Darwin Source Completely Available 162
The AC crowd were the first to write in with the news. From Wilfredo Sanchez's diary at Advogato, "Today another big milestone has come up. I imported the sources to the kernel into the Darwin CVS repository today, which means that at this point all of the sources needed to build Darwin are available externally for the first time." For those not in the know, Darwin is the foundation on which MacOS X is based. It's a BSD Unix, including significant contributions from the NetBSD and FreeBSD kernel and userland code.
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:1)
Linux internals were not as mature (Score:1)
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:1)
Be Inc. has done a very mediocre job in bringing innovative new applications and support for modern hardware into BeOS. They keep trying to change the face of BeOS (which is a moderately interesting operating system, don't get me wrong) in a mostly vain effort to sell it profitably to someone. "It's a media OS". Except that it doesn't have good multimedia apps and poor support for video devices. "It's an Internet Appliance OS". Except that none are shipping yet, and an uncertain market for them when they do.
Be Inc's most recent shift to internet appliances left many developers for the desktop with the uneasy feeling that the features that they were interested in (better networking, opengl, better device support) will take a back seat to the features that Be Inc. feels it needs to sell it to Internet Appliance manufacturers. Pissing off your developers (or even scaring them) isn't very good business practice (okay, so Microsoft gets away with it, but they own the market already).
I suspect that Steve Jobs sleeps quite well at night. Since his return Apple has come out with a number of great, interesting products that people are willing to slap down credit cards to buy. Whether Darwin pans out or not, it is an interesting development, and I look forward to seeing what becomes of it.
Steve Jobs isn't Be Inc.'s nemesis: Be Inc. is. Read their filings with the SEC, especially the lines that show how much money they consume in a quarter, and what their income and cash reserves are like. I like their OS, but until they can convince both hardware and software developers to provide products for BeOS and actually make some MONEY, they will continue to be on the outside looking in.
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:1)
Ah, but it's much more "rewarding" to give your girlfriend a little red stuffed devil than a stuffed penguin (Hint, hint. Nudge, nudge.)
Thank You Apple!!! (Score:1)
I, for one, am truly impressed by Apple's support of the free software movement. For all the gripes about their closed hardware, at least they are moving in the right step with their OS. From the screen shots I have seen on the web, MacOS X looks very cool! With Darwin moving to complete open source and the recent compile on Intel, it looks like MacOS X could be a Linux/Windows killer for the desktop OS market.
Kudoos Apple!!!
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:1)
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:1)
NT is much more a derivative of VMS than CP/M. Did you never get the joke?
HAL->IBM : VMS->WNT
--
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:1)
So you're saying Darwin is not an "Open Source OS" because even tho' all it's components are open source it's, what, not new? Would you rather call Darwin a BSD distro? Whatever. Don't discount how much work Apple has put into Darwin, there's a lot in there that wasn't in BSD before. And they've made important contributions to other things you might have heard of, like gcc.
Darwin will run the open sourced QuickTime Streaming Server, that's a pretty good reason to run it. It's normal to dedicate a server to that task so choosing an OS (especially a free one) and hardware just for that is unremarkable. Maybe Apple's hardware isn't server-ish enough. Okay, how about an RS/6000?
I would agree that Quartz, the MacOS X GUI, is the most innovative part of MOSX. Considering they'd like to make some money, which they can only really do by selling hardware, I would understand not open sourcing it which would ultimately lead to Quartz on other platforms. The reality is that it probably probably can't be open sourced, not just by Apple anyway, because it depends upon licensed technology from Adobe. So John Carmack and others will get X Windows to the useable point on Darwin, is that so bad?
Once MOSX is out, what I would like to see is Apple letting others make true server hardware. I'm thinking of stuff like big cases, multiple processors, redundant power supplies, hot swappable RAID drives, various tape backup drives, all kinds of on-board monitoring, common stuff in the $4000+ range. They shouldn't do it themselves, they're not good enough at it, they've never taken it past the workgroup level, and it is too much of a distraction from they core markets. IBM already makes PPC systems and is an AIM partner so they would be a logical choice but I'd want to see at least one other as competition. The trick would be keeping them expensive enough and server oriented enough to keep the high-end graphics pros at bay. Even if Apple did lose some of that market, it wouldn't be a huge loss although the profit margins are much better. If MOSX stayed with just Apple hardware, Darwin could become the server OS anyway and graphics pros would never choose its GUI over MOSX's.
