Mac's Operating System is Open Source...

[trivialpackets]

Settle this for me, as I'm sure there's plenty of opinionated folks here. A Mac fan whom I work with and I have been arguing for a week now. His claim is that the Mac's Operating System is open source. He is citing that because it uses Darwin, which is open source, and wants to define darwin as the entire OS. From what I understand, underneath Darwin, there is also NextStep. I have shown cite after cite on the web, including descriptions on the Mac site as well that the Operating System is OS/X, not Darwin. I guess what we're arguing about is a classic example of debate that can't be solved because he won't accept my definition of an OS, nor I his. Definitions are where a debate can be won and lost. My stand is clearly that OS/X contains open sourced code, but it is the Operating System (not Darwin alone), and is not Open Source.

[Reshin]

Nope, it's closed. OS X has nothing to do with darwin, IIRC :-k

[trivialpackets]

I believe that darwin is definitely a *part of the OS, but is clearly to anyone other than the person trying to make an argument otherwise, not the entire OS.

[aysiu]

The burden of proof is on your friend, not you.

If he claims Mac OS X is open source, he should provide written documentation from Apple saying as much and the actual source code that Apple has made freely available.

If he can't put up, he should shut up.

[trivialpackets]

Again, the issue is with the terms. He defines the OS as Darwin, and OS/X being more like KDE or Gnome as a window manager. Again, it's not as though I believe I'm wrong.

[3rdalbum]

Tell him to install Darwin alone, and run OS X programs on it. He'll change his tune. Besides, although OS X is based on Darwin, the Darwin that is actually included with OS X contains closed-source drivers.

[Ptero-4]

And while you're there get him to use his soft-modem or isight under raw darwin.

[elcasey]

Darwin is about as open-sourced as Apple gets, but the OS isn't called "Darwin," it's called "OS X." Even if he's arguing that Aqua, etc. is merely a window manager, it's still not open source. Open Source does not mean Linux/UNIX, nor is every system running a flavor of *nix going to be open source.

Darwin is interesting in that it is majority open source, but it's not much of a functioning OS, either. Darwin is the "FreeBSD foundation" of OS X, IIRC, but it's not the entire OS, not by any means. You can install plain Darwin on a system, but you can't do that much with it, honestly.

Apple's website has pretty extensive documentation on Darwin. Have your buddy look some of it, and if he can't admit he's incorrect then he's pretty damned thick-headed. And still wrong. :D

[Old Pink]

Tell him to print an exert from the OS/X source code. :D

[PWill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29

[spockrock]

to my understand darwin is mostly opensource, it contains closed source drivers, darwin will not work to my understanding without them. Darwin is not OS X, while OS X is built upon darwin, OS X is proprietary and closed source.

[turkenator]

if i remember correctly darwin is no longer open source so the new versions of darwin's source code wont be released i think i read it on slashdot check it out