Re: Patch Licensing Terms

[Paige DePol <lual@...>]

Coda Highland <chighland@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Paige DePol <lual@serfnet.org> wrote:
>> My point wasn't about Apple having issues with the distribtion of the
>> open-source components of the OS, but rather people running copies of macOS
>> on unauthorised hardware... something Apple has always had issues with, and
>> rightly so given it is their software to license as they will.
> 
> Well, yes. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, as the
> quality of many of their tools will attest. They make beautiful
> physical things and shiny up the digital side to match, but
> robustness... ehhhhhhh, I might be using a MacBook to type this but
> it's hard to take it seriously when core developer tools have bugs
> that haven't been fixed in six years.

I wish they'd fix some of the Xcode issues, it isn't a bad IDE but it could
use some more polish... I even have a script to delete the Xcode cache and
derived data folders as I have to do it so frequently. A plugin system that
doesn't require reverse-engineering would be nice too! Well, okay the latest
version does have a plugin system of sorts, but it is quite limited in scope.

Sadly, since Steve Jobs died it seems that quality control at Apple has taken
a noticeable dip. There are a number of articles online about the lack of
polish in the latest iOS as well!

Well, now I think we are down the garden path as far as the original topic,
and the topic of this list, are concerned! ;)

~Paige