Talk:Mac OS X/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

International name

How is Mac OS X pronounced overseas? Does each country localize the "Ten" into their native word for the number ten? And is OS translated to the initials of the local words for "operating system"? --Navstar 05:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

These should probably go in the localized articles for each language, for example German. Is there any reason the localized pronunciations would be relevant to the English article? MFNickster 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
General curiosity. Perhaps the challenges of marketing it as a global product? It doesn't seem like this entry deals much with the sales and marketing of Mac OS X as a product. --Navstar 04:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to worry Navstar. We use either the numeral ten in our language or the letter x as it's pronounced locally. "OS" is pronounced as a local acronym or the entire "Mac OS" is simply replaced with "system" as in "system ten." INic 13:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

While this has probably been brought up before, there is no "Criticisms" sections on this page. I feel that one or two senetences is unacceptable, as the Windows XP article has a whole section and several subsections devoted entirely to this. I'm sure that there are flaws with the OS, and i think that (in the nature of NPOV) they should all be included so that one can easily navigate to see them all in an easier manner than scrolling and scanning the article for one or two meager sentences. jstupple7 03:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

jstupple7, do use OS X? If so, why don't you tell us your own 'criticisms' of it, and we can discuss them here. Point out the 'flaws' you see; perhaps you're having problems that others aren't having with OS X Duke53 | Talk 18:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I owned a mac for a while, and i switched back to Windows after realizing that they weren't that different. I felt uncomfortable paying extra just because its a mac. Also, there were a myriad of apllications and games i could not find for a mac platform, and even though i could get bootcamp for it, it was very slow. I feel slightly offeded by your response, as i feel as though you were being very sarcastic. after reviewing you talk pages, i see you have some problems with vandaliasim and dealing with other contributers, so please do not carry this over to me.jstupple7 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel offended that you want other editors to add criticisms here because Windows has many of them; truly one of the more inane requests I've seen. What apllication [sic] did you need that you couldn't get for a Mac? My Macbook runs 'Windoze' faster than 'Windows only' machines, so peddle that story elsewhere. Duke53 | Talk 07:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. If you read my talk page(s) you must realize I don't suffer fools and liars gladly. "While this has probably been brought up before ..." Yeah, at the top of this very page for starters; I guess you somehow missed seeing that.
Wile some apps are windows only, that doesn't mean that aren't equally effective programs that perform the same function on other platforms (linux, OS X, ect.), the fact that people moving to a platform new to them don't know the apps they need doesn't mean those doesn't exist. Also, there is ABSOLUTELY no technical reason for windows to run slower "on boot camp" since it's running natively (actually Win isn't running on boot camp, it allows windows to run by itself). And there is no reason to bash this user either, that doesn't help anyone, and this is certainly not the place. --Andazp 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If somebody thinks that XXX is lacking from Wikipedia, then that somebody should go add XXX to Wikipedia. Throwing onto a talk page a plea for XXX appears to indicate that the somebody in question thinks that the world owes them an XXX in Wikipedia, which is not the case - Wikipedia is a community effort. If you want a Criticisms section on the OS X page, put it there yourself (that's what a wiki is all about), don't just complain and expect somebody else to do the work for you. Guy Harris 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Just make sure you get some references so it's not just your opinion of what's wrong with OS X. — Miles←☎ 06:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
but thats just it, it isn the opinions that matter. The opinions of the users. But if only one user has this opinion then it is pretty much useless. The vista criticism section is sad. Probably made from fanboys probably of another camp... but its all invalid opinions of things just to bash on vista about things with little or no importance or about features deactivated easily. so its only fair to do the same for osx! j/k --Nytemunkey 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty wrong with OSX. It would be no problem finding sources on that. Just something about mac people who just cant handle that osx isnt all mighty.--Nytemunkey 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many things that need improvement and there are things that are plain wrong in OS X, just like any other OS. But the statement "Just something about mac people who just cant handle that osx isnt all mighty" is false, and pretty insulting; people that actually think that OS X is perfect or have no problems are ignorant from a technological standpoint, just like there are ignorant people using Windows, and even Linux. If you get some perspective you'll see that the blind supporters and the more vocal haters belong to the more ignorant parts of any given platform user base.--Andazp 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The only complaint I keep hearing about Mac OS X is that it isn't Windows, and that people aren't used to the interface (they should be, you'd think!) and also the hardware related one, the one-buttoned mouse. Seriously, apart from those two, there aren't any widespread criticisms. Sfacets 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the references from the altual criticisms section. Sure there is a fairly large amount of people whose complain is just "OSX sucks because it isn't Windows", but there is others who say things more like "OSX if really good, but could be better". I took the criticisms from those people. Dravick 14:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First references