Re:MVS? No way (Score:1)
You might like to check out http://www.snipix.freeserve.co.uk/hercules.htm [freeserve.co.uk] where you can get "Hercules". To quote from the site:
True, it is an emulator and not a native OS but it is interesting.
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:1)
Ooops! Mea culpa! You are quite right, that was NeWS, not Display PostScript. I got the following information from the http://www.postscript.org/FAQs/ language/node73.html [postscript.org]
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:1)
-- OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:Now for the Aqua GUI source, and ... (Score:1)
Aqua is just a theme that goes on top of the Apearance Manager: the proof is in the fact that you can take it out of the system, and Mac OS X looks just like Mac OS X Server (somewhat like a mixed breed between OpenStep & Mac OS 9). The Apearance Manager is based on the graphic engine "Quartz" that's part of Mac OS X. If they were to open source that, where wouldn't be much left.
Re:Thank You Apple!!! (Score:1)
but it's nowhere near as bad as it was, agreed.
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:1)
(cpt - from the *right* coast)
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:1)
Re:Question....no..wait...seriously... (Score:1)
-----
Who is Userland? (Score:1)
-----------------------
Which userland are they referring to? The only Userland I know make web development software, not operating system code. Anyone know who they're refering to?
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:1)
Re:real imapct? (Score:1)
MacOS X is more like NeXTStep than Classic; after all Cocoa is really what made NS NS, and it's still there. Not to mention Mach+BSD.
NeXTStep features even have popped up in MacOS 9. If you enter a bad password during login, the dialog box shakes back and forth, just like NeXTStep !
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:1)
Re:MVS? No way (Score:1)
At one time IBM sold a 370-on-a-board (albit microchanel) so you could emulate a mainframe on your PC.
I suspect what you say about MVS being otherwise inherently tied to the bare metal being true as well. You pointed out that its more than 30 years old, and how you did things back then is a lot different than how you would do things today. Not bad differnt necessarly.. OS for microcomputers and OS for mainframes are going to be different. I would suspect that the "unix" for Crays is very diferent from all other unix's under the hood.
One thing that I can offer supporting the hardware/software relationship is EBCDIC vs ACSII. Looking at the charactor codes for ASCII, it requires a little though to ignore case. Looking at the charactor codes for EBCDIC, you can see that to ignore case you just ignore a paticular bit. (which bit I dont remember) Now, if you running through billions and billions of records your going to save some time doing it the IBM/MVS/370/EBCDIC way.
Re:Note from BeOS:--> Future of BeOS (Score:1)
How long before someone buys BeOS? Am I the only one who thinks that Microsoft could get itself out of the corner it has backed itself into by buying Be (once they take their whiping for being abusing the market).
1) A good, multimedia OS that runs on Intel. W2K is not going to make hordes of friends on the desktop.
2) A good embedded OS. BeIA kicks WinCE all the way around the block (from what I have been able to gather - never used either of them). MS has failed so many times with WinCE, they could use something that works for a change. They know this is a huge and growing market.
The only big problem that they would have is backwards compatibility (big problem...), but I they could use an emulator. W2K is not winning any awards for backwards compatibility either.
-----------------------------------------------
Re:Note from BeOS:--> Future of BeOS (Score:1)
Scenario:
- MS shells out money for Be.
- They port all their big Apps (Office, etc.)
- Spread a little money around to get the third party developers interested (games, business software, etc - From what I understand, Be is a lot easier to program for than Windows. IANAP - at least on Windows and Be...).
- Release Windows 2001 MM (multimedia) at the end of next year, eraly 2002
Viola! The choice is esy to make - a good, fast consumer OS form the buigest software company on the earth - people would eat it up. They could sell it as the client OS, and keep WinMonster2000 on the server.
They can keep Apple and Linux from eating up too much of the desktopmarket, and have a real competitor in the embedded market...
This is Good (Score:1)
The Evolution of Linux (abridged addition) (Score:1)
1991: copy of ~20 year-old OS.
