Apple Announces Darwin 1.0 257
Quite a number of folks have written in with announcement from Apple saying that Darwin 1.0 is released. It's got the BSD core that's been discussed before, along with Mach 3.0 - and here's to hoping that Apple will open up all OSX, at least in some fashion or another.
Re:No chance Apple will open source OSX (Score:1)
apple better come through (Score:1)
What about Intel? Will it happen? OS X on an open platform might be good.
Re:MacOSX, Darwin, OpenStep... (Score:1)
What started the whole GNUstep/OpenStep API debate in the first place was Steve Jobs telling the CEO of Spindletop [gnustep.com] (http://www.gnustep.com/) that he was stealing Apple [apple.com] intellectual property by distributing GNUstep.
Lucas Wagner [mailto] (lwagner@spindletp.com), the said CEO of Spindletop and GNUstep hack, told him that it would be a great benefit to Apple if GNUstep [gnustep.org] and Apple could work together with Apple to mutually promote their technology. Spindletop, of course, would distribute it. Steve Jobs didn't like this and said it was blatantly stealing Apple intellectual property.
i think GNUstep and Spindletop have both been really favorable to Apple, and this came as a bit of a shock to everyone involved.
I have spoken with Lucas and he has been pretty positive about the situation. He told me that he knew, when he began the company, this issue would arise, so it's good that the project is getting it over with now rather than later, when GNUstep will be "conscious". he didn't want to comment about any further actions from Apple, probably for legal reasons.
from what i can see on gnu.gnustep.discuss, RMS has been contacted about the issue. Development on GNUstep has temporarily halted as they try to sort out licensing issues. it looks like there might be something else that might be going on that nobody's speaking about, but I'm not sure.
Re:MacOSX, Darwin, OpenStep... (Score:1)
> OSI) Open Source (TM) licence.
It's close but not quite. It has the so-called "termination clause", where Apple can revoke all rights under the license under certain conditions. This makes it a bad choice for people to base their projects on if they want to be sure they'll be around in a few years.
> As an aside, anyone know why the didn't just use a BSD license?
See above.
> Finally, could anyone tell me if they know whether or not OSX is OpenStep compliant?
Think of it as the evolution of OpenStep. It's based upon all the old NeXT stuff, updated for modern times and with some new ideas.
> ie, when Quicktime for OSX is released, would it be possible to run it under GNUstep?
Only if enough information about OS X is made public for GNUstep or someone to write a compatible replacement. Darwin does not contain any of the object oriented toolkit stuff.
But Quicktime for OS X will be compiled for the PPC, so most of us won't care anyway.
> And further, what are people's opinions on OpenStep/GNUstep?
It doesn't seem to be too hot nowadays.
> and I think that given all the discussion going on lately about cross platform compatability, we
> should just go ahead and have all the distros be OpenStep compliant.
There isn't much OpenStep code out there. Mac OS X won't be OpenStep either. So there really isn't that much of a reason to do this.
Apple is a lot like Scientology (Score:1)
On the outside, they cultivate an appearance of being the "good guys", devoted to public wlefare, something for people who think differently than the crowd. Celebrities extol the virtues of each, telling us how Dianetics saved their lives, or how much easier to use an iBook is. But when you look deep inside, it becomes clear that each is nothing more than a cult, whose ranks consist of emotional weaklings or the mentally unstable. Each has a leader who is attributed with godlike powers: They say that L. Ron could talk to aliens, and that Steve Jobs could bring Apple back to profitability. No evidence of either exists, mind you, but to the delusional followers of each, it is as true as the sun rising in the West each morning.
Beware of Apple, Slashgeeks.
Re:Someone didn'nt do thier homework. (Score:1)
anyway...
[/OKAYIMDONE]
Re:Linux Bigots, HA! Mac Bigots are what to watch! (Score:1)
--
Re:Here's hoping (Score:1)
Re:Someone didn'nt do thier homework. (Score:1)
Chris
--
Grant Chair, Linux Int.
Pres, SVLUG
Re:architecture (Score:1)
It's already been reported that OS X for Intel has been circulating within Apple. However, I wouldn't count on a release anytime soon. But, in line with this, Apple is apparently in talks with Intel box manufacturers.
Major speculation available here [macosrumors.com].
Re:Darwin has no GUI (Score:1)
NeXT used a Display Postscipt engine. Quartz uses a PDF-based engine which lies on top of what is internally dubbed "Extended Quickdraw". This is all Apple stuff.
It's not like the info isn't out there folks. Dig it up, before you speak up.
Re:Bah. (Score:1)
the freon compressor for instance
Re:more basic architecture question (Score:1)
'course the most recent thing i have is MacOS X Server 1.0 and I never used it much, so someone else may have more info on this than I do.
As mainstream as A-O-L (Score:1)
~luge
P.S. http://www.wideopennews.com/story/707.ht ml [wideopennews.com] for the good, bad, whatever news...
Re:to Be or not to Be (Score:1)
~lufe
Re:Time to contribute (Score:1)
ChristTrekker wrote:
Why not go ahead and partition the drive on your G3? If it is a New World architecture Mac (Blue and White G3 and newer), then the Darwin binary installer will even install into a partition for you (don't need to wipe a drive).
A new/old AMD box is going to cost more time/effort than partitioning your G3.
AppleWorks 6 Re:Applications for OS X (Score:1)
<P>Of course, the merits of AppleWorks 6 is debatable... I don't use it much, but it appears that there are a number of ClarisWorks and AppleWorks 5 users that are not too happy with it. Probably a point release will help quite a bit.
<P>Anyways, there is at least one "works" type suite available for Mac OS X on the ship date. I would bet that Apple is working on Carbonizing all their various non-Carbon applications (iMovie, Final Cut Pro). The AppleShare IP and Mac OS X Server functionality will probably also be ported, but most that of that will be to the BSD API's. The admin apps will probably be a mix of Carbon/Cocoa and web based stuff.
<P>Various heavy weight 3rd parties in the Mac space have already publically committed to some Carbon ports at least. A whole parade of them were on stage at the last MacWorld Expo in January - Adobe, Macromedia, Microsoft, id Software, Quark, etc. Adobe actually showed a preliminary Carbon port of one of their apps (Photoshop or Illustrator) on stage at function last year.
<P>By the end of this year, many people won't need to fire up the Classic environment except for games (whose pressure to port to Carbon seems to be less).
Re:This kills the GNU Hurd (was Re:Not quite) (Score:1)
Re:architecture (Score:1)
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Re:Someone didn'nt do thier homework. (Score:1)
As much as I use and enjoy Linux, I still don't think of it as "mainstream." When one or more major PC makers start offering it as an option on desktop machines (as opposed to special-order servers that you can't find on their web stores), and perhaps mentioning that option in their ads, the last hurdle will finally be cleared.
