what part of leopard is apple selling for $129

[clevin]

This question puzzled me for a while now,

we all know OSX is derived from BSD/Unix, so apple probably wrote less than majority code of system structure of leopard.

So my question is:

is apple asking $129 for the codes that belong to apple? (less than half of the system and all those UI features and apps like mail) or is apple asking $129 for the whole package?

 

[edesignuk]

WHAT?

Apple is asking $129 for the OS they designed and built, wherever components of that may come from, they put it all together and make it work. That's what you're paying for.

 

[yellow]

This seems like a question purposefully aimed at starting a flame war.

There are a lot of changes made to the BSD subsystem to make it work. It's not like you can take a straight FreeBSD distribution and slap it on a Mac. So, all the hardware integration is rewritten by Apple. On top of all that is Aqua. On top of that, the included apps that most people use.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Let's see... how much of that is BSD? And it also excludes all the apps that go into Utilities, Mail etc.

 

[clevin]

i dont know why this topic is a flame war, the question is simple, im not comparing OSX to any other OS, where are the opponents?

when you have a system with millions of line of codes, and majority of then that related to the system structure is from OSS, and OSS product is not intended for profit, of course its interesting to know exactly what apple is selling for $129.

but sounds like nobody knows so far.

PS, that pic shows nothing, I was asking the core of the system, not the application codes which, IMHO, weigh significantly less.

again, this is a serious discussion, no comparison to any other products, if anybody know anything inside, please enlighten me

 

[mpw]

what part of leopard is apple selling for $129

The license.

 

[dejo]

we all know OSX is derived from BSD/Unix, so apple probably wrote less than majority code of system structure of leopard.

Probably? Based on what? You're guessing here. And I think that puts your whole point in question.

 

[yellow]

when you have a system with millions of line of codes, and majority of then that related to the system structure is from OSS, and OSS product is not intended for profit, of course its interesting to know exactly what apple is selling for $129.

You're assuming that the majority of it is BSD. What makes you assume that?

PS, that pic shows nothing, I was asking the core of the system, not the application codes which, IMHO, weigh significantly less.

That picture (albeit a bit old) show exactly how the OS is built. It ahs nothing to do with "application codes".


if you really want to know more about OS X, i suggest you read "Mac OS X Internals" by Amit Singh.

 

[clevin]

You're assuming that the majority of it is BSD. What makes you assume that?

That picture (albeit a bit old) show exactly how the OS is built. It ahs nothing to do with "application codes".

if you really want to know more about OS X, i suggest you read "Mac OS X Internals" by Amit Singh.

here and there, this and that, except no real answer?

yeah, like everybody know exactly how a house was built, with the tvs and chairs inside. you can't possibly tell me the chairs, tv, DVD, worth anything close to the house itself.

Probably? Based on what? You're guessing here. And I think that puts your whole point in question.

well, tell me then, since you can guess as well, among all the codes of leopard's core system, how much is written by apple, how much is OSS products?

put your number out, then we can have good discussion..

 

[dejo]

well, tell me then, since you can guess as well, among all the codes of leopard's core system, how much is written by apple, how much is OSS products?

put your number out, then we can have good discussion..

My point is it's silly to guess. If we have some hard, collaborated figures as to what percentage is OSS code and what isn't, then we can move the argument forward.

 

[Peace]

A good way to see this Clevin is by looking at the Byte size of the Kernel then look at the Byte size of the apps and then look at the system profiler and check for copyrights.

Then you can do math!!

And I'd like to ask you a question.

What's the point and why does it matter so much to you that you had to start a potential flame war discussion ?

 

[yellow]

here and there, this and that, except no real answer?

yeah, like everybody know exactly how a house was built, with the tvs and chairs inside. you can't possibly tell me the chairs, tv, DVD, worth anything close to the house itself.


well, tell me then, since you can guess as well, among all the codes of leopard's core system, how much is written by apple, how much is OSS products?

put your number out, then we can have good discussion..

These responses are as ridiculous as the thread itself.

No one here has a clue how much is GPL'd and how much is Apple. Not you, not me, not anyone. So, it's not possible for you to refute our claim that it's mostly Apple any more than it's possible for us to refute your claim that it's mostly BSD.

Here's an updated idea of the architecture behind OS X.

How exactly can Microsoft charge $300 for Vista when so much of it is based off of NT4 and NT5? How can RedHat charge for Linux, which is a freely available product? If you can answer those questions, then I think you have your answer.

 

[Sean Dempsey]

If I were a fisherman, I would wish that fish bite as easily as macrumors forum goers.


Seriously though, OSX is just a copy of BSD and should be free.

 

[yellow]

Seriously though, OSX is just a copy of BSD and should be free.

You should have skipped the first part of your post and just posted this. That would have made it to +5 sarcasm.

 

[queshy]

Leopard as a whole is worth more than time machine, or spaces, or whatever separately...that's why.

 

[imfrog2002]

Going back to the house idea...

