Should Apple sell a fork of their OS for regular hardware?

How is it not?

?

I use a hackintosh, it's comfy,

>when i said this i meand that apple is working on closed source software
Windows is too.
>imagine if adidas would licence their brand to nike and you would have adidas + nike tshirt
This is a retarded false equivalence.
>you would never see any apple brand on non apple hardware
Never say never, Apple is stagnating and the purists don't run the company any more.
Do you think Jobs would approve even half of the shit they are doing right now?

Any drawbacks besides games?

>Windows is too

i know that.

>imagine if adidas would licence their brand to nike and you would have adidas + nike tshirt

maybe i campered wrong campanies but that's my opinion and please respect it.

>you would never see any apple brand on non apple hardware

maybe there is some truth into that, but i said never because they did it in the past. in the 90's. it basiclly almost killed the campany. cook will be stupid to repeat the same mistake. i don't believe tim is that stupid. i think in fact he's pretty intellagent. he knows what he's doing trust me.

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone

>but that's my opinion and please respect it.
Lmao, go back to your hugbox, commie.

>Lmao, go back to your hugbox, commie.

no u

Selling the OS ≠ Selling clones
>i think in fact he's pretty intellagent
>i don't believe tim is that stupid
Tim only cares about shareholders, he is not an idealist like Jobs or Ive were.
Your english is horrible pajeet.

>Selling the OS ≠ Selling clones

ok Jow Forums user you win this time around

>Your english is horrible pajeet.

no u lmao we all have things that we kinda bad at.
besides english is not my mother lang.

Attached: whatitstrue.jpg (1024x860, 102K)

Apple is going in the exact opposite direction of what you're hoping for.

Imagine being so poor you can't afford chink-made apple hardware but still have the audacity to call someone else a "retard"

Why would Intel ever sell the DRM system for their overpriced hardware?

>is going
You are implying that previously it was going in another direction, which it wasn't.

Games are for children.

I have a PC that cost about $1000 in parts, if MacOS had games and was for sale i would buy it.

Why would they do that? They sell computers based on the fact that they have a usable OS coupled with professional support. No other company can boast that.

What the fuck that has to do with anything? Why would Intel give a flying fuck what OS you run as long as you buy their chips?

>games

Attached: 1539091280164.gif (307x343, 22K)

>Why would they do that?
Because Apple(and the whole smartphone market) is stagnating and without Jobs they can't come up with new shit to sell.
They need to find new ways to make money.

based retard

What is your favorite anime?

DBZ, since I'm not Caucasoid.

>games

Attached: 1533387818794.gif (413x243, 51K)

They're not going to do that. That's just going to make it obvious even to the normie that the "magical integration between hardware and software" in the Apple ecosystem is a lie, that macs run on off the shelf hardware and that actually, it runs worse on that hardware than Windows or Linux would.

Apple doesn't want normies to know that.

macOS runs much better than Windows or Android, what are you talking about?

Given the choice I'd take macOS over Windows any day.,

No, just buy a Mac you poor fagg

>Should Apple sell a fork of their OS for regular hardware?
>he thinks retard commie code monnkeys still wouldn't fuck it up and make it worse
why? so people can spend the next 20 years going through their spaghetti code to patch things to work with hardware it was never intended to work with? releasing patch after patch.. oh i am looking forward to it.

apple privacy is compromised this has been proven, besides its overpriced as hell. Windows has ease of use at the cost of sucking at everything else, gnu is the opposite, apple is just trendy that is its niche.

MacOS is Unix, it is more useful than GNU.

...

>Should Apple sell a fork of their OS for regular hardware?
The one time they did they almost went bankrupt.

But now they have "innovative" 1000$ phones that the dim populous consume like a box of crackers in a 3rd world country. I'm sure their phone market is a lot larger than their PC market by no slim margin at this point.

Shit, that sounds interesting

more useful maybe on some cases, and only on expensive apple hardware

that sounds like it wouldn't make any money so i really don't think anybody is going to just throw away money in the way you suggested

>bro what if like cross platform apps and frameworks existed

Yeah you’re right.
Now it’s not gonna bankrupt the company, but on the other hand now they’re not desperate for money as they once were.
MacOS being exclusive to Apple hardware is worth more to them as PR/selling point than any meager revenue from sales would bring.
Even Microsoft that has a near monopoly on Operating systems can’t make decent money out of selling the OS and offer it as a service now.

to be fair microsoft also makes the shittiest os

In all cases. GNU can't do anything macOS can't.

what about running on non apple hardware? that puts a constraint an anything. Can and will are different things too, will they make the source code visible so anyone can tell if it has backdoors or it is idk purposedly recording audio without consent.

It is in fact coded by retarded commie monkeys, and has no privacy.

Then how do i modify the source code?
Being open source is basically the most important part of GNU.

You do know the vast majority of macOS is licensed under the APSL, Apache license and BSD licenses right? Only Aqua, the user interface, is proprietary.
See above. But drop the IBM-speak.

1) they're not distros
2) none of them

>MacOS is Unix
To begin with, it hardly is. It has enough FreeBSD code in it to allow it to claim the badge, but it's more different from normal Unix systems than most GNU systems are.

>FreeBSD code
It's mostly NeXTStep, which was also Unix. It's also 100% licensed as Unix by the trademark holder. BSDs aren't Unix, AT&T proved as much.