2000: copy of ~30 year-old OS, with wheelmouse support.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Apple finally gets it! (Score:1)
Because they have focused the business plan on hardware, they can open up the software, make it free (as in speech *and* beer) eventually. They will still make the best hardware to run it, and the end result is that they sell more beige (or bondi blue, or tangerine, or graphite) boxes.
Re:This May be A Dumb Question. (Score:2)
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:2)
DEC never seriously tried to sell an affordable VMS workstation for home users. The management was too much in love with the idea of high unit margins, as opposed to high sales volume. Also, while the VMS user interface is more consistent than the Unix one, managing your own VMS box is still harder than operating a PC or a Mac.
On the other hand, the combination of VMS and other DEC products was rather hard to beat for applications where reliability was important. One DEC "success story" involved a bank over in France which had two datacenters, in different cities, connected by FDDI. A fire completely destroyed one datacenter, but because the data was being mirrored in real time, over the FDDI link, to the other datacenter, the bank was up and running (at a somewhat reduced transaction processing rate) on the very next day.
Re:is there info on Darwin? (Score:2)
Windows was originally built on top of MSDOS lower layer much like Aqua, the GUI libraries, etc. are placed on top of Darwin to form MacOS X.
(of course, Windows has changed much in recent years, but the analogy still works.)
Is Darwin like Linux. From a user aspect, yes. Most of the software on top of Linux is GNU software that also compiles on top of BSD flavors of Unix. Much of the user experience is based on this software, so Darwin can look a lot like Linux. On an internal level, Linux uses monolithic kernal which must mostally be rewritten to port it from one type of computer to another. Darwin tries to minimize the work of porting by having its kernal use a standardized microkernal, called Mach. The Mach microkernal can be more easily ported to other systems.
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:2)
Very good question. Here is a rough, incomplete list:
Of course, you could add this stuff to {Free,Net,Open}BSD, but then you'd end up with....Darwin!
How much any of these things are of use to you, is, of course, entirely variable.
The cost of Be (Score:2)
Quartz vs PostScript (Score:2)
Isn't PostScript, the basis for NeWS and NextSTEP, vector based?
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:2)
Sorry, but Display Postscript (the foundation of the NeXT GUI, and now becoming available through ghostscript for GNUStep) was there much earlier than the very cool looking Quartz.
Re:It's the apps (Score:2)
But seriously, Compaq is not selling any more VAXen after September 2000 (although they will continue to support the platform).
--
Re:It's ed and vi (Score:2)
And heck, you don't have to use the utilities. All they consume is disk space, around 10 MB in my Solaris installation. But they are there when somebody (other than yourself apparently) needs them.
--
Be is the one doing the "bullsh*tting..." (Score:2)
So Apple doesn't hand them the specs on a silver plate. Big deal; Be can get those specs whenever it wants.
Tons of Open-Source operating systems already run on PPC hardware. Most notable among these are the BSD's, because they are under the BSD license. BSD's licensing weakness is a blessing for Be; they can rip that code off, stick it in their own OS, keep it closed, and all continues as before.
So why don't they provide more PPC support? Simple answer: they don't want to. I don't know why not. Perhaps it's the huge Intel investment. Perhaps they're just too damn lazy. Perhaps they're scared of something; I don't know what, but they are.
But since they're really so frightened, why not start a PowerPC Documentation Project? Use code from MkLinux, LinuxPPC, and the BSD's to write your own documentation of PowerPC hardware. It's certainly doable. It'll give Be what they want, it doesn't violate any of Apple's admittedly absurd hardware-licensing crap, and everyone's happy.
Re:is there info on Darwin? (Score:2)
It is not ipso facto the case that a monolithic kernel needs to be substantially rewritten to work on different types of computers; in fact, most of the non-hardware-device-driver Linux kernel code is shared by all platforms, and I suspect even a fair bit of the driver code is shared if a given peripheral can run on more than one platform type. (The same applies to the BSDs, to SunOS 4.x, and, as far as I know, to SunOS 5.x, which also have monolithic kernels.)
