Valid point, although I was using the term proprietary with a focus on the operating system in the sense most do when discussing Windows vs. OSX, Linux, etc. meaning closed source = proprietary.
- Brian
Just a little comment of my own here... even though it is closed source does not mean it is proprietary. Keep in mind that even though OS X itself may close the kernel (and I can see why they have done it), you can still run open source operating systems on the Mac since it has an intel processor.
On 5/17/06, Brian Raymond <email@hidden> wrote:
I imagine this will generate some traffic on the list so I thought I would
throw my hat in the ring.
It looks like the Intel version of the OSX kernel might so closed source, I
can understand the reasoning however I don't think it will solve the
problem. If Apple is trying to limit what crackers can attack when trying to
get it to run on generic hardware I think it might help a little but it will
not solve the problem because people will still crack it.
The second more general point I wanted to make regarding Apple's source has
been that this has been used time and time again as a reason why you would
use Apple over competitors. I can't see Apple being able to use the
non-proprietary argument anymore.
- Brian
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