I find it surprising that discussion openings on this talk page about criticism are met with either silence or offence. We're creating a neutral encyclopedia here, and it is really interesting to deal with both sides of the coin. Mac OS X is not the perfect operating system. We know it's not just an insignificant minority opinion but many people and organizations choose another operating system. Isn't it somewhat a mystery why that is?

It's not a mystery at all. All people on earth endorse opinions and act according to principles that are not scientifically based. I'm not talking about religion here in the first place but culture in general. Things like fashion, style, personal/corporate image, rumor, brag-factor and so on. This is trivial knowledge to anyone that studied psychology or sociology. In an encyclopedia, however, only scientifically based facts and opinions are allowed. INic 12:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert in Mac OS X and you people would do better in lifting up the significant opinions, but in Wikipedia that doesn't stop me from starting with something. I propose the following references could be used to start a section on criticism (the article sections aren't currently organized to allow criticism):

--TuukkaH 09:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then go ahead and start the section and you will be corrected if you're offbase. Why do people expect us Mac users to tear down Apple just for the sake of doing it? Duke53 | Talk 09:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and added a criticism section at 5:33PM eastern time. Its quite threadbare until i can find some more credible sources, but it adresses some major criticisms with OS X. If anyone has more to contribute, or any criticisms of the new section, fix it. jstupple7 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the dock is the feature criticized the most. The Finder, which was completely redone when OS X was first introduced, has attracted a lot of negative attention ("Fix the Fucking Finder" is a phrase related to that), e.g. due to its relative sluggishness as opposed to alternatives like PathFinder. [1] Also people coming from the Linux world sometimes react negatively towards the customizations Apple has done to the *nix underpinnings of the OS. Certain commands are not available from the command-line or configuration files changed locations as opposed to the implementation in other Unix derivatives.
I agree. If the only criticism we can come up with is a 5 year old comment from a guy that can't figure out how to make the dock smaller or hide it we better not have this section at all. And to call him an "advanced user" only makes the whole criticism section look intentionally stupid. I think we should skip the criticism section altogether until we have something sane to write. INic 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I changed the section to reflect that the 'criticisms' actually amounted to one thing: the size of the Dock, which takes about 4 seconds to change. Duke53 | Talk 07:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have asked for mediation since some people believe that criticism of the Dock is criticism of 'some' features of OS X; it's not, it is criticism of 'one' feature of OS X. Their logic is flawed since they are telling me that I should add other areas of criticism. :) Duke53 | Talk 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the section as it is now, the second paragraph is awkward:
Another minor criticism is that the "zero-install" feature takes up more disc space than shared libraries. Another flaw in the "zero-install" system is that the user has to "trust the software provider for clean upgrade and uninstall routines". [1]
What does that mean? Furthermore the sources cited aren't that authoritative (but you mentioned that already). There are numerous critical articles on OS X, for example on the aforementioned Ars Technica, the reviews of the different OS X distributions by Siracusa are particularly interesting. mensch • t 21:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Whereas no Linux system ever changes anything from the implementation in other Unix derivatives (*cough* ifconfig *cough*). Guy Harris 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The bit about "zero-install" - by which I assume they're referring to drag-install applications - from the betterdesktop blog doesn't make it clear what the issue is with shared libraries; they don't themselves say, they just say "I saw mention of this on a post somewhere, and it does seem to be legitimate", and don't point to the post in question. Perhaps they're saying that drag-install applications have to include any shared libraries installed with the application in the application bundle, rather than installing it in a location where other applications can easily use it, which an application installed with the Installer could do. I'm not sure to what extent Windows applications that bring their own DLLs along install them in some global location, and to what extent that results in DLL hell, with different applications installing different versions of a DLL, with the two versions being incompatible, so that installing an application can break other applications.
The bit about "trust[ing] the software provider for clean upgrade and uninstall routines" in the blog is not about "zero-install"/drag-install applications; it's about Installer-installed applications, so it's not a criticism of drag-install - the section in question in the blog is talking about problems with installed software in general, not specifically with drag-install. I don't know how this compares with what Windows offers. The blogger is correct when he states that there's no app that shows you all the installed packages and lets you uninstall them. Guy Harris 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, plus I think you'd need to keep Fink and other package management systems in mind. --TuukkaH 20:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
At least as far as Installer-installed packages, to see what's installed just look in /Library/Receipts. There is at least one third-party utilities available that use those receipts to uninstall. DMacks 20:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Great to see your take as a start - thanks jstupple7! It has already provoked some new sources for us to consider. --TuukkaH 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Dug up the article by Siracusa; [2]. mensch • t 22:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinions