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:2)
The poster to whom you're responding said "Display PostScript", but I think he meant "NeWS", which, although it was a PostScript-based window system, was not based on Adobe's Display PostScript. (The PostScript in NeWS was extended to support handling keyboard/mouse/other input events, so that a lot of the work done by a toolkit, including handling of user input, could be done by PostScript code downloaded to the display server. As far as I know, DPS doesn't support that.)
NeWS is, for better or worse, dead; CDE never made use of it (Sun'd abandoned NeWS by then), and OpenWindows no longer makes use of it.
Re:Who is Userland? (Score:2)
"Userland" is slang for the code in an OS that runs in "user mode"; the OSes on most general-purpose computers have a portion that runs in a special "privileged" mode (the exact name for which differs from machine to machine - it might be called "kernel mode", or "supervisor state", or "ring 0" on x86 machines (although, on the original Multics machines to have a "ring 0", the privilege structure was more elaborate than just "privileged mode" and "unprivileged mode")) that allows that code direct access to the machine's hardware and direct access to the memory of all processes running on the machine (that portion is often called the "kernel"), and a portion that does not run in this mode (the mode in which it runs is often called "user mode").
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:2)
Do you have any hard evidence to support the assertion that Cisco uses the OpenBSD stack - or any BSD-derived networking stack - in their routers?
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:2)
--
MVS? No way (Score:2)
I think the main reason why is that it seems to me that most operating systems were written not to be huge moneymakers by themselves, but they were written to hawk hardware. Consider Solaris, and IBM, which both wrote operating systems, but essentially, what they're really selling you is hardware. (Solaris likes to sell sparcs, and IBM likes to sell big iron, and whatever it is that AIX runs, etc)
Now, I know solaris is already on x86, which may represent a move on their part to make the OS business more profitable for themselves rather than just keep it as a hardware selling mechanism,
but particularly with the IBM big iron operating systems, they really were built to sell hardware.
I've also heard, (but I'm not an MVS expert, so take it with a grain of salt) that some of the mainframe OS's depend on hardware that has a LOT more of the work done in hardware rather than in software. E.g. they won't provide compression utilities because it's all done in hardware, and a lot of the other things that we use software for are hard coded into the metal. If that was the case, it would be much more than non-trivial to port those big-iron OS's to intel architectures. At least not without special intel hardware requirements out the wazoo so expensive that you wouldn't want to run it.
And it may be the case, as sad as it is to say, that some aren't portable without a complete rewrite. I can imagine that an operating system that's existed for 30 years, if not designed, implemented, and VERY carefully maintained, could get oftly crufty in those 30 years. There may be a point of critical cruft, where it gets so ugly inside, that porting isn't really an option.
Just some thoughts.
Re:Note from BeOS:--> Future of BeOS (Score:2)
At this point, their OS is far more mature in the sense that many of the main services work well and are in a useful state. From the sounds of it, R5 is pretty good as well (last version I used was 4.5).
On the other hand, someone buying Be wouldn't be gaining a large number of users with it. It's possible that Free-Be will change this, but from what I've heard there are only 100-150 thousand people having tried it out (I'm sure there are a number who tried it and eventually went back to something else due to lack of apps).
That's another issue - good 3rd party apps are tough to find. There are some decent contenders, but Be's 3rd party developer community makes the Mac dev community look positively enormous in comparison. The apps are usually quite good, but they've been looking for a 'tractor app' for around 4 years now. Not good. I imagine that might make a difference in what Be's going price is.
Then again, back when Be was selling, they didn't have shareholders. I don't know the general makeup of its investors, but in theory the company could be overruled by those who pay the bills if a suitor came along.
So far, they're not making any cash, and after about 10 years in existance are moving into uncharted territory (internet appliances). Some companies have at least survived with this idea, but that road is covered in the corpses of those who have tried. My guess is that gaming consoles will be the first to do it, with WebTV and things like the i-Opener maybe hanging around as a distant second. Be has a good point in that they can fill a niche market and survive just fine (Apple has done okay with this), but the company is too damned fickle to tell for sure. As it is now, they're still in the red.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:no, you're wrong about #3 (Score:2)
However, he was definately of the mindset that cloning was a very bad idea. There were people within Apple pushing it for some time, but he wasn't one of them.