Then again, does calling Linux "mainstream" make it a more valid choice than it is already?
And the answer... (Score:1)
RTFL!
The crown jewels (Score:2)
informative? no, wrong. (Score:2)
>It's close but not quite.
That will be news to the OSI . . . see link above
>It has the so-called "termination clause", where Apple can revoke
>all rights under the license under certain conditions.
Those conditions are pretty much "if it becomes illegal to
distribute this software." The GPL has a similar term.
hawk, esq.
X and Mac simultaneously (Score:2)
My big question is whether or not I can have both X and mac simultaneously displayed. If I can, I probably want one of these at my new job in the fall. But I absolutely have to have unix and a heavy-duty compiler, and I like my X stuff. They stay. If I can have mac apps too, then a mac becomes possible. If not, there's no point.
MI/X (Score:2)
"poor" doesn't begin to describe it. Xterminals worked fine, but some programs (including netscape) would draw the same horizontal line several times.
But the Xserver as a run of the mill mac program makes a certain amount of sense. I suppose I could customize the rest for the X-y things I like.
OK, I suppose what I really want is X to take, over, but let mac programs run . . .
Would you like another guess? :) (Score:2)
>is NOT a certified (by OSI) Open Source (TM) licence
Would you like another guess?
initial license, and it was changed, and now meets the DFSG or
whatever those initials are. (unless, of course, you're saying they
haven't paid the organization for the certification. But neither
has any other open source project that I've heard of . .
And "Open Source" is not a trademark. They let the application expire
(and would never have received a valid trademark, anyway).
hawk
Re:do we really deserve the GUI? (Score:2)
I have to agree with this. No real benefits would accrue to anyone through Apple opening its GUI, except perhaps those who want to port it more or less directly to another Operating System. I'm not even convinced that Linux or Windows users would benefit from this.
I firmly believe in open source development for the core functions of an OS or software app, but I'm not convinced that the model works for GUI development. The Mac's user interface has benefited from remaining closed - its consistency is what makes it a joy to use. Of course, leaving the GUI in the hands of a single company is scary - what if Aqua turns out to be a UI nightmare? But at least Apple are strongly motivated towards UI excellence - it's their main selling point.
Open source brings the benefits of peer review to work that the general public cannot evaluate. However, GUI design has always been subject to peer review, in the sense that the general public can evaluate its usability. Therefore I have no problem with its remaining closed, at least in some cases.
The fact that Linux people want Aqua for Linux shows that they accept the value of something developed in a closed source environment. They don't want Aqua in order to extend it, or make it work more efficiently, they just want the advantage of great GUI design for their great operating system.
On the other hand: Apple is probably also going to hold on to Quartz, which is something I would be very interested in seeing released to the open source community. This is an exciting technology that could conceivably benefit greatly from open source development.
Coming up next: (Score:2)
Re:Are object names ownable? (Score:2)
On the other hand, magic signatures are sometimes copyrighted and used to enforce control of platforms. This is the case with video game console cartridges (for example to develop and market a Nintendo game, you have to put a copyrighted string in the cartridge ROM, and to license this string you have to meet all sorts of onerous demands).
Re:"Oh Shit" (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, in what way is "the new display system" "vector based" while Display PostScript isn't "vector based"?
Re:Someone didn'nt do thier homework. (Score:2)
I don't even know what else to say about the other implications of an actual organized plan to manipulate moderation- if moderation is actually that broken, then in the long term,
Go ahead, moderate me down. I've got plenty of karma to spare...
~luge
Say No to Darwin at schools (Score:2)
Help us to stop this hidden campaign to introduce this satanic, evolutionist, darwinian propaganda in the virgin minds of our kids.
We all know that God (tm) is the creator of everything: Kernels, GUIs, Window Managers, OS. He also created the whole Internet, when he sent his own flesh (Al Gore). He created everything in 6 days and he did everything perfect. Our society don't need this kind of crap!!!
Call our troll free number 1-800-GOD and tell us if any kid in your classroom has already downloaded this satanic tool. You can get free Windows CDs, Windows T-Shirts and Microsoft shares.
Re:Apple License-thoughts on it. (Score:2)
Ah, I see. I hadn't read it as carefully, but I had read it.
What I don't like about their "license" is that it is so confusing full of exceptions, definitions, etc. Compared to the language in the APSL, the GPL looks downright simple.
Have to admit that I like the APSL a bit better than the Sun Community Source License or whatever it is called. I still don't like (though I forgot to mention it before) that you have to register on the Apple site before you can get the Darwin code from them. I didn't notice anything in the license restricting someone else from posting a copy and allowing others to download it.
I'm a registered Apple Developer. I signed up for the ADC site as a student. I've lost my user id and password, but I still get the email newsletter every week. Maybe, I'll download the Darwin code and give it the once over.
Re:do we really deserve the GUI? (Score:2)
Meaning you've never heard anyone on a Linux board like Slashdot say that.
The substantial MacOS hacker community has been working to extend the Mac UI since the thing shipped in 1984. There's a giant library of freeware/shareware GUI extensions out there right now -- more and better than the Windows add-ons you might have seen. There's also a group of NeXT developers still around. These folks would *love* to get source access to the GUI, and they probably wouldn't kvetch and moan about it not being under GPL either.
--
Re:"Yeah, right" is _right_ (Score:2)
Rather than get involved with a company that clearly doesn't get it, why not help make the closest thing to OpenStep work better? A lot of the Java libraries are designed in the spirit of OpenStep and the Java imaging model is essentially PostScript. What Java needs is more efficient compilers; technically, if Java is compiled natively, there is no reason it should be any slower than Objective-C. Cygnus has made a great start on a native code Java compiler. It needs more help and more free libraries.
(Incidentally, the licensing paragraph in the OpenStep docs has been there for years, and I'm surprised nobody on the GNUstep project bothered to clear this with Apple/NeXT before they got started.)
Re:"Yeah, right" is _right_ (Score:2)
Granted, it isn't quite as straightforward as Objective-C, since you are forced to define interfaces. I, too, would have preferred these features to be as straightforward in Java as in Objective-C. But you lose some and you win some: on balance, Java has runtime safety and Java's reflection API is more complete and better specified; on balance, I think that's not a bad tradeoff.
Incidentally, there are more dynamic distributed object systems for Java, including Sun's own JavaSpaces, as well as some of the XMLRPC implementations.