Well (just as I suspected would happen) this section has segments quoting opinions, not encyclopedic content. I though that verify, verify, verify was the Wikipedian way. A blogger's opinion is not good enough, IMO. Duke53 | Talk 11:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm which blogger are you talking about? I removed the bloggers opinion before you left this comment. You aren't talking about Tog are you? He is a little more than just a blogger.
And I'm pretty sure we are okay with quoting people's opinions, as long as we make it clear that they are those people's opinions. Which is what I was trying to do here. AlistairMcMillan 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedian way is to not cite opinion, but verifiable facts (NPOV). No blogger is more important than any other ... everybody has opinions. Duke53 | Talk 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that you are misguided. All criticsims are opinions, one person may like the dock, another may not. Thats not the point. The point is that some do not like it and criticize it. Not one criticism is ever totally wrong or totally right. The fact is that more than a small few hold the same opinion, and it would be benficial to the article to mention that. The whole point of this article (and wiki in general) is to give someone information and both sides of the story. i wouldn't write about the American Revolution as a bad thing just because I'm English, nor would I write a shining article about Windows XP just because its my OS of choice. jstupple7 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If several people say "I think the Dock sucks", "I think the Dock sucks" is an opinion, but "several people have criticized the Dock as sucking" is fact. If the purpose of a criticism section is to, among other things, note things that a significant number of people don't like about a piece of hardware or software, then reporting those complaints is OK, as long as it's made clear what parts of the criticisms themselves are factual (e.g., if somebody's measured that {Linux, PickYourFavoriteBSD, Solaris, Windows XP, etc.} takes 10 seconds less to boot than does OS X, one could report boot time criticism as a factual), and what part of them are opinion (e.g., if some people find the Dock inconvenient, and others find it convenient, I wouldn't call a claim that "the Dock sucks" factual - and wouldn't call a claim that "the Dock rules" is factual, either).
The person who started this discussion spoke of the Windows XP common criticisms section; the User interface and performance subsection includes "Critics have claimed that the default Windows XP user interface (Luna) adds visual clutter and wastes screen space while offering no new functionality and running more slowly - with some even calling it 'the Fisher-Price interface' or 'Teletubby mode'." as a criticism, and that's mostly a matter of opinion (one person's "waste" is another person's convenience or attractive eye candy or whatever).
On the other hand, the Security issues subsection says, among other things, "In an effort to slow down the rate at which malicious programs can spread to uninfected computers, Service Pack 2 lowered the limit on outgoing TCP/IP connection attempts from 65,535 to 10. There can be no more than this many incomplete outgoing connections being attempted at any one time; additional connection attempts will be queued. This limit can adversely affect legitimate software such as peer-to-peer applications." Most of that is factual, although some might consider it a matter of opinion whether that's a serious problem or not. Guy Harris 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
jstupple7, you are mislead. Not ALL criticisms are opinions. Some ARE facts. For example, when Windows 98 was heavily criticized because Internet Explorer was built into the OS and you couldn't uninstall it without it messing up the entire OS. That was fact, not opinion. — Wackymacs 06:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Funny that you should use that as an example of a "fact". Given the existence of things like 98lite. AlistairMcMillan 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in this instance, we are dealing with opinions. Thanks for catching my error. jstupple7 14:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Wackymacs, but criticisms are necessarily opinions, because they involve value judgments about facts. In the IE example, the browser functions were integrated into the system, which is a fact. The criticism that you should be able to remove it without breaking the system is a value judgment. MFNickster 20:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
all critisims are opinions. Profesor X at U of X did not say: "I have a PhD and these are the official critisims of mac os". Here is an idea if you disagree, remove ALL critisims from microsoft pages like XP. But oh no! the mac fan boys and MS haters cant have that... You can dish it out but you cant take it. We all need to take a step of the elitist pedistal and realize mac os is actually far from this perfect entity the users make it out to be.--Nytemunkey 06:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Other articles being bad is never an excuse for this article being bad. Criticism is always a touchy point for an encyclopedia, it's not like the article on leafcutter ants has a section where Professor Y says that their legs are too short or that they use an inefficient fertilisation method. Chris Cunningham 14:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Listitis