Oddly enough, Apple has definately moved toward open hardware in the way Gassee wanted. The G4 casing is very accessable, I/O has moved toward recognized industry standards (USB, Firewire, VGA, IDE, PCI), ROM in RAM, standard memory, etc. Sure, Apple is still wary of cloning (which will need to change eventually, IMHO) and isn't going to sell their computers without their OS, but there's no justification for them to withold secrets from Be. They could very well sell more hardware - but I don't think they should be expected to subsidize Be's R&D.
The real irony here is that Be's new focus, 'internet appliances', are pretty much the same kind of toasters JLG moved away from when he led the Mac II team. The only reason Be isn't a near clone of Apple is that they realized they weren't going to make money in hardware.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Note from BeOS:--> Future of BeOS (Score:2)
Seriously though, couldn't have Microsoft done this far far earlier? I'm not sure how easy it would be to integrate BeOS into the rest of Microsoft's offerings.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:2)
LinuxPPC - lead engineer in a hospital bed (/. story a few days ago)
---
I'm not sure what this has to do with the viability of the distribution (which rocks), or with Apple (do you think they were behind the wreck?).
---
YellowDog - no idea
---
Just announced full AltiVec support in their distribution - see the
---
BSD-Open/NetBSD. The dead ArchBSD.
---
BSD is not dead on PPC.
---
MkLinux-Apple pulled out a few years ago...not much happening there, unless someone has piked it up.
Darwin - Up until a few days ago, there was no bootable disk.
---
Apple dumped MkLinux - you would do the same if your company had lost ~700 million dollars in that timeframe. The project itself lives on, though. How many open-source operating systems has Be provided, let alone abandoned?
As for Darwin - it is hardly dead. In fact, it is not just a derivative of OSX, it is the core of OSX. Sure, it's not the part that most regular Mac users are interested in (or would pay much for - I'm talking about the GUI here), but it's plenty full enough of Unixy goodness for hackers to bite into and positive changes to the codebase to be made. Darwin is very much alive and kicking.
Either way, the source has survived in both Darwin and MkLinux. Darwin obviously boots on G3s and I believe G4s. No reverse engineering required - paid Apple employees are responsible for this stuff.
---
Can you get under NDA or not the hardware specs from Apple?
---
I don't see what you really really want Apple to do. I seriously doubt they have an OS implementation booklet that they pass out to anyone and everyone. Someone there would probably have to work with Be for a while. Did Be offer to pay for that engineer's time? Hard to say. Apple - especially at the time - didn't exactly have much spare cash to spread around on things like this, and Be probably didn't care to justify that kind of expenditure.
---
Gasse may be as big a windbag/asshole as Jobs
---
I wouldn't say either of them fit that description perfectly. Both are, shall we say, somewhat driven. You can take that however you mean. On the other hand, Jobs has never been afraid to say it how he means it (and get himself in trouble in the process). Despite the reputation of his RDF, it's usually limited to overly optimistic benchmarks and colored plastics. Gassee on the other hand, well... He's similar - but I really don't see his argument with regards to the G3/G4 specs. That just seems like a convenient excuse that has since not panned out. Apple's actions haven't lived up to this reputation Be has indicated.
---
but that does not negate the fact that Apple may not be releasing the specs
---
1. Read.
2. Download.
3. Extrapolate.
Just don't expect handholding from Apple's engineers.
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:Question....no..wait...seriously... (Score:2)
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:2)
Actually, NT can be traced to a CP/M lineage, as follows:
CP/M
|
DOS
|----------------------|----------------------|
16-bit Windows 16-bit OS/2 "Multiuser" DOSes
| 
32-bit Windows 32-bit OS/2 Windows NT
Windows NT started development as OS/2 NT. In NT 3.1, not only did you have support for text-mode OS/2-16 apps and the HPFS file system, but, if you knew it existed, you could order a "Presentation Manager" subsystem that allowed you to run graphical OS/2-16 apps.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:2)
It would make sense, except Microsoft wrote OS/2 1.x and did the original design and coding of OS/2 2.0.
The joint MS-IBM roadmap was that Windows 2.x would provide the transition from DOS to OS/2, and that OS/2 would be succeded by a new OS with the development codename of OS/2 NT.
