site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com On vendredi, février 17, 2006, at 04:32 PM, Graham J Lee wrote: On 17 Feb 2006, at 14:38, Peter O'Gorman wrote: [...] This could help me for turf related stuff :) _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... Hi, [...] By limiting published source code to that which is "infected" by the GPL, Apple is, in my honest opinion, scoring an own goal. I agree, but then I think that a large slice of the people you just sent your message to (especially on hackers@) are going to agree also. I for one have filed an Enhancement Request with Apple asking for greater access to the Darwin/intel sources and outlining what I use it for, and why I won't be able to get all of my work done if I went to an intel-only environment with the current source availability. IOW, I explain why I'm not about to rush out and upgrade all of my PPC Macs ;-). I don't know how successful that will be, but source-code availability of the core UNIX is a reason that I and some of my colleagues have given to justify going with OS X; not having that makes other BSDs, Linux and Slowlaris[!] more attractive than OS X for some purposes. What would be interesting to see in the Intel source version is the explanation why one week before the announcement of Mac OS X for Intel at WWDC, the x86 version of Darwin was said to be a dying 3-leg horse from a performance point of view with no hope of recovery and now, since the release of the Intel iMac Core Duo, it is (or stated to be) a stalion. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com