Incidentally, both JPython [jpython.org] and Bistro [jps.net] give you a very Smalltalk/Objective-C like object model on top of the Java runtime. Bistro just uses reflection, which has significant overhead. JPython actually does a lot of analysis to make some method invocatinos faster. I believe it's possible to do even better and essentially support Smalltalk/Objective-C object semantics completely and portably in Java.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Sun, unlike Apple/NeXT, has publically stated that independent reimplementations of their software and APIs are fine with them (their battle with Microsoft is over trademarks and licensing terms, not the right to clone Java).
Re:Mainstream OS? (Score:2)
Your number might be correct about market shares, but the last time i checked, 5% of the desktops is a WHOLE LOT MORE than 17% of servers.
3rd parties killed Copland (Score:2)
For those who don't know, or don't care, Copland was the buzz-word compliant OS8 that Apple spent millions developing, that very few outside people ever saw, and was quickly dumped when Gil took over and bought out NeXT.
I just hope that Apple can force the issue, because as of January 2001, OS X is going to be the only OS Apple makes for their computers!
Ps I've played around with OS X with my G4 and have 2 major complaints: the placement of the close/maximize/hide buttons, and the amount of screen real estate the window dressing takes up. Here's hoping Apple trims it down between now and the release!
Pope
Re:"Yeah, right" is _right_ (Score:2)
Please don't. Nothing has happened yet, just an email that may have no basis in fact. The last thing needed right now is people getting vocal over this. Let's not piss Apple off until it's been decided if this is even an issue to be worried about. Comments like this are only going to help cause a problem when there might not even be one.
Re:possibly dumb question (Score:2)
Check the site. Specifically, there is a list of all the included packages at http://www.publicsource.apple.com/projects/darwin
Also, I don't think you can just get Mach and BSD. It's not like you can install FreeBSD and just throw a mach kernel on it. A little tougher than that...
No, apple is a lot like a company (Score:2)
Companies are made of people. There are some folks at apple who believe in OpenSource, want to support the community, and want to take it as far as they can. There are others who think it's a big crock and won't want to consider it. Just like any big company, there are going to be factions that aren't always going to agree on what goes on. Life's a bitch, we'll have to see what happens.
BTW, Apple's earnings statements aren't proof enough that Jobs has brought apple back to profitability?
Re:Applications for OS X (Score:2)
Of course, developers will probably want to rewrite everything in Cocoa eventually, simply because it provides a much nicer development environment. But this isn't necessary; a Carbon app will take advantage of most of OS X's new features, and typically a current Mac app can be updated for Carbon in a couple of weeks.
--
Re:Apple open everything? Yeah, right. (Score:2)
Feh - never underestimate the stupidity of the end-luser. Why else does Apple have a whole building full of (underpaid and overworked IMO) people in Austin who do nothing but take support calls? I should know, I worked there a lifetime or so ago (1-800-SOS-APPL). Right now their tech support almost surely runs at a loss (or at best break-even). Who is to say that going the RedHat or Sun route (free/low-cost distro, sell support/HW) would not be as profitable? Their money comes from the HW, getting free development input on the SW side can't hurt their bottom line. What they're more afraid of is somebody coming along and porting MacOS X (with everything, not just Darwin/BSD) to Intel, and undercutting their Mac HW profits.
The other problem is cultural though - the Mac userbase has been set in its ways, being used to lots of hand-holding, including free long-term (Apple II was & still is *LIFETIME*) phone tech support 24x7x365. Beyond the obvious costs (the aforementioned building full of bodies), this means you end up supporting old HW and SW long beyond their intended lifetimes, which is an incredible drain. This has changed a bit in recent years; I believe they implemented 1 yr. HW warranty, 90-day free and then pay-per-incident SW support in 1997 (their website [apple.com] mentions this), but they got sued over this & settled recently, see this page for the settlement [apple.com]. They do have the 3-year "AppleCare" HW/SW warranty/support bundle which is possibly a $-maker.
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
True. (Score:2)
That's true. It's a senryu -- a satiric verse in 5-7-5.
No chance Apple will open source OSX (Score:2)
here's to hoping that Apple will open up all OSX.
Not gonna happen guys. MS will opensource W2K before Apple opens OSX. It makes no sense whatsoever for Apple to do this: they're going to make a fortune on OSX sales, both from upgrades as well as folks buying Apple-PPC hardware instead of Intel/W2K/Linux systems. (If OSX doesn't make a fortune, Apple's toast- they need to update MacOS bad. I've been waiting for this update since the Copland days...)
What benefit does Apple get from open-source? $5 CheapBytes CDs? A port of OSX to x86 hardware? Oh yeah, Steve loves those ideas...
Eric
Re:architecture (Score:2)
Re:MacOSX, Darwin, OpenStep... (Score:2)
If they released it under the BSD license, some other vendor could grab the source, improve on it, sell it and never release the source of the changes. If I remember well Apple's license prevent you to do that.
Darwin for x86? (Score:2)
For those looking at the code, how feasible is a port like that, and would it provide any real benefit to, say, Mac admins trying to set up a Mac-friendly OSX Server-like box on the cheap? (That is, advantages over Mac tools on Linux/BSD.)
Re:Only main stream OS?? Pffft.. (Score:2)
Re:architecture (Score:2)
Re:Cross-platform (Score:2)
It's unfortunate that you did not provide a silly anecdote of a NT server with Media Services crashing every time you sneezed.
The only thing preventing Windows Media player from running on Linux is licensing fees. Certainly if Real Networks - the sworn enemy of Microsoft can obtain a license, so can any Linux programmmer/company with funds.
If your issue is "Open source standards" here's a clue, QT is just as closed source.
Seems to me like you're just wishing for Windows Media to die, why? We Windows users certainly have nothing against it, or the Windows media player. Also, what's with the "Windoze" renaming? An attempt at scoring some bonus moderation points?
Re:Mainstream OS? (Score:2)
A well run PR department.
Apple's UI is good. The last version of OS X Server I used was very nice. The make the coolest monitors on the planet. But all of this pales in comparison to a PR department that could convince people that getting locked into a single vendor is refusing to go along with the herd. That people who build their own systems, and have options are mindless drones. That "think different" is grammatically correct. That "think different" means something. Their PR department has even convinced people that Mac OS is stable.
--Kevin
Cross-platform (Score:2)
Of course, porting Carbon would be non-trivial.
Here's hoping the G4e isn't too far away...
On a side note, having a QT streaming server for NT is a good thing... yes, it means your QTSS could be crashy and slow because it's running on NT, but it means few webhosting providers will have an excuse not to provide QTSS, and it'll help fight Windoze Media on its own turf.
QT for unix, pleeeeeze apple??