The "key features" list is duplicated several times in the individual listings for new features in each OS revision. This should be eliminated. Chris Cunningham 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Open Source"

Okay, this is ridiculous. Claiming that Mac OS X is first and foremost an open source OS is ludicrous. I'm removing this again. Chris Cunningham 07:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the ordinary definition of OS it's definitely an open source OS. INic 11:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What utter nonsense. What "ordinary definition"? In terms of LOC, the majority of the whole code base is proprietary (not even BSD). If you remove Darwin from that, you're looking at at least 80% of the source being proprietary (not even BSD). This is a bizarre line of reasoning. Please tell me how on Earth you came to this conclusion. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
OS X is a closed source OS, like Windows, NeXT or BeOS. The source of the OS isn't freely distributed by Apple. OpenDarwin, however, is the open source foundation of OS X. It doesn't offer the visual capabilities OS X, but one can install a desktop environment like GNOME or KDE to use it as a fully featured OS. But Mac OS X as released by Apple as a product isn't open source. The Wikipedia definition of an OS is:
"An operating system (OS) is a software program that manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. At the foundation of all system software, the OS performs basic tasks such as controlling and allocating memory, prioritizing system requests, controlling input and output devices, facilitating networking, and managing files. It also may provide a graphical user interface for higher level functions."
I don't see how this defines OS X as an open source OS. mensch • t 13:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not open-source. -/- Warren 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, by the ordinary definition of OS we usually mean the low level memory allocating functionality, file system operations, system callback handling, basic routines for device control and so on. We have to distinguish that from what different corporations want to incorporate under the heading "OS." A graphical user interface is only one way to handle the OS by the user, it's not the OS itself. When Windows 95 came people started to talk about platform instead of OS. The OS was still DOS, so it was appropriate to have a new word for Windows 95. Nowadays people have stopped talking about platforms and instead incorporate the GUI on top of the OS to be included in a new more blurred OS definition. But the fact remains that the GUI isn't necessary for most OSes today and is a matter of choice for the user. If we insist of having GUI as a necessary ingredient for an OS then the Macintosh was the only computer having an OS at all not so long ago. And that is, of course, utter nonsense. So to avoid historical nonsense and be consistent with other wikipedia articles I think we should stick to the good old definition of OS here. And mench, you have the Darwin source for download here. But the OS of "Mac OS X" isn't just Darwin, I agree there. There are more open source projects included as well. INic 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Your description of an OS is indeed correct, but fits OpenDarwin more than it does OS X. OS X does include other open source projects, but also incorporates a lot of proprietary software. Not using the GUI or disabling it in Mac OS is virtually impossible, as is the case with Windows. I think the first line of the article covers the nature of OS X: Mac OS X is a line of proprietary, graphical operating systems. With Mac OS X we mean more than just its open source OpenDarwin/BSD underpinnings. mensch • t 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