Anyway, MS and IBM had disputes, so MS developed Windows 3.x to compete with OS/2, and IBM spent two years converting MS OS/2 2.0 into IBM OS/2 2.0. Windows 3.x replaced OS/2 in the MS roadmap, and OS/2 2.x replaced NT in the IBM roadmap.
NT did not come from OS/2, it was developed at the same time to replace Windows 3.1
Not true. OS/2 1.0 was released before Windows 3.0; it was developed years before NT.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:3 C' (Score:2)
I've read that Apple is planning on providing a full Java 2 implementation in OS X, and that users will be able to launch Java apps just like other apps, and in fact won't know there's any difference. Perhaps I didn't read that right, but if that's the case, I'd say Java counts as a separate API. The VM may call coacoa functions in the back end, and there will probably be a mechanism allowing Java programs to invoke the Coacoa API directly, but that doesn't make the Java API's (Swing, AWT, etc) any less a separate API.
real imapct? (Score:2)
Apple opening the source to Darwin is a good thing, and ought to be encouraged, if they are diligent about putting together regular updaters for approved patches, and stay^H^H^H^Hget on top of security issues then there's a real benefit to having the source available. Otherwise it's just a bonus for app developers and porters.
What is(?can?) apple gonna do to make this really significant? If they don't open up the corresponding api's, then security remains obscure, and writing real carbonized apps remains the same as ever. Can apple provide a real benefit to users/developers with just darwin, or would they have to go further? I'm curious what y'all think.
-earl
no, you're wrong about #3 (Score:2)
Talk about needed to read one's history...
Pope
Re:The Last Hurrah (Score:2)
Multiple vendors sell systems that are hardware and software compatible with one another.
Erm... Ever used a PC? I don't buy the above statement at all, because more often than not major system instability is caused by device drivers. There are tons of horrid Windows drivers out there that completely screw your system, often making it difficult to configure and get your system properly working. Mac's, on the other hand, rarely have problems with drivers because everyone knows what hardware to expect, the systems are consistent and thus easier to support and write good drivers for.
Sorry, but I don't think PC's are better because they are open. It provdes some benefits (lower cost mainly) but causes a lot of headaches in getting a stable system. Apple doesn't have this problem, and many people are willing to pay a premium price (shrinking every day) to avoid it. If you're not, that's fine, choices are great on the market.
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:2)
No, there are significant changes between Darwin and other BSD variants. Some of these are customized compilers, the system framework, netinfo, driverkit, customized mach kernel, and probably other things I'm forgetting...
Re:The Evolution of Humans (abridged addition) (Score:2)
1 million BC: 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head
2000: 2 arms, 2 legs, 1 head with better technology
Evolution, it works for people, it can work for an OS too
Re:is there info on Darwin? (Score:2)
One year later, we're about to roll out Darwin 1.0, the first version based on the new kernel (based on Mach 3.0 and some of FreeBSD 3.2) which includes our new C++ driver toolkit (IOKit) and a bunch of other new goodies. This is the release our developers have been waiting for, since it includes the CoreOS that we are building the _final Mac OS X product on_.
(Underscores added by me)
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:2)
The BSD is commercially friendly in that BigCo would rather grab a BSD'd project to adapt and make it their own.
However, the GPL is more commercially friendly in that if BigCo has written a fancy in-house load balancing system for Fujiriwirix GXTTP servers, which they don't feel like putting the marketing behind to sell, they can GPL it and release it and be confident that their competitors will never be able to take the software they developed and enhance it and compete with BigCo's current products. BigCo gets the advantage of all the eyeballs looking at their code.
There's software you write to sell and software you write because you need to use it. GPL the stuff you're not going to sell.
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:2)
Companies would rather use BSD licensed code.
Companies would rather release GPL'd code, which is less friendly to their commercial competitors.
This isn't a bad thing, since the public benefits whether or not the code is released BSD or GPL.
GPL is for "I want this to stay open damnit!"
BSD is for "I dedicate this to the greater good of geek-kind."
Of course, some would argue that
GPL is for "I dedicate this to the greater good of geek-kind. Therefore I'm using the GPL to insure that it stays open." and
BSD is for "I want this to to be the best software it possibly can be. Therefore I'm BSD'ing it so that it will only become closed if the closed version offers a significant advantage over the open one."