Re:Applications for OS X (Score:2)
Omniweb is the web browser you want! 4.0b2 was just released, and fixes a lot of problems with 4.0b1. It's Objective-C/Cocoa, not Carbon, so takes advantage of some of the really cool features like Services. http://www.omnigroup.com/products/omniweb/ [omnigroup.com]
Omniweb's damned fast even on my 233MHz Powerbook G3, and by far the prettiest damned browser anywhere :)
If you want a screenshot of it running on my machine (the screenshots on OmniGroup's site are pre-Aqua) check out http://www.tufts.edu/~ndanie01/images/Desktop.tiff [tufts.edu].
Re:Someone didn'nt do thier homework. (Score:2)
What about BSD then Phil?
Like it or not, neither BSD, Linux, Unix *OR* Mac OS X is 'mainstream'-if the definition is one can go to mega-chain-superstore-and-buy-hardware-preloaded-
If you want to say "Linux is Mainstream" then you have to be including BSD. If you are unwilling to say BSD is mainstream, yet call Linux mainstream, I'd LOVE to see your definition of mainstream.
Good Old Apple.... (Score:2)
To me, this is what Unix should of been like in 1995. This is probley one of the best examples of a Unix desktop, fast, easy, and much powerful. Easly scaleable with unix, so you can have multi cpu's. And apple for the most part is good hardware. So if apple was to open up there hardware, and more companies started makeing "apple clones" for cheaper, what os are they gonna run, linux and prolly OSX. Well given the was OSX is, it may be just as easy to run OSX on top, and have a vm or something to run linux under it. This makes a good desktop unixen box, and some good PPC based linux servers is the best way to go.
Mainstream OS? (Score:2)
"The core of Mac OS X is the only mainstream operating system following an open source model," said Philip Schiller, Apple's vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. "The new Darwin 1.0 posting includes some of the most advanced operating system technology available, and it's open to our customers and developers so that we may collaborate on the future of the Mac OS."
While its nice to see Apple helping the open source movement, I'm a little weary of their belief that Linux is not a mainstream operating system.
Sure, the Mac OS has been around for a lot longer, but 17%+ of the server market share that Linux holds doesn't make it qualify as a mainstream OS?
At last I checked, Apple only had ~5% of the desktop share, and their server share is non-existent. What does Apple have that makes their OS mainstream, that Linux doesn't?
---------------------------
Well said! (Score:2)
Reasons to open all of MacOS X:
1: Open Source R001z!
2: Intel support gives Apple a potentially less expensive platform, gives PC
makers a Microsoft alternative, and keeps Motorola and IBM honest.
3: It's not that tough to recompile anymore and ship fat binaries - in fact,
Apple has experience. The MacOS is pretty well abstracted from the hardware
as is.
4: See #1.
Reasons to not open anything but Darwin:
1: The only thing Apple has to differentiate itself from all the other Unix
vendors is the Mac UI. Give that away? What are you, nuts?
2: Official OS X support for Intel would dilute Apple's support and
development resources - not every company has $18 billion in the bank.
3: Intel hardware is much more varied - see reason number 2.
4: The previous 2 reasons are a good deal of why Windows sucks so hard -
they have so much hardware to support and no control over most drivers.
5: How does giving away OS X make money?
It is really the last question that is important. Who has the business plan that is going to make Apple a fortune by giving away this OS, when all it would really do is create tremendous competition against their hardware platform?
(credit to JHT for the thoughts...)
Re:Apple open everything? Yeah, right. (Score:2)
Well the community doesn't have any $$$ invested in OS X, so it doesn't matter to them if it costs Apple bigtime. They want it out there for a number of reasons, some for ideological reasons, others because they want something for nothing.
The first group, Apple and the industry in general, understand. Believe it or not, they do.
The second, is the one that will cause problems, the folks who don't want to pay for OS X or just want to get the code so they can do something with it.
As OK as this might sound, it could easily be considered greedy by Apple and others. They have spending excess of 300 Million $$$ to develop OS X.
If they give it all away, here's what will happen.
-Apple will suffer a massive investor lawsuit
-Apple will die.
-Every business that was considering Open Source will ask themselves, "What can it do to benefit us?" and answer "Apparently nothing".
-The movement will be discounted in corporate circles and no one will want to deal with it on a serious basis ever again.
Apple can't sell support on the MacOS, it is too damn easy to figure out on its own. With all due respect, this isn't Linux here. You don't need a book to figure out how to change your screen resolution.
Armchair quarterbacking is great. Reality is quite different.
Businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money and little else. Right now there is no clear way for Apple to make money by giving away OS X and the all the code.By whining that they haven't got everything they want, the OSS community makes itself look very bad. Regardless of their reasoning, it sounds to Apple (and others) like:
"But I don't want to have to write the code! You should spend your money to do that and give it to me for free!!"
If they are only insulted, OSS folks should consider themselves lucky.
Re:Slashdot has stopped using Chuck in the picture (Score:2)
I love the Mozilla logo, too. The red star with the dinosaur is kind of like Wild West meets Godzilla...
...or even better, Chinese Communism meets Barney the Dinosaur!
-
Re:Apple License-thoughts on it. (Score:2)
Re:Apple License-thoughts on it. (Score:2)
Re:possibly dumb question (Score:2)
Re:do we really deserve the GUI? (Score:2)
How many 'Open Source' advocates truly return to the community anything?
Re:Time to contribute (Score:2)
Re:Mainstream OS? (Score:2)
to Be or not to Be (Score:2)
Now that code is free speech [slashdot.org], it seems that Apple has spoken the specifications for the Mac hardware. Inside the Darwin source code is the information necessary to write an operating system kernel that runs on an iMac or a G4 or the iBook ("I said make it look like a Compaq®, not a compact!"); let's see what will come to Be [be.com] soon.
-----------------------------------------Why do /.ers like BeOS, a closed-source OS?
Here's hoping (Score:2)
-Elendale (What's with Slashdot's color? On my computer this story looks all red and stuff. My problem, or theirs?)
MacOSX, Darwin, OpenStep... (Score:2)
As I understand it, Darwin is essentially OSX, sans Quartz and the MacOS compatability layer.
First of all, I think we should give credit to Apple for doing this. Yes, I know it's not GPL. I am not sure but I would hazard a guess that the Apple Public License is NOT a certified (by OSI) Open Source (TM) licence. However, this is a great start. We should not flame Apple for not using the GPL but instead encourage them and other companies to do the same. As an aside, anyone know why the didn't just use a BSD license?
Finally, could anyone tell me if they know whether or not OSX is OpenStep compliant? ie, when Quicktime for OSX is released, would it be possible to run it under GNUstep? And further, what are people's opinions on OpenStep/GNUstep? I have been interested lately, and I think that given all the discussion going on lately about cross platform compatability, we should just go ahead and have all the distros be OpenStep compliant. If you would like more information, check out the GNUstep website [gnustep.org].
