airyxOS Aims To Build Upon FreeBSD With The "Finesse of macOS"

[darkoverlordofdata]

Why do people support BSD licenses for OS when their only advantage over GPL is for the corporations that can take it up, make some improvements and release it as a closed source proprietary OS without benefiting the original project in any way? I mean, if BSD license was good for projects, then darwin and freeBSD/openBSD etc would be one of the best supported and feature rich projects out there, given how many companies have benefited from them for their proprietary software

Since I don't like the GPL, I'll be glad to give you an answer. I'm about the same age as RMS - 66. I have always felt that he was consumed by unreasonable paranoia similar to QAnon. The GPL was designed as a poison pill, seemingly out of spite, and intentionally created to prevent cooperation. He hated DEC - fair enough, I did too, but his response was unnecessary, DEC ended up screwing themselves out of business.

I worked for Microsoft for almost 20 years. Balmer was screwed, but I still trust them. I just don't like their approach to technology - I cut my teeth on Univac, and later worked in various Unix shops. That is why I like FreeBSD. I prefer an unrestricted license like the BSD license because it allows cooperation and leads to progress. As I've said, I'm not paranoid, and if corporations want to use some tech, then OK, I'm fine with that.

[leo_sk]

Since I don't like the GPL, I'll be glad to give you an answer. I'm about the same age as RMS - 66. I have always felt that he was consumed by unreasonable paranoia similar to QAnon. The GPL was designed as a poison pill, seemingly out of spite, and intentionally created to prevent cooperation. He hated DEC - fair enough, I did too, but his response was unnecessary, DEC ended up screwing themselves out of business.

I worked for Microsoft for almost 20 years. Balmer was screwed, but I still trust them. I just don't like their approach to technology - I cut my teeth on Univac, and later worked in various Unix shops. That is why I like FreeBSD. I prefer an unrestricted license like the BSD license because it allows cooperation and leads to progress. As I've said, I'm not paranoid, and if corporations want to use some tech, then OK, I'm fine with that.

BSD lisence seems to discourage innovation. Otherwise linux would have had less contributors and activity than any BSD. Currently (just the kernel), it has more than all BSD distros combined. People in general do not like their hardwork to be misused by others who make monetary gains on it and give nothing back in return

[leo_sk]

People are Evil! The BSD, MIT, and ISC licenses are suppierier to me because they are truly free, BUT like you said you get companies like Apple and Sony and Juniper who do not contribute back. They just take and take. Does that mean that truly open license is bad? No it doesn't, it just means there are some evil companies out there who won't contribute back!

Sadly thats the world we live in. Freedom always has some restrictions, and in case of open source software, I think it is reasonable to assume that the restriction should be to not exploit open source software. In an ideal world, I would have not bothered with any lisence at all, but sadly thats not our world. To ensure that an open source project sustains itself and grows, we need to ensure that people who benefit from it give something back in return

[JackLilhammers]

My favorite DE was KDE. I'm Gnome user since about 1.5 year, but what you said was valid for Gnome 2. Gnome 3 is different thing.

The fact that's different doesn't mean it's not valid :'D
I'm using macos and Gnome (and Windows and Kde) and I can't really see all this difference.
I mean, the overview is pretty much mission control. There's spotlight for desktop search. Both have a dock and make heavy use of headerbars (but macos also has its searchable menu bar)
The main difference that I see is that mac's desktop is nicer and more flexible out of the box. (of course Gnome is more customizable with extensions and Kde is in a league of its own)

[betty567]

it's disappointing they're using every outdated and insecure language as possible for new projects instead of adopting Rust.

The myth that Rust is a superior language to "unsafe" C and C++. Rust has not been proven, no world-class software project uses Rust, unless you count the death-spiraling Firefox. Rust jobs make up about 0.0000001% of software engineering jobs as far as I can see. But zealots everywhere try to convince everybody that Rust is the perfect tool for every job, with no downsides.

Meanwhile, all of the most elite software engineers in the world are getting by just fine with "unsafe" C and C++. But, but, but... All of the memory leaks and security holes in the world would disappear if everybody ported their code to Rust!!!! Yeah, right, I trust myself to call free() for every malloc() more than I trust any garbage collector, because I have the lived experience of using both extensively. If developers are not using the standard diagnostic tools to identify and fix these issues, that is really a reflection of them and not the language, and it's silly to even suggest that Rust can provide perfect outcomes for incompetent and careless developers.

[dfyt]

Upper hand in graphics? you mean the one that was always worse than Windows? You mean the one that for most of the past decade has been slower than Linux's? You mean the one that didn't pick up mouse cursor warping until after Linux? Mac only ever had an upper hand in graphics because of the PPC hardware being better for floating point than early x86, and even then they weren't the best choice for that era, that would be the Amiga.

Well Davinci Resolve runs WAY WAY faster than Windows or Linux when it comes to it's GPU assisted special effects. (Not talking about video encode / decode but fusion). On my Hackin fusion renders almost realtime, windows about 6-8x slower and Linux around 3x slower. AMD has certainly tweaked metal. I would LOVE if Linux got the same perf but would run a BSD OS if running native mac apps were possible.

[logical]

Ha ha, one of the new features of Monterey is that you can now change the colors of the Mouse cursor... something AmigaOS has had since 1.3 at least, potentially earlier. Oh and you can do 4 color mouse pointers. macOS can only do two...
https://www.imore.com/how-customize-...macos-monterey

Not only that, but you could easily design your own mouse pointer.

[hipower]

I do not understand the intention behind all of this "Lets create a copy of XY" while, if you think a minute about it it always ends in a "Copy of XY without any support from outside, with no polish, with no apps, with almost no testing, with no usage for an enduser".

For real, create something own, something that is not to different from todays world of computing, but is an own thing. Like Fedora does, like ElementaryOS does. No one cares about a "free clone", users want "usable alternatives"

I recently heard Linus Torvalds himself describe Linux as still nothing more than a Unix clone. Food for thought.

[lumks]

I recently heard Linus Torvalds himself describe Linux as still nothing more than a Unix clone. Food for thought.

If thats true it wouldnt be a problem, as UNIX is not a real thing anymore, but a phylosophy. Nobody uses UNIX, but an Operating System that tries to life up to the UNIX mentality. It's much like "My new shirt is made with oldschool t-shirts from the 70s in mind", vs. "My new Aquidas Shirt is redo-version of a popular Adidas Shirt you cant buy anymore"

[JackLilhammers]

If thats true it wouldnt be a problem, as UNIX is not a real thing anymore, but a phylosophy. Nobody uses UNIX, but an Operating System that tries to life up to the UNIX mentality. It's much like "My new shirt is made with oldschool t-shirts from the 70s in mind", vs. "My new Aquidas Shirt is redo-version of a popular Adidas Shirt you cant buy anymore"

Actually, mac os is a certified unix