OK mench, first you told us that the OS part isn't freely distributed by Apple. Fact is that all OS components are indeed downloadable for free from Apple. Then you told us that OpenDarwin is the real open source foundation of OS X and that it's "virtually impossible" to run Darwin on its own. This is wrong too. It is indeed not difficult to install Darwin and the other open source projects on its own, as well as compile the source code locally. However, OpenDarwin is by now a discontinued effort. OpenDarwin is no more. It's dead. But no need to be alarmed, mench, as OpenDarwin of course is NOT the real underpinnings of Mac OS X. And to temporally disable the GUI if you have installed it isn't more difficult than to locate and launch the Terminal application. Of course we mean more with "Mac OS X" than just the OS. The DVD from Apple is loaded with different technologies for application development as well as tools and applications built using these technologies, besides of the basic OS parts. And I really hope that you don't mean that for example Safari, iTunes and PhotoBooth are parts of the OS... INic 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
We're not defining "Mac OS X" as open-source software, because it's not open-source software. Apple doesn't market it that way. The source code for "Mac OS X" is not available, and it almost certainly never will be. The definition of what an "operating system" is, is not that relevant when describing the totality of "Mac OS X" as a piece of software. -/- Warren 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
OK warren, I agree that "Mac OS X" isn't open source software. I never claimed that. I only said that the OS part of "Mac OS X" is open source. And according to the ordinary definition of what we mean with an OS that is indeed correct. Do you really mean that if Apple market a bunch of software and technologies using a name containing the acronym "OS" everything on that DVD is automatically an OS? Encyclopedists doesn't usually attribute that kind of power over the language to corporations. The discussion of what an OS is or should be is totally independent from decisions made at the marketing department of different corporations. INic 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I want you both to define what you mean by an operating system. If your definition differ from what I wrote above I would like to hear your arguments for that change from the ordinary definition. If your arguments are good I will agree with you and change the other wikipedia articles to conform to this new and better definition. INic 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The original line: Closed source (Darwin foundation is open source), is far more specific and informative than: Open source (higher level API layers are proprietary). Everything Apple has build on top of OpenDarwin is proprietary. The *nix foundation is open source, OpenDarwin, the higher level layers are closed source, but I fail to see how your edit improves upon the original definition. That same definition cannot be applied to other OSes however. Defining Windows like this would be false. Windows is completely closed source, ranging from the NT kernel to the applications which handle the window management. mensch • t 12:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Darwin isn't the only OS-component that is open source, so your formulation isn't that specific as you think. And in fact my formulation isn't that good either as higher level API's aren't something that usually are included in the OS definition. What we talk about here is instead better labeled as a platform for application development. In this terminology we could separate everything on the "Mac OS X" DVD as OS, platform and application software. The OS (Darwin, Bonjour and so on) is open source. The platform (GUI, API's, frameworks, XCode and so on) is closed source but free to use for application development. And finally the bundled applications (Safari, iTunes and so on) are closed source as well but free to use in your development. INic 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
What are the "other Wikipedia articles" that would need to be changed "to conform to this new and better definition"? Operating system isn't one of them, as it explicitly says that "[an operating system]also may provide a graphical user interface for higher level functions", and further says that "Delineating between the operating system and application software is not a completely precise activity, and is occasionally subject to controversy."