--
Re:architecture (Score:2)
Darwin 1.0 is processor-independent and is built for PowerPC and Intel platforms, enabling Open Source developers to work on Darwin projects on the widest choice of computer systems.
Now, if you had actually read the article you might have noticed this juicy little tidbit... It sounds pretty cool to me.
Now if Darwin is the core of OSX, is OSX cross-platform? I haven't heard anything about that... Anyone know anything?
Darwin Sys Admin != OS X Sys Admin (Score:2)
I agree that the complexity of the Mac OS will increase with the release of OS X. However, the complexity of administering OS X will not be as great as adminstering a purely UNIX system, such as Darwin.
What I believe Apple is trying to do is take the Mac OS's great interface and put a front-end on the administering aspects of OS X. This is evident in the front-end application they released with OS X Server to configure Apache. Thus, companies, who imac.usr said might "balk", would instead be encouraged to use OS X because they would be able to get great benefits, such as Apache and modern OS goodies, without having to train their system admins to the level that current UNIX admins need to be trained.
Of course, this assumes that these companies would think this through and see the benefits; rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction to the "new complexity" of Mac OS. Considering the wave a few years ago of removing Macs from corporate networks, I'm not so sure that companies really do think things through. The underlying truth that companies need to understand is this: mixed OS networks are a necessity to business because no one OS can satisfy the requirements of an entire company of any significant size.
Re:Here's hoping (Score:2)
They wrote the firmware, designed the boards, in many cases did certification testing of the clones' hacks (nubus in a PCI mac, anyone?) and took the sales hit. Clones were nifty, but a Bad Idea.
There was nothing open about the clones. It was a foolish attempt to expand market share by hoping other companies would build low-end machines for less money than Apple. Instead, PCC and Umax built high-end machines for a lot less than Apple could and took most of the margin out of the desktop computer biz. Ouch.
I don't want to take away too much from the clone companies, but their R+D too often consisted of discovering new ways to overextend Apple's existing designs and building them into cheap cases with marginal power supplies. Kinda like a fusion of PC and Mac.
Hope this historical information is useful.
Re:Good Old Apple.... (Score:2)
Good Old Apple.... (Score:1) by thefatz (fatz@linuxhaven.lessthispart.com) on Wednesday April 05, @11:36AM PDT (#21) (User Info) http://www.linuxhaven.com I wish they were more open with there hardware. Im mean in comparion with x86 PPC is really good, and is abit more used then alpha as far as, lower arena area. If only apple opened it up. What do they have to loose, nothing, because with a good Unix orentied OS like OSX, they will get prolly a good amount of developers and easly ported software, so the operating system is really golden. To me, this is what Unix should of been like in 1995. This is probley one of the best examples of a Unix desktop, fast, easy, and much powerful. Easly scaleable with unix, so you can have multi cpu's. And apple for the most part is good hardware. So if apple was to open up there hardware, and more companies started makeing "apple clones" for cheaper, what os are they gonna run, linux and prolly OSX. Well given the was OSX is, it may be just as easy to run OSX on top, and have a vm or something to run linux under it. This makes a good desktop unixen box, and some good PPC based linux servers is the best way to go.
Well, two important points about Apple. Firstly, they are a company and they are in the business of making money. Secondly, they are a hardware company. Almost all of their earnings come from selling boxes. Currently Apple makes in the order of $8 billion a year in revenue, about 95% (I'd guess) of which comes from hardware sales.
If Apple opened up their hardware tplatform to cloning again, they'd loose a huge chunk of their revenues and profits. Last time they tried that, Apple's revenues halved and they lost $2 billion. I don't see what incentive the company has to repeat that experiment...
And, yes, I do realize that not all of Apple's mid-90's woes are down to cloning, but it was a significant factor in the problems the company had.
Re:BSD considers Darwin one of their own (Score:2)
File: fork.ksh
--------------------------------------------
#!/bin/ksh
while [ 1 ]; do
echo "another loop"
nohup fork.ksh &
done
--------------------------------------------
Let this baby run for a while and then try a
graceful shutdown/logoff from their UI...
In 1989 when I got access to a Unix box the first time in my life (it was a SUN running SunOS - another BSD) I made a mistake in my homework assignment and crashed the departments SUN used for the course. Ever since, one of the first "tests" when accessing a new box is this little script...
[and now for the flame
If you would have been able to control your temper, you would have noticed that I wrote the word "deliberately". Any machine or software can be crashed deliberately (keyword here is: boundary conditions) - I was simple annoyed that it was still _that_ easy (given the nimbus Apple is sporting).
And if such a machine is to be used in an investment banks trading room, competing against a NT-workstation running the same software - better make sure it is really stable!
So now the main question: Who is the dweeb here?
Re:BSD considers Darwin one of their own (Score:2)
We had one of those boxes (with OS-X Server) for testing a couple of months ago. It took me about 10 minutes to crash that machine: no root access necessary, just plain old shell scripting (details upon request).
Too bad Apple isn't that keen on real aggressive pricing, with increased stability this could lead to 'NIXes finally toppling the MS dominance...
This is for real (Score:2)
I've seen a number of comments disparaging Apple's motives for doing open source. But folks, this is the real thing - Apple has been hiring open source hackers like myself, and part of our jobs is explicitly to improve contacts with the community and come up with creative ways to collaborate. Since I started two months ago, it seems like I've spent as much time discussing open-source strategy with management as actually fiddling with GCC, which is my specific organizational cubbyhole.
I believe Apple will remain committed to open source even without a lot of participation from the rest of the community, but of course we can accomplish much more together. Also, if Apple sees that working with the community at the OS and tools level is enabling it to be more successful overall, that will be a powerful reason to consider open-sourcing other parts of the system; Darwin 1.0 is just the beginning.
There are piles of sources already available, everything from the lowest-level gory stuff in Mach, up to user-land tools, and the only thing in your way is the load on the servers from all the other people downloading! :-) So go for it!
My own specialty is tools, mainly GCC and GDB, and we have some very active and interesting discussion about tools already going on in the Darwin developers list; I'd love to have more people join in. I also posted much more technical detail on Apple's local mods to GCC there, along with some ideas about how to get it added to FSF GCC.
Stan Shebs
shebs@apple.com
FIRST HAIKU (Score:3)
Is it Apple, open-sourced,
Or just Apple Sauce?
Thank you.
Ack, here it is (Score:3)
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/ps-faq.html,
Q. Does the Apple Public Source License qualify as an Open Source
license?
Yes, the Open Source Initiative has determined that the Apple Public
Source License is conformant to the "Open Source Definition:"
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html.