Re:Apple finally gets it! (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:2)
You can always get QNX for x86, and I'm sure there are a few off the wall vertical market OSes out there. Last I heard OS/2 was still running around, and there's always GeOS, which is apparently being repackaged as a network appliance OS.
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:2)
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:2)
Actually, the *BSD source Apple started from predates Linux, since it is an evolved version of NeXTStep/OpenStep. That's why the current moves to reassign Apple's copyrights to things like the gcc compiler, etc. are so interesting - they've been forked from the original trees for a long time.
Enlighten me... (Score:2)
2. What type of license would this be under? I doubt it would be too free, but I am, once again, curious...
(I feel stupid enough asking these that I'm |-| that close to posting anonymously...
Re:real imapct? (Score:2)
It will still be up to the individual application developers to follow the path away from the security-through-obscurity paradigm, however. But it will all be worth it if it means we finally get ATi to fix its %@*&! drivers for the Rage family.....
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:2)
BeOS "lite" is not crippled. Be pays a license cost for each copy of RealPlayer G2 that it bundles. It pays a license cost of each copy of the MP3 codec it bundles. All these costs add up. Now Linux distros include only free software. Thus by your logic a Cheap Bytes RedHat 6.1 CD is "crippled linux" because it doesn't include WordPerfect 8 like RH Deluxe does. The other limitations are just in your mind. 5 minutes ago, I booted from the 512 meg file, used installer to install into a BFS partition, and am up and running just like R4.5 (which I payed $40 for.) Aside from the development tools and the demos (which can be downloaded free) it has the same level of functionality. What crippled features (aside from the commercial software) are you talking about? Apple probably isn't afraid now, with its release of OSX, but at the time Be was asking them for specs, they were. Face it, MacOS and its apps and ease of use are one of the only things that keep people on the Mac platform. If BeOS could run on the G3 macs, a significant software base would have built up on it because media people would figure out that MacOS sucked. (And in terms of technical stuff, MacOS 10 did suck.) That would lead people to a BeOS/PPC situation. Of course, for the price of a 500MHz G4, I can buy a 1GHz PIII. The PIII performs just as well in photoshop, performs better for 3D, and has more apps. You figure out the rest. And your MkLinux thing proves my arguement. Why did apple help out MkLinux and not Be if they weren't afraid of Be? A manual with specs would have helped Linux (and LinuxPPC in particular) just as much as Be. The point you miss is that to keep people on their hardware, they have to keep people on their OS. Thats why Apple doesn't release specs on the system. LinuxPPC would be too easily written, and people would move to Linux once it was established. From there, people would move to x86, and voila, no apple. As for the hacked system, I never said it was anything bad. But LinuxPPC has people. Be doesn't. They can barely get out OpenGl and BONE on BeOS, much less reverse engineer a machine.
Please correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2)
Ian
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:2)
I would argue though that NT isn't really derivative of CP/M; it more represents its own chain. Sub-operating systems like Java might eventually grow into their own systems.
There are also other OS's out side of the x86 arena, such as the myriad DOSes created for personal computers like Mac Finder, AmigaDOS, the Apple Basic, TRSDOS, and so forth, but since these were all single source OS's championed not by an industry but by a single company, they were pretty much doomed.
Perhaps the failure of VMS, MVS, DGOS, and DSS to gain a broad acceptance was for the same reasons.
-kls
-- a broad acceptance is
Re:Enlighten me... (Score:2)
2. The Apple stuff is released under the APSL [apple.com] which has taken some heat from the community as far a "openness". But in the FAQ [apple.com] Apple says the Open Source Initiative has determined that the APSL conforms to the Open Source Definition. I leave it to you to decide who is right. I believe stuff that is pretty much a direct port (such as Apache, is covered by the original liscense.
Re:I love open source (Score:2)
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:2)
NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 (and I'm assuming Windows 2000) have support for text-mode OS/2 1.x applications. The HPFS file system support was removed in NT 4.0, but if you upgraded a system with HPFS support, it would include the drivers (NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 are VERY similar kernels). Additionally, you re correct, there was a Presentation Manager subsystem, and it is even (was even?) mentioned in the Resource Kits for 4.0.