The House is the actual computer when you buy it. It keeps everything inside of it, well... inside. Imagine it as a pre-furnished house, with some older furniture. Leopard is like getting an entire home makeover. New paint, new appliances, new furniture. It's re-doing the entire thing. If Leopard was exactly the same as Tiger, yes I'd be asking that question, but it's like getting a whole new interior for your computer. You wouldn't expect to get a whole new interior to your home for free, would you? Yes, it uses the same base code, but it adds so many new things that it's just like a new computer, IMHO. That's why the computer costs $1000+ and the OS costs only $129, because it's not new hardware, and not a new case, just new software.

Another way to look at it, is why do companies have shareware? Because they worked to build the software, and they want to get compensated for it.

 

[ChrisA]

is apple asking $129 for the codes that belong to apple? (less than half of the system and all those UI features and apps like mail) or is apple asking $129 for the whole package?

BSD is open source but is covered by a license that allows you to do what you want with it including selling the code for whatever price you like. Microsoft took their current networking code out of BSD and dropped it right into Windows. BSD allows this kind of thing.

Other software bundled with Mac OS X is covered by GPL. GPL is much more restrictive and required that you make the source code available to your users. Other bits of Mac OS are covered be other licenses

It would be interesting to know how much of mac OS is Open Source. I'll bet "about half" but that is a guess.

 

[ChrisA]

...It's not like you can take a straight FreeBSD distribution and slap it on a Mac. ..

Actually, I think you can.

Put the install disk in the Mac, boot off the CD and you are on your way. It will install and run right out of the box

Seriously though, OSX is just a copy of BSD and should be free.

Have you read the license that comes with BSD? It is very much NOT like the GPL. It does not say that BSD must be free. It need not be free as in "free beer" nor as in "free speech". This is, I'm sure why Jobs' company Next selected BSD, because the license allowed Next to do as they pleased.

Read the license here
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html

 

[GoCubsGo]

This question puzzled me for a while now,

we all know OSX is derived from BSD/Unix, so apple probably wrote less than majority code of system structure of leopard.

So my question is:

is apple asking $129 for the codes that belong to apple? (less than half of the system and all those UI features and apps like mail) or is apple asking $129 for the whole package?

I'm pretty sure it's the top part but I could be wrong.

 

[danamania]

This question puzzled me for a while now,

we all know OSX is derived from BSD/Unix, so apple probably wrote less than majority code of system structure of leopard.

So my question is:

is apple asking $129 for the codes that belong to apple? (less than half of the system and all those UI features and apps like mail) or is apple asking $129 for the whole package?

If you really want to separate stuff, take a look at the open source components of 10.5 here - http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5/

You can download anything there for free (within the restrictions of the license, of course). Anything not on that list, Apple are charging for when you buy leopard.

As for it being less than half of the system, I think your guess is way out there - Looking at tiger, the complete download for 10.4's open source components is about 400MB. The Tiger DVD itself is about 2700MB. If you really feel the need to compartmentalise things, then look at it as paying for whatever's in the 2.3GB difference, as well as apple's work bundling it all together. I don't expect leopard to be much different in the ratio of open source->proprietary.

There's a great deal more to the OS than just a theme slapped on top of a standard BSD distro.

Dana

 

[ChrisA]

No one here has a clue how much is GPL'd and how much is Apple.

What do you mean? The answer is clear. None, not one line of the core of Mac OS X is GPL'd. There is no gpl'd code in the kernel.

Now if you were to go out in "userland" and look a bit it is easy to find GPL's code. The prime example is the gcc compiler. But no GPL in the OS proper.

 

[yellow]

Actually, I think you can.

Put the install disk in the Mac, boot off the CD and you are on your way. It will install and run right out of the box

Really?

I'm going to test this out!

What do you mean? The answer is clear. None, not one line of the core of Mac OS X is GPL'd. There is no gpl'd code in the kernel.

I was under the impression that FreeBSD was under the Gnu Public License. But not from any basis other than so much of *NIX and *NIX binaries are GPL'd, that I assumed it was as well.

 

[clevin]

see, isn't above disccusion good? some ppl here just can't take any serious questions.

the simple comparison of the size of the code is not the right way to go. it has absolutely no relationship to the importance of the code

 

[zen.state]

This question puzzled me for a while now,

we all know OSX is derived from BSD/Unix, so apple probably wrote less than majority code of system structure of leopard.

So my question is:

is apple asking $129 for the codes that belong to apple? (less than half of the system and all those UI features and apps like mail) or is apple asking $129 for the whole package?

If you think all open source software is free then you're wrong..

 

[Raid]

see, isn't above disccusion good? some ppl here just can't take any serious questions.

the simple comparison of the size of the code is not the right way to go. it has absolutely no relationship to the importance of the code

Well I don't know if this question is really serious, what are you trying to get at anyway? You originally postulated:

so apple probably wrote less than majority code of system structure of leopard.

To which danamania answered your question with solid quantifiable, verifiable facts. However you instantly contradict them with the argument that it's not qualitative enough (i.e how one defines 'importance'). So in reality you want to structure the argument so that the outcome is subjective as the individuals thoughts and preferences. That's why it's a pointless question. Instead of us trying to appease your idiosyncratic curiosities why don't you tell us what you think and let us shoot holes in it.