That article would have to be changed to something like "an operating system has to provide a graphical user interface" if GUI always is included in the definition of an "OS". INic 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Non-sequitur. Just because one operating system includes a feature doesn't mean that all systems have to include it. Virtual memory is not part of DOS, but is definitely part of the OS in Windows and Unix. MFNickster 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Presumably if you don't consider the GUI - or the non-open source frameworks - to be part of the operating system, you also don't consider the shell or the bulk of the commands to be part of the OS, either. There's nothing magical about the "G" in "GUI" that makes it not part of the OS when the CLI is part of the OS. Given that, what, other than xnu and the kexts it loads, would you consider to be part of the OS? (BTW, note that not all Mac OS X kexts are open source - a number of drivers, especially for wireless adapters, aren't open source.) Guy Harris 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
So what do you for example think about OpenOffice for Mac? According to your definition that software can't be used on Mac OS X as it uses X11 as GUI and not the GUI from Apple. So if I run OpenOffice here on my Mac, what OS do I run? According to you it must be another OS, not Mac OS X. That is fine with me but it becomes complicated if we have to invent a new OS-name for every UI we can use. To me it makes sense to include the GUI in the OS-definition if and only if that is the only available UI, as was the case with the classic Mac OS. INic 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
X11 is part of what Apple distributes as "Mac OS X", so my definition isn't what you appear to think it is. Perhaps the "OS", "platform", and "application software" distinction is appropriate - but, in that case, is /bin/sh part of the "OS", the "platform", or the "application software"? And if we go down that path, I'd want to see the open-source status of the layers above what you call the "OS" listed, as calling the entire package of stuff you get in what Apple calls "Mac OS X" "open source" is incorrect (most of it isn't). Guy Harris 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Aha so your definition of the "OS" in this case is "everything that Apple distributes as 'Mac OS X'"? That is an odd and very arbitrary definition of what an operating system is, but I'm glad you told me your definition. For example, Apple distributed X11 starting with the Panther release (I think it was) so before Panther OpenOffice wasn't for Mac OS X? Only when you get X11 via Apple it's OK to claim it's intended for Mac? And suppose you downloaded X11 pre Panther, did your OpenOffice magically transform to be made for Mac the same day Panther was released? Or only when you actually used the copy of X11 from Apple it became made for Mac? This resebles the subtleties commonly found in Homeopathy more than a technical definition, I think. And no, if you read above I have never claimed that "the entire package" of what Apple calls Mac OS X is open source. I only say that the OS part (with the usual definition, not your definition) of Mac OS X is open source. How can this be so hard to understand? And /bin/sh is not part of the closed source API's from Apple that I called "platform" above, nor is it an application built using that platform. Was this surprising to you? INic 13:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not at all an "odd and arbitrary" definition. Mac OS X, as defined, marketed, sold, and supported by apple, has both open-source and closed-source components to it. YOU CANNOT GET AROUND THIS BASIC TRUTH. We are talking about "Mac OS X" in this article -- the whole thing, not just the Darwin operating system which serves as its architectural core. -/- Warren 00:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mixed

