upvote

points

by _verandaguy20 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby miki12321116 hours ago|
next
[-]
AFAIK, Linux has a policy that any change you make must not break existing kernel features, and if it does, you have to fix them yourself.

With that said, kernel maintainers have recently indicated that some unused subsystems are likely to be removed soon, as AI is now finding (real) security vulnerabilities in them that nobody is willing to fix.

reply
upvoteby huijzer8 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> The economics make the reasoning obvious, though.

Looking through Apple’s financial statements, they theoretically could support these old systems. I’m not saying a cut doesn’t make sense, but just that economics-wise they could keep one guy for it

reply
upvoteby xattt55 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
There’s also a halo effect when support extends for a longer-than-typical product life that gives a sense of commitment to a platform.
reply
upvoteby TheJoeMan18 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
There's somewhere in the ballpark of 166,000 employees at Apple, just unfathomable scale [1]. It is not unreasonable to ask that someone specific is responsible for each particular small feature and ensuring it keeps working. Trying to apply an economic analysis to such a "free as in beer" operating system does not seem to work well. Consider the question of "how many small holes can you have in your wooden sailing ship"?

[1] https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/aapl/employees/

reply
upvoteby laserlight18 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Not that it impacts your argument significantly, but for the sake of completeness, Apple employs a huge number of retail employees.
reply
upvoteby AlexandrB16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes. A more useful number would be how many employees are working on macOS specifically. Hard to find a definitive number for that.
reply
upvoteby saagarjha5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Less than 1% of that number. Of course this is hard to actually count properly since there is a lot of shared work across platforms.
reply
upvoteby akerl_18 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It’s not unreasonable to ask but they can and are saying “no”.
reply
upvoteby lenerdenator17 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Ideally, at a certain point, you'd have some sort of upstream FLOSS project where you could let John Q. Public do that sort of low-level, maintenance-only stuff, while the proprietary "value adds" are closed source, until it becomes financially attractive to FLOSS them.

IIRC, that could exist for MacOS in the form of Darwin.

reply
upvoteby mschuster914 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> With open source projects (and in particular ones like Linux where there's a huge number of contributors and interested parties), support for would-be niche facilities can keep going as long as there's someone with the knowledge and spare time to do it.

And that increasingly gets difficult to do. i386 support went down the drain in the kernel in 2012, i486 is probably going down the drain as well this year [1] and soon-ish another bunch of really really old stuff will go as well because it isn't maintained [2] - good luck finding someone still running IPX networks or ISDN hardware.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2026/04/06/patch_to_end_i486_sup...

[2] https://lwn.net/Articles/1068928/

reply
upvoteby reaperducer18 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The economics make the reasoning obvious, though

These arguments fall apart when you remember that Apple has several trillion dollars at hand. It's not some shoestring startup.

reply