Re:Apple License-thoughts on it. (Score:3)
You might want to read that license again.
Yes, Apple "grants" you the "right" to distribute your modifications or more specifically to "deploy" modified code. But, they retain the right to use, to modify, and to distribute your modifications as they see fit without royalty. In other words, they can take your changes, make one or two changes, incorporate their hacked up version of your code into commercial OSX without folding that code back into Darwin.
You don't have full rights to any code that you've written.
Thanks to the BSD license, they can get away with this. If their code were based on the Linux kernel rather than Mach and BSD, they couldn't. That's why this puppy's userland is based on FreeBSD rather MkLinux/GNU.
That said, this sounds like a really cool project. I've always been impressed with Mach and microkernels in general. I'd like to get a BSD-lites system up and running or maybe jump in with the HURD.
It might be cool if we could steal the thread model from Mach and somehow make it fit in Linux. Then, we'd have a truly lightweight thread model instead of one based on the Unix process model.
BSD considers Darwin one of their own (Score:3)
Re:MacOSX, Darwin, OpenStep... (Score:3)
Technically, there isn't really an openstep specification anymore. Well, there is, but I doubt it means much these days. Cocoa is the definative implementation of the artist formerly known as openstep, however. GNUstep's goal is to be 100% compatible. So does this mean an app will just work under GNUstep? Nope. They use different makefile formats for one. Easy enough, a utility could convert between the two. But Apple uses dynamically loadable interface components, currently stored in binary format, supposedly one day in XML descriptions. When it goes XML, GNUstep can probably use them. For the meantime, it won't work. Lastly, GNUstep isn't done. There's a lot of the GUI stuff that hasn't been implemented. A lot of it is there and doing quite well, but not where it has to be for 100% compatability. In all likelyhood it will be several years before GNUstep is complete enough that *any* OSX app could be recompiled.
Re:Someone didn'nt do thier homework. (Score:3)
2) Trolling (redundantly) with a famous-guy +1 bonus is uncool.
3) It is time to moderate me down for 2).
4) Thank you.
Re:Applications for OS X (Score:3)
As far as a web browser goes, you're looking for OmniWeb [stepwise.com]. Lynx [stepwise.com] is also available. Didn't OmniWeb come with OS X though? For Darwin, only Lynx [stepwise.com] is available.
Re:architecture (Score:3)
This kernel gives you the option of running multiple OS's simultaneous on one box, without some of the sacrifices you make with todays emulators.
I wouldn't mind having dual boot become a new definition, where you actually run BeOS, MacOS, *BSD, Linux, and even Winblows at the same time.
Apple Killed Copland...For Good Reason (Score:3)
If you want to get a good insight into why it failed, read Gil Amelio's book "On The Firing Line - My 500 Days At Apple". Assuming a great number of
Copland was designed to be a direct competitor to Windows 95. However, by the time it was two years late, Amelio came aboard and saw that there was no way in hell it would be complete until 1999 at the earliest.
Not good.
What made it especially bad was the fact it was being managed by an engineer, which as the past 20 years of computing has shown, is a very bad thing. Copland was missing numerous key features, such as memory protection and real Preemptive Multitasking.
Which it was never intended to have. Unfortunately, Copland was an OS out of time. It was supposed to be done in 96 or 97 and be a stepping stone to Gershwin, which would supposedly put NT to shame and include complete backwards compatibility with all the cool features of a modern OS. Too bad the Copland team had never thought to do any work on Gershwin, and it remained a feature spec on paper, now and forever.
While the Copland team was neglecting Gershwin and floundering the development of its own OS. It removed almost all of the engineers working on System 7 development under the outrageous assumption that it was still following its original development schedule and that System 7 would be obsolete in a couple of months, so what was wrong with halting support?
Quite a bit actually. This is the reason the whole System 7.5/Performa time is so embarrassing to Mac users. Especially because so many machines from that era are still in use, pissing off PC users to this day, resulting in skewed opinions and the chant of "Macs Suck" that is so often heard.
Anyway, Amelio dumped Copland, bought out NeXT (Be was too greedy and Bill Gates was fibbing about how easy it would be to resolve some of the technical problems involved with Mac NT).
The result was Rhapsody. Development continued for about a year, and things were looking up. That is until Adobe, Macromedia and quite a few other software makers realized they would have to completely rewrite all their apps for Objective C. (a.k.a the Yellow Box and Cocoa).
An collective "Oh Shit" went out across the Cupertino campus. So realizing that app vendors would desert them, Apple decided to revise the Classic API, put in into Rhapsody, make it backwards compatible with the Classic MacOS, put in a newer Mach Kernel, create a new display engine along with a host of other improvements and call it Mac OS X.
Halfway through this, they shipped a server version of Rhapsody called Mac OS X Server simply to prove they were doing something worthwhile.
Now, everybody's happy. The users (mostly), the app makers and most of the press.
Re:Apple License-thoughts on it. (Score:3)
Yes, Apple "grants" you the "right" to distribute your modifications or more specifically to "deploy" modified code. But, they retain the right to use, to modify, and to distribute your modifications as they see fit without royalty. In other words, they can take your changes, make one or two changes, incorporate their hacked up version of your code into commercial OSX without folding that code back into Darwin
They retain the right to use your code, under the same license. Unless your code is developed specifically for apple, your code stays in the apple public license.
You hereby grant to Apple and all third parties a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, under Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by You, to use, reproduce, modify, distribute and Deploy Your Modifications of the same scope and extent as Apple's licenses under Sections 2.1 and 2.2;
This is saying that Apple can take your modifications and distribute them as per the Apple Public License
Apple retains all rights, title and interest in and to the Original Code and any Modifications made by or on behalf of Apple ("Apple Modifications"), and such Apple Modifications will not be automatically subject to this License. Apple may, at its sole discretion, choose to license such Apple Modifications under this License, or on different terms from those contained in this License or may choose not to license them at all.
This is the section I think concerns you, this is stating that modifications made by or for Apple can be released under other licenses.
Here are a couple of examples of how I see this working:
You take Darwin, modify it and add other software to make it Linux compatible. You distribute this new Darwin on your own. Apple can then use your modifications under the terms of the Apple Public License, and therefore must release the source. This is covered under Section 3 of the license. SInce your personal modifications are your own intellectual property, which they recognize as such, they must abide by the same terms you must under the Apple Public License.
Now, if Apple calls you up and has you under contract of some sort to do the same thing, those modifications are covered under section 11 of the license, as they are done not for you but for Apple, and those modifications are Apples property not yours. Thus Apple can release the code under any license it desires.
