"Jesus" <rustybucket666@gmail.com> stated in post
1194806101.971486.311120@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.c om on 11/11/07 11:35 AM:

> On Nov 11, 1:29 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "Oxford" <colaloves...@verysmart.com> stated in post
>> colalovesosx-03F13E.11254711112...@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net on 11/11/07
>> 11:25 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, as if the "Finder" source code is there. You can download XCode
>>>>>>> with a bunch of samples, but now the Finder. or can you post the URL
>>>>>>> to the Finder source code? No, you'll tell me how I need to learn to
>>>>>>> solve problems myself (to hide the fact you are full of shit).
>>
>>>>>> You wouldn't want the Finder to be fully opensource if you did, you end
>>>>>> up with the mess that is called Linux. Apple was smart to keep the front
>>>>>> end consistent for everyone.
>>
>>>>> WTF? Finder's not open-source because it wants people to pay for
>>>>> Finder, not because it would somehow degrade if made open-source (it
>>>>> wouldn't).
>>
>>>> Well, if it were open source you would end up with a number of different
>>>> versions - most not designed by interface experts. Some things would be
>>>> improved (FTP for example) but it would no longer be a general use tool and
>>>> that is *very* important for Apple. It would make OS X gain many of the
>>>> weaknesses and few of the advantages of Linux.
>>
>>> Correct Snit... you are one of the few that "gets it"... 90% of the
>>> people complaining don't "yet" understand these larger concepts.
>>
>>> Bob Campbell is a total fool on this subject. He is completely out of
>>> touch on how a computer needs to work for BOTH developers and users.
>>
>>> Only Apple and "us" understand the correct methodology.
>>
>> I do agree that many people just do not get "it"... UI issues are complex
>> and more important than most people understand.
>>
>> I will say that in this conversation you should be careful with your
>> wording. OS X is *largely* open source but it is clearly not "open source"
>> with no qualifiers. I have not been reading your posts enough to know if
>> you made this clear - if you have not then those correcting you a right to
>> do so on that point.
>
> Oxford most certainly does not make things like that clear. Instead,
> he makes broad, incorrect generalizations with the intent of making
> Apple sound perfect while actually making Apple seem worse and and
> making himself look like an idiotic ass.

If he makes a statement such as "OS X is open source" he should, certainly,
acknowledge that that statement, without qualifiers, is not accurate and
needs clarification: OS X is largely open source or has open source
underpinnings or something of that nature. If and when he makes it clear he
understands the whole OS (and related package known as Leopard) is not open
source then the topic should be dropped.



--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France