I changed the summary of the source model to "mixed" because it is the best concise description. Depending on how you measure code quantity (lines of code vs. byte count vs. number of files/programs) and what you include as "the OS", a case can be made that the majority of Mac OS X is open-source. Here's one reference from Apple. Thoughts? MFNickster 16:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a reference; it makes no claim whatsoever to proportional values. I strongly oppose leaving the answer at "mixed", which is a cop-out non-answer and confuses the issue much like the original editor did. Chris Cunningham 16:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In what sense is it not 'mixed' if parts are open source and parts are closed? MFNickster 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it isn't mixed. I'm saying that it is substantially more proprietary than "mixed" would connote. Windows got its networking code from BSD source, this doesn't mean Windows should be listed as having a mixed license. Chris Cunningham 16:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Fundamentally, "Mac OS X" is closed-source; I can't go to Apple's web site and download "Mac OS X"'s source-code, and I certainly can't contribute back to it unless I worked for Apple. They provide the Darwin foundation source code here, which does include everything that comes from other places, like Apache and the GNU toolchain. After that, pretty much everything beyond Darwin (and Webkit) is closed-source. This includes the GUI, all of the end-user applications, and practically all of the modern API frameworks that are used to write OS X applications. To most people, this -is- OS X. The original wording ("Closed source (Darwin foundation is open source)" effectively captures this dichotomy in a precise fashion. The word "Mixed" doesn't do this so well. It sounds like we're describing cross-bred dogs, not operating systems. -/- Warren 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Good points. However, the page I linked to says specifically "Major components of Mac OS X, including the UNIX-based core, are made available under Apple’s Open Source license." It lists open-source components in addition to Darwin, so the phrase "Darwin foundation is open source" is inadequate to describe the mix of components. As for cross-bred dogs, no comment! :) MFNickster 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Also: when some of us had this same discussion earlier in the year, we came to the conclusion that "proprietary" and "open source" are not mutually exclusive. You can distribute open-source packages like Apache as part of an overall-proprietary system like OS X, but that doesn't make Apache any less "open-source." It's best to leave the term "proprietary" outside of the open/closed source debate. MFNickster 17:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
As long as we have different definitions of what we mean with "OS" we will always come to different conclusions. I suggest that we use the definition that is common among computer scientists here. This conforms with other wikipedia articles as well as codifies what an encyclopedia is all about. People look in an encyclopedia to learn the scientific view on matters, not what concepts are "to most people." If we need to stress this, hopefully obvious, point in this particular article I think we shall do it. INic 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The definition common to computer scientists is "whatever the vendor ships", which is the approach taken by most here with the exception of yourself. Computer scientists commonly accept that X is a part of those Unixes which ship with it, just like computer scientists commonly disagree with the statement that "Mac OS X is an open source operating system". This is a ridiculous argument and I feel like a lesser person for having bothered starting it again. Chris Cunningham 10:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see a reference to a source claiming that an OS is defined as "whatever the vendor ships." This is just crazy. But if this is correct quite a few other articles at wikipedia has to be updated to incorporate this wisdom. INic 13:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If people look in the Wikipedia to see what an operating system is, they'll see a lot of claims that an OS can include a GUI. Guy Harris 17:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree here. It can include a GUI. Some basic GUI-technologies like Quartz definitely belong to the OS here I think. But the major OS components are still open source. I suggest that we settle this issue with the statement that the operating system of Mac OS X is "open source (Aqua GUI is closed source)" This is very informative and correct I think. What do you think? INic 13:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
strongly opposed. Nobody else agrees with your definition of "operating system". This is completely lame. Chris Cunningham 14:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
oppose. Darwin is an open-source operating system, but Mac OS X is not simply "Darwin plus a GUI," it is a separate OS built on Darwin. You can't run Mac OS X apps directly on Darwin, so I favor the concept of OS==platform. That's leaving aside the closed-source OS tools included with Mac OS X that don't come with Darwin. MFNickster 17:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
oppose per above, and my earlier arguments. mensch • t 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
strongly oppose. For better or worse, the term "operating system", the definition of which is, as the Wikipedia page for it notes, a source of controversy (so the notion that there's a standard "scientific" definition that's "common among computer scientists here" appears to be false), appears to be most widely used in the sense of "platform" - or even "platform plus bundled applications" - and referring to the "operating system" part of "Mac OS X" will probably just confuse people. See my other comments for more detailed objections. Guy Harris 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this, too. -/- Warren 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal build numbers