Re:more basic architecture question (Score:3)
Re:MacOSX, Darwin, OpenStep... (Score:3)
The license *is* an OSI certified license. It's even copylefted. IMHO, Apple should be thwacked for taking BSD code and copylefting it. Oh well, that's the downside of BSD's freedom.
Re:Time to contribute (Score:3)
Why are you surprised so few people have installed it? Most of the "hard-core" developers I knew that would-a-loved Darwin, like me that did driver development and couldn't find work ~96-97, left the platform in droves during the same time period. (Actually, the death of OpenDoc and Apple's almost intentional poor treatment of faithful hard-core developers -- oh the stories I can tell -- the pooching of Copland and kernel/driver architectures -- the absolute emotional response Apple had to developers offering suggestions that were bitter pills, contrasting Apple's policy of cliquey-positive-re-enforcing blindess...).
For open source to work, you need a healthy hacker-like developer base, wraught with enthusiasm. Just think of QuickDraw 3D and OpenGL politics and hurdles! The evil cycle of no tools, (no support/hope), people that try provide going under as niche markets dry up... The resource pool to embrace Darwin is very small.
I have two copies of 1.2 X Server that arrived. I have Darwin. I don't have a Mac I can install them on (a lie, it works on my G3 upgrade with some diddling), and until the hardware discount comes back to the associate developer program, I cannot justify buying a new Macintosh. Even if I did, why would I bother? Bereskin said publically that OS X Server would never be updated! (Funny how this update appeared.) Why would the faithful support something they were told [is dead dead dead] by Apple itself?
There is a lot of bad history and bitter developers.
Bernie Wieser (bernie@octavian.com)
"Apple intends to be the premier Java development platform." WWDC '96 keynote
Re:Time to contribute (Score:3)
Darwin released (Score:4)
As the captain of SeaQuest, DSV, I'd just like to express my sadness at the release of Darwin. As you know, Darwin was getting a little old, and I was tired of him and Lucas always screwing up our plans. So, last Thursday, the senior officers and I finally reached the decision to release Darwin.
Capt. Bridger
Seaquest, DSV
END OFFICIAL UEO DOCUMENT
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
The best shave I've ever had.. (Score:4)
Thanks to Mach 3.0's inovative microkerel design, I've gotten the closest shave ever!
"Yeah, right" is _right_ (Score:5)
On the one hand, it's fair enough that Apple graphics (perhaps nee NeXT) are Apple's, but there are rumblings that Apple wants to get "medieval" over this. There has been a "reaction of silence," [deja.com] as well as more vigorous reactions. [deja.com]
The distressing part, described in this article, [deja.com] is that it appears that access to the OPENSTEP API may not be as open as everyone would wish to believe. To wit,
Of course, the most distressing part is this message [deja.com] purported to have come from Steve Jobs, where the salient bit reads: From: Steve Jobs Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:19 AM To: Lucas C. Wagner Subject: GNUstep Lucas, As you may know, Apple owns the Cocoa and OpenStep APIs, and will not feel great about others using its intellectual property without premission. Best, Steve
Open is as open does. If Apple winds up suing anyone over GNUstep, I'd say that tells you how committed they really are to "open source."
Apple open everything? Yeah, right. (Score:5)
I was listening to Eric Raymond at the Geek Pride thing last weekend. On one hand, I was impressed with how he's obviously given his pitch to skeptical audiences and how that made him sound much more convincing than the the preaching to the choir that one normally hears here. On the other hand, I couldn't help thinking, "OK, we've heard the theoretical arguments now. And what has it done for anybody in reality?"
If I were at Apple, I'd be waiting for somebody - anybody - to demonstrate that free development can really be more profitable than proprietary work. (Note that a stock valuation greater than the worth of Belgium isn't profit. Note also that I'm talking about open sourcing a product for which the company makes the primary investment, not taking existing GPL software, packaging it and maybe paying somebody to improve it.) Until I saw that, why on earth would I risk Apple's current profitability to be the first to test out ESR's theories?
do we really deserve the GUI? (Score:5)
now, that's a high-octane statement, so please give me a chance to put it in context before hauling out the flamethrowers..
according to the documents ESR has written, which are arguably the core of the Open Source manifesto, developers have a responsibility to the project from which the code comes. the coin of the Open Source realm is respect for the primary developers, and participation in the project for which the code was originally written.
now, i've never seen anyone say, "if Apple opened their GUI, i'd work to improve the Mac OS." it's always, "if Apple opened their GUI, we could port the good parts to Linux." that's not participation, and it's not respect. it's pillage.
that being the case, i'd suggest everyone take another look at _The Magic Cauldron_, section 6, where ESR discusses reasons to keep source closed:
"The real question is whether your gain from spreading the development load exceeds your loss due to increased competition from the free rider."
in the case of Apple opening the source to its GUI (and all its other crown jewels), i submit that the Linux community shows significantly more interest in causing Apple increased losses through competition than it does in helping spread the development load on Apple's own projects. until that changes, it seems to me that Apple's most rational choice is to keep the source for those projects closed.
if we want that code opened, we have to do more than sit around saying how deserving we are. we have to convince Apple that the community will give enough back to compensate for the inevitable jerks whose only response will be "thanks.. sucker! hey everybody, look what i've got!"
Apple took a lot of heat when they first opened Darwin because people (no less than PMS) considered it "a cynical attempt to leverage the community for free labor." i think there's a risk that people who want Apple to open the GUI and Quartz (and the Sorensen codec, for those of you who want a Linux QT player) may be doing the same thing in reverse. they're shouting 'Open Source' to cynically leverage free work out of private companies, with no intent to repay the original developers, even according to the standards of the Open Source community itself. they want easier competition, not a chance to participate.
i don't think the idea of Open Source can legitimately be used to force someone into a disadvantageous position. if we're not willing to put up a critical mass of developers who'll work to Apple's benefit, i don't think our own standards give us the right to demand more than we're getting.
Re:do we really deserve the GUI? (Score:5)
> say that.
you're quite right, my remarks were focused on the Linux/Slashdot crowd.
of course, that simply begs the question as far as Open Source in general is concerned.. Open is Open, come one, come all.
there are plenty of people out there (some of whom can be found here on /.) whose attitude towards an Apple that completely opened its source would be something like "strip off the flesh, shit on the bones, and laugh at the way it all steams."
the nature of the Open Source movement allows those people catch some reflected glory from the really good ('egoless' -- _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_) developers, and lets the good developers get tarred with the brush the bad ones have made so foul.. sucks to be a good guy, i guess.
given the open hostility to Apple (or any commercial software company that doesn't make Quake), and the fact that the Linux community can't even be bothered to acknowledge the source of most of its bundled software [1], the probable loss to free riders is high enough that i'm not sure any reasonable amount of real assistance from the good developers would offset the probable damage from short-sighted, self-serving idiots.
