Macs

[Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)]

On Wed, September 16, 2009 13:52, Liam Proven wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Amedee Van Gasse (Ubuntu)
> <amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be> wrote:
>> On Tue, September 15, 2009 23:44, Michael Haney wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:35 PM, David Sanders
>>> <dsuzukisanders at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> And just for the record. UNIX != Linux, in case Unix compatibility
>>>> makes you think that MacOS X is in any way Linux "compatible".
>>>>
>>>
>>> I found that out a long time ago.  Their binary formats are completely
>>> different.
>>
>> I always thought that Unix compatible was more or less synonymous for
>> source-compatible, as in "write once, compile everywhere".
>>
>> Of course the executable format is different, but if you could grab the
>> source of a Mac program (AND all of its dependencies), wouldn't it at
>> least in theory be possible to recompile from scratch? My gut feeling
>> tells me that this should at least be true for simple console
>> applications.
>
> All of the GUI code, class libraries, programming frameworks etc. are
> proprietary, closed source. This is why purist FOSS advocates dislike
> Apple.
>
> (Jaded old Unix veterans tend to be more pragmatic and like OS X
> because it Just Works™ with minimal fiddling or configuring.)
>
> But the point is, yes, a very minimal OS X app could be compiled on
> another Unix - but so minimal that it is no longer a Mac OS X app in
> any meaningful sense.
>
> OTOH, with not that much work, you /can/ recompile some Mac OS X apps
> against GNUstep and produce an app that will work fine on Linux.
>
> If it's a proper Mac app, with a Mac GUI, then no, it only works on a
> Mac, or a compatible set of libraries - meaning NeXTstep, OpenStep or
> GNUstep.

You needed a lot of words to say that you agree with me :-)
(read my other mail about the hypothetical case that you could get the
source of proprietary, closed source software)