>Apple
>"good os"
>proprietary
>marketed for privacy
What else needs to be said here? Just use BSD or GNU/Linux

Mostly open is not open sourse.
Anything less than 100% open sourse is a disadvantage.

So Linux isn't free? Or "open source" as you IBM drones say.

i didnt, thanks for the info. Still, it only runs on propietary hw.
And what exactly can macOs do that gnu cant?

>you must make apple id! Please enter credit card number!
>use apple ID to install updates!
>please sync all your files with apple (or find the hidden opt out button)
>read this 100 page EULA with tons of botnetty shit hidden inside

Darwin was released by Apple pre-compiled for x86 at a time when Apple only supported PPC. It can be installed on anything. You will just not get Aqua.
>And what exactly can macOs do that gnu cant?
Ever hear of a little company called Pixar?

Linux IS open sourse though and there are other kernals with GNU in them like HURD and linux libre,and on top of that,we are talking about GNU and not linux,they can be seperate.

Linux is not entirely free, that is why Linux-libre exists. Dope.

>It's mostly NeXTStep, which was also Unix
In just the same way, Mach kernel with some imported and bastardized FreeBSD code for some system services.
>It's also 100% licensed as Unix by the trademark holder
Why does it matter whether a system has the right to use the Unix trademark?

NeXTStep predates FreeBSD.
>Why does it matter whether a system has the right to use the Unix trademark?
That is how one is designated as Unix.

That's just firmware blobs, though.

>That is how one is designated as Unix.
Why does it matter, though?

>NeXTStep predates FreeBSD.
Okay, "BSD code", then. Did that change anything meaningful for you?

So why use Linux when Linux-libre exists and is totally free?
You're the one who brought my claim into question, I am simply explaining it.
BSD code changed significantly after the lawsuit.

>Should Apple sell a fork of their OS for regular hardware?
That wouldn't make sense from Apple's perspective.
MacOS would get a bigger market share, but unless Apple could monetize that, it would be a net negative for them.
Imagine all the extra support costs...

Maybe they could go half way and sell just the motherboard (standard size, ATX compatible).

Not really, if you get parts that are compatible you shouldn't have many issues. I use it as my daily driver and it's been stable.

>So why use Linux when Linux-libre exists and is totally free?
Because you have some hardware that requires said firmware?

being better at graphic design doesnt make it macOs exclusive. I could tell you gnu has more development and support and that also wont be a gnu exclusivity

I thought you wanted entirely free software?

>You're the one who brought my claim into question, I am simply explaining it.
It was said by that "being Unix" made it more useful, which would imply that it "is Unix" in some technical way that actually matters, rather than just some trademarking bullshit that noone actually cares about.

>thinking macos is good
Why would they? They make money from overpriced hardware.

>ATX
I would prefer something not so cumbersome.

The only proprietary thing i can find are drivers but open source versions exist.
And i mentioned that whether linux is open source or not,it doesnt matter,cause GNU is not tied to linux.
And i agree linux libre is dope.

The code that runs on the CPU is still as free and modifiable, unlike Mac OS.

>It was said by (You) that "being Unix" made it more useful,
Yes, that is what was meant by "my claim".
> which would imply that it "is Unix" in some technical way that actually matters
Independent clauses.
>code that runs on the CPU
This could mean any number of things.

>Independent clauses.
>hey i just said these two completely independent things together in one sentence, why would you think that a relation was implied between them, that's just completely spurious
So in what way is it more useful, then?

>This could mean any number of things.
Not really, the CPU executes a very defined set of instructions, and all of those instructions originate from free code.

> don't mind us! we're just transcribing your Siri voice requests
> oh, Siri also sends us audio at times without you knowing.
2creepy4me. these faggots are all the same when it comes to privacy: you have none.

Runs professional software like MS Office, AutoCAD, Adobe Suite etc.
As is the case on macOS.

>As is the case on macOS.
You can't run Mac OS without the non-free user interface. And no, Darwin is not Mac OS.

replied to myself by mistake what a dork

Define macOS, then. Because clearly you think it is something that I do not.

>Runs professional software like MS Office, AutoCAD, Adobe Suite etc.
That is not a property of the system, but of that software.

It is a simple fact. You can run that software on macOS, but not GNU. Therefore macOS is the superior choice.

>Because clearly you think it is something that I do not.
You seem to imply that "mac os" is what can run "professional software like MS Office, AutoCAD, Adobe Suite etc.". Did you think you could run that software without Aqua, on just plain Darwin/XNU?

macOS can be in several states dependent on the supported frameworks. But that doesn't mean macOS is only that which supports all possible frameworks. You're making a leap in logic.

For all that you claim to disdain IBM-speak, you sure sound like an IBM salesman with how important OS/360 is with all its software compatibility. How can any other system even compete?

I'm not the one using bullshit marketing terms like "open source".

The chosen configuration sure changes the perceived all-important "usefulness" of the system, though. To be sure, if you run an "all free" variant of Mac OS, it has less software compatibility than any GNU system has.

Also, since trademarks are so important, please tell me where I can get branded Mac OS without Aqua.

No, but you are the one advocating no software progress whatsoever because backwards compatibility is much more important.

actually just gentoo

It has the same software compatibility.
>Also, since trademarks are so important, please tell me where I can get branded Mac OS without Aqua.
Apple's "open source" webpage, usually.
You've lost me. Try to stay on track.