice if you don't use Apple. This is true.

osx = more free than windows in a lot of ways.

last i checked, i can actually get the source code for a kernel to be used in osx as well as source for much of the underpinnings.

i can also compile and use them on other platforms besides the mac if I am so inclined. I may not have the extra proprietary stuff that only comes on macs, but theres definitely more transparency and openness in the osx platform

Ah, You must be right. I misread it.

Well... in some ways, perhaps, but I would like to see you try to run the Darwin kernel and get a usable system out of it. To my knowledge, no one has yet managed to do it. And OS X is not functional without the proprietary components even if you did manage to get everything to compile properly. For one thing, it doesn't have device drivers for very much hardware.

And a significant chunk of the open-source stuff in OS X is open-source only because Apple didn't write it. It was already open-source, and they used it instead of writing their own version. Where exactly has Apple really contributed to the open-source world, or open-sourced anything that they weren't legally required to leave open?

No argument that Windows has very little freedom. But going from Windows to Mac means accepting not only a loss of software freedom, but also giving up choice in your hardware.

Windows because last time I checked you don't need to buy an overpriced computer to run it, more games, less asskissing fantards.

I'd type more but I'm in a hurry, just wanted to get that in, and I'll probably add more to this tomorrow.

I'm tired of people using games as a reason to choose Windows. Contrary to popular belief, you don't need Windows to play most games. Here are some of the many non-Windows gaming alternatives that most of the world seems to have forgotten about:






To make it even better, there are some games you simply can't play on Windows. Ever tried using a Windows PC to play Wii?

Sorry, MS fanboys, but if Windows were to disappear completely, most gamers wouldn't give a fu¢k.

Actually, osx86 is a prime example of XNU kernels that have been recompiled and/or modified much of the time. there are several kernels with different patches, the sources are usable. There is also a XNU kernel with GNU/BSD based utilities distribution out there called GNU-Darwin. And much of what apple didnt write that is currently open source is BSD licensed, if them not writing the open source code is the only reason, then why are their modifications still released as open source when the BSD license clearly does not force them to? Not to mention the other things that apple did write that are open such as launchd, portions of bonjour etc. as well as things apple did not write but modified and adapted so much they might as well have like WebKit.

You are right about it being largely incomplete as a full open source system. But the tradeoff here is OSX has largely functional no hassle audio drivers that do hardware mixing correctly 100% of the time, dont have incorrect mixer levels or settings, stable video and the like. In hardware drivers, sometimes having those NDAs and insider agreements and documentation *really* make a difference. Sometimes having the money to hire people from the other side of those agreements to help you is huge. You are right that OSX needs a lot of proprietary bits to make it what it is, but those bits are all the ones that are a mixed state of misery in linux, believe me I know as someone who uses linux as a desktop and on the server. There are specific combinations that work great for linux, sure, but largely you are bound to screw with something in audio, especially since ALSA became the standard and all these sound APIs came about and nobody can agree on which ones to use.

Hackintosh is not something allowed by Apple licensing, and it involves using all of OS X, including the proprietary components.


GNU/Darwin is not a functional operating system (doesn't even exist as a stand-alone system), and there doesn't appear to have been any active development on it in years. Its homepage seems to just be a crappy political blog.


Webkit is a fork of KHTML, which is licensed under the LGPL. If Apple made Webkit proprietary, they would almost certainly have been sued and lost.

You misunderstand, that 3rd party kernels exist for XNU means the source is usable, not that hackintoshes are allowed.

GNU-Darwin has a downloadable system that is usable enough, that nobody has contributed to it in a long time doesnt make it less real. It also shows the sources are infact usable and portable.

I never claimed apple could close webkit, what I meant was apple could have simply not used KHTML (plenty of closed source engines to buy, and plenty of money to do it totally in house) given all they have done with it to get it where it is.

I personally dont mind having some things closed if its all the things linux and freebsd do poorly or in a highly fragmented fashion. I mean I *love* open source, don't get me wrong here. I'm sure most Linux users who own notebooks or at least semi decent video cards would agree with me that at the least a mix of proprietary is necessary to properly enjoy a lot of hardware developed under closed conditions. How many linux users have nvidia cards but use the proprietary drivers despite (very) simple free drivers being available? Or what about broadcom wifi chips? various proprietary firmware blobs? I wish things like this were open and decent but at the time of this writing theres no decent open replacements for a lot of this.