The reason it was included was that Microsoft was working on both the NT and OS/2 projects, and wrote the OS/2 subsystem for NT. It was relatively small, as the text-mode API for OS/2 was really straightfoward, and they included it in subsequent versions because it already existed and there was no reson to remove it.
NT did not come from OS/2, it was developed at the same time to replace Windows 3.1, and they later pushed it instead of OS/2 after a BIG fight with IBM.
Alex M. Hochberger
M.C.S.E.
Solaris x86 (Score:2)
Partially, it was to snub Microsoft by going into their markets... there is a long running fued between their leaders...
Additionally, it was to get Solaris more of the server market. Although originally a workstation maker, Sun is largely in the business of servers. Their engineering workstations are still important because it increases the market for their UltraSparc chips and Solaris OS, which means that they can amortize the R&D costs across more machines, but they money makers are the high margin servers.
Now, if you are a corporation with a big investment in Sun hardware, you need machines for your developers. You could buy some big iron and have them all connect into it, but that is a silly approach to development given that server capacity on big Sparc's is MUCH more expensive than simple x86 boxes. Hence, Solaris x86. You can buy your developers run of the mill machines, but copies of Solaris x86, and you can develop your Solaris applications in Solaris, and they guarantee cross-compiling. Sun still gets it's profit (I expect that the profit on Solaris x86 is similar to the profit on a Sparc workstation/Solaris), and they can push the server sales.
Solaris x86 was never intended to be used as production servers, and more than IBM's OS/370 (I don't know if they made a OS/390) S/390 environment for OS/2 was intended to use x86s instead of Mainframes, it just lets you develop in the intended environment.
Alex
Re:They will if???? (Score:2)
I've also worked at a site which had an old Diamond card as the video card, given that it is a server, that should be fine. However, the video decided to crap out when we were installing a NIC and the whole system destabalized. Given that no new drivers were written, the entire server destabalized because of the video card.
NT Workstation/W2K Pro should have video in the Kernel, it improves speed. NT Server/W2K Server SHOULD not. Microsoft needs to really optimize their system, because they are destabalizing servers for no reason.
A decision to do the same in Linux/BSD would be a disaster. The improvement in video from this is marginal, and the problems from a buggy video system are disasterous. If this is done, it is time to fork the kernel into Linux-Workstation and Linux-Server... or perhaps HURD will replace Linux in the server and Linux will move into the workstation market. Either way, servers don't need extra stuff in the kernel, it just is remove for errors.
Re:pthreads and OS X (Score:2)
I'm running MySQL, which requires pthreads, without incident on DP3.
There's a pthreads -> cthreads (Mach threads) implementation out there also.
is there info on Darwin? (Score:2)
Can anyone explain to me what darwin is? is it part of OSx, is it an alternative to OSx? is it like linux? (freeBSD based, right) Just looking for a bit more background than I've been able to track down on all these sites that assume people know what the heck darwin is.
signed... confused.
Re:Thank You Apple!!! (Score:2)
There is the appeal of running a non-mainstream, cutting edge OS. Linux, *BSD, HURD, Darwin... it's an OS, a tool, not a way of life.
Re:Now for the Aqua GUI source, and ... (Score:2)
That's their bread & butter, dude. It's an advantage they have. There's no compelling reason for them to give it away... Apple isn't a charity.
One word... (Score:2)
Re:Now for the Aqua GUI source, and ... (Score:3)
Enlightenment provided! (Score:3)
2. It's under the APSL.
Some of the Darwin code has already been brought over to other systems, notably (IMO) the NetInfo stuff.
For those that don't know, NetInfo is a configuration system like NIS, in that a particular system serves up all the machine-inspecific information (like hostnames, network printers, users, etc.). Unlike NIS, it provides for multi-level domains, so (most basically) a single server provides generic information to several computers, and then each computer provides through NetInfo information for itself.
It gets better, though, when you add more machines into the mix -- you can have users (like the CTO, maybe?) that can login to any machine, and then users that can login to any of the machines in a particular dept. (like if you have cubicles on a first-come, first-serve basis -- ick
It's the apps (Score:3)
I doubt we'll ever see VMS on a non Digital/Compaq chip, and certainly not on a 32 bit one.
--
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:3)
Why release the source to BeOS? So they can put it into Linux