([1] - the true measure of the GPL's success is embodied in the fact that several dozen megs of GNU code are collectively presented to the public as 'Linux'.. anyone care to bet what would be printed on the CDs if Stallman could threaten to rescind those rights somehow?)
that's one of the biggest problems the Open Source community has to address if it wants to make serious inroads with business. our ethic is based on granting responsible people as much freedom to work as possible, but fails to address the problem of dealing with people who aren't quite so virtuous. there's supposed to be a consensus of disapproval for those who behave badly, but that's really controlled by the whim of the masses.. and if we change the masses, we change the whim.
Apple's venture into Open Source poses a serious challenge to the community in general: what do we do when a plurality of the free riders think pillaging someone else's work is acceptable? how does the part of the community that thinks working is a Good Thing offset the shouting of the masses who just want more bread and bigger circuses?
personally, i favor an application of ESR's dictum "show me the code." i don't care what license you use, or how popular the product itself happens to be, if you want to criticize someone else's Open Source effort, you have to tell the world how much work you've contributed to the Bazzar yourself.
RMS has the right to criticize the APSL.. he's paid for it by releasing a huge amount of code under the GPL, and by taking the kicks in the teeth that went with it. i haven't.. i've put maybe 5KLOC of perl code into the general memepool so far, and that's nothing compared to Darwin. i doubt most of the people calling for Apple to hand over its GUI (and griping about the APSL) have even matched my pittance, under any license at all.
therefore, i reserve the right to ignore them completely. if they don't like that, they're welcome to show me some code.
Re:do we really deserve the GUI? (Score:5)
One thing I wish would happened during these Darwin/APSL discussions is that some members of the Mac/Next developer community would step up to the plate and articulate why these events are a good thing for the Mac/Next developer community. It's happened, but it usually gets buried by 300 Linux Advocate condemnations and of course the assorted "One Button Mouse", "Drag Floppy to Trash?", and "I'm still pissed about the Mac IIvx" posts. Even this page seems to have a large number of people that don't even know what Darwin is, much less why they should care.
Anyway, you are right -- Big Corporation Releases Open Source Unix should be applauded by a group of people that are nominally Open Source fans and Unix fans. However, the ideology ends up being a wash, and the true colors come out where everyone is defending their specific interest (whether that be Linux, or the GPL, or that they don't like Apple).
But, do you what? Screw 'em. If Darwin is a worthwhile project, people will pick up the ball and run with it. These people are probably going to have to come from the Mac/Next side of the fence - I don't see much interest here. When it gets a X server, and KDE, 282 CD rippers compile, and a real 'distribution', people will start to take notice. If it stays up and puts in respectable benchmark numbers, people will really start to take notice. Remember that Linux has got where it is because of the pragmatists who have implemented it for real work, not the ideology involved in opinion shaping.
--
But wait, there's more... (Score:5)
Seriously, though, the next few months will be very hard on a lot of Mac system admins, I suspect. Most of the ones I've had to deal with are people who got roped into doing it part time (since most places only have a few Macs, and even places that have a lot -- like certain government institutions -- still get by with one or two dedicated Mac techs, if that many). They know enough to install system software, but next to nothing about tuning a system, or knowing what needs updating and what should be left alone (or thrown away), and why having multiple copies of Acrobat Reader is not a good thing, especially when they're different versions.
People like myself, who saw the writing on the wall years ago, and who already had some Unix experience, will (hopefully) be in high demand as the complexity of the Mac OS goes up with OS X's release. But I fear many companies will balk at the thought of having to suddenly train and support their Mac staff. "But I thought they were easy to use!" Yeah, easy to use, but you still have to know how to administer them properly.
I suppose the benefit is that suddenly there will be a lot more people looking for Unix knowledge, and a lot more people trying to get it. I just hope Apple can find a way to support those of us who support them, by offering more training (the new AppleCare program is a start) or even...shudder...some kind of certification program, to separate the gurus from the weenies. Not that it's worked especially well with the MCSE...
Time to contribute (Score:5)
Getting everything together for a public release is a very non-trivial task. I know the hassles we go through, and darwin is 100x the size of our codebase.
After all that work, including pressing CD's, it was met with a fairly resounding silence.
The darwin mailing lists were dead. It sometimes seemed like there were a grand total of a dozen people with darwin installed.
It was looking like this might go down as a large example of how going to the trouble of Open Source doesn't get you anything but hassle.
It didn't help that darwin was basically unusable by itself, because all you got was a single very slow text console with messed up key bindings. Not exactly a happy development environment.
(most of the active development work is done in the usable environment of OS-X server)
The general response that interested people gave as to why they weren't doing any development with darwin was that "everything is going to change in the next release" (the driver architecture was massively reworked).
Well, the new release is here now. There is still the problematic issue that you can't run ANY current gui on darwin 1.0. OS-X server and the developer seeds of OS-X client are both out of sync with the darwin codebase. All the excuses won't really go away until the next OS-X client release.
A couple months ago, I took on the porting of X windows to Darwin, so it could actually be considered halfway usable by itself.
I released the patches to get X windows running under MacOS-X server, which was basically the same core as the earlier darwin release.
I was then given the same excuse as other people -- why bother porting to the native darwin video and input drivers if everything is going to change soon?
As of now, I am actively feeling guilty about not finishing it. Everything is there for me now, I just need to find the time.
I had been spending my weekends on either GLX or darwin X server work after Q3 shipped, but my R&D "research" has shifted to "development" faster than I expected, and the past few weekends have been monopolized by new engine work. I'll get to it within the next month, but if someone wants to pick up first, feel free...
It may turn out that many of ESR's arguments just don't pan out for Apple, as far as having outsiders improve the core codebase. Even so, releasing the source will benefit Apple by giving application developers the "ultimate docs" on the OS.
I think Apple deserves a lot of credit for the step.
John Carmack
Apple License-thoughts on it. (Score:5)
No royalties
Source MUST be included if you distribute it, whether modified or not
The license to use the code is automatically terminated if you violate it.
You can distribute it ON YOUR OWN, you do have to register mods but are not prevented from distribution
Apple does get full rights to use any of your code, but you still have full rights to distribute. Mods made for apple specifically are under whatever license apple wants, but personal mods are still under this one. Modifications are REQUIRED to be documented clearly.
This is a great thing. You could take Darwin and port say BASH, other necesary GNU utilities and throw X on it to make a full OS. The license specifically allows you to mix it with code from other licenses, with the sensible provision that code under the Apple license is clearly marked as such. I would have to look at the GPL more carefully, but Apple seems to have made a far better balance between the interests of the otiginal developer and the interests of OSS developers in the real world than the GPL does