Talk:MacOS/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  International name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Listitis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  In what sense is it not 'mixed' if parts are open source and parts are closed? MFNickster 16:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  strongly opposed. Nobody else agrees with your definition of "operating system". This is completely lame. Chris Cunningham 14:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)

text:  oppose per above, and my earlier arguments. mensch • t 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)

text:  I strongly oppose this, too.   -/- Warren 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Internal build numbers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Well I agree with that too. I'll leave it that way. Dravick 03:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naming" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  x vs xp