User Dravick deleted part of the text relating to Mac OS X build numbers. I think it was actually interesting and not widely known information but still unsourced. It would be great If someone could source it and may be partially rewrite it to make it shorter. Original text:

Internally, Apple uses a "build number" to identify each development version of Mac OS X. There may be many development versions each week. Under Apple's guidelines, the first development version of a product starts with build 1A1. Minor revisions to that are 1A2, 1A3, 1A4, and so on; the first major development revision becomes 1B1 (and minor revisions to that would be 1B2, 1B3, etc.), the next major revision would be 1C1, and so forth. The next major revision after the last 1_ series would be 2A, followed by 2B. The transition from one letter to the next occurs with changes in the minor release number. For instance, the first build of Panther (10.3) was 7A1. The first public release was 7B85; the last, 10.3.9, was 7W98. But the next build of Mac OS X was 10.4, 8A1. When a build is chosen as the next public release of Mac OS X, it is given a public version number. Build 4K78 was chosen to be Mac OS X version 10.0, build 5G64 became 10.1, build 6C115 became 10.2, build 7B85 became 10.3, and build 8A428 became 10.4.--Pethr 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it can be interesting to some people, but still, it should not a paragraph long. In my opinion, it cannot be sourced, unless as I said a guy from Apple tell us, or we "deduce" it from the official release versions. Dravick 01:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right and it's a bit unfortunate. I often wondered what are the build numbers based for so I see this article a bit lacking when it now misses this information. Hopefully it will get resolved. Thanks, you're doing good job on this article.--Pethr 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Naming"

Should we leave it with the section named "Version" rather than "Naming" and with versions named like "Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar)", or move it to "Version 10.2 (Jaguar)" or "v10.2 (Jaguar)" ? The original comment by Ruhrfisch in the "Featured article candidate" page was :

Final point, many of the headers and subheaders contain the name of the article and should not. So "Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah)" could be "Version 10.0 (Cheetah)" or "v10.0 (Cheetah)" and "Criticisms of Mac OS X" would just be "Criticisms".

I changed it, but then it was reverted. What should we do ? Dravick 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, I haven't read talk page before editing but nonetheless I think I did the right thing. people never refer to version 10.4 they either speak about Tiger or Mac OS X 10.4 hence it's not good idea to call it artificially Version 10.4 (Tiger).--Pethr 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree with that too. I'll leave it that way. Dravick 03:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Should we really put five different templates at the end of the article ? Isn't that too much ? Dravick 05:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not that good at writing, so could someone else please add this. I always have problems with my mac laptop on the internet. Some sites I visit don't render properly on the mac in Firefox, but work on my PC Firefox. And some "IE only" pages don't work with version 5 on the mac. That's my main problem but also the laptop's airport is almost always flakey. Not to mention that it runs REAL hot. And it's not an Intel mac so I can't put windows on it. On a side note, is it just me or does this seem censored? Am I the only one that sees these flaws? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.156.105 (talk • contribs).

Seems to me, none of those complaints are anything to do with Mac OS X; some are apps, some are hardware complaints. MFNickster 14:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to say that Mac needs a new IE. I sick and tired of some websites not being able to load.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.54.156.105 (talk • contribs).
Right, but what does that have to do with this article? How would you revise the article? MFNickster 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The heat is indeed an hardware problem, and for IE, well I don't know. It is also a linux/BSD/Other problem, since it only depends on the will of Microsoft to port their software. Dravick 17:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like hardware problems to me. Also, it's hard to blame OS X for web application developers that are too lazy to ensure their stuff works on browsers other than IE.

x vs xp

I've removed the link to this web site from the list of external links, because it is not a direct expansion on the topic of Mac OS X, in and of itself. Such a link would certainly be suitable in Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X, as that article directly addresses the issue of comparing these two operating systems. External links in -this- article should be limited to talking about OS X itself: a limited number of official sites, reviews, and so forth are acceptable per Wikipedia's Wikipedia:External links policy. Anything else isn't... -/- Warren 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. My point was that it contains a lot of praises and criticisms of OS X, but it sure would be more suitable for Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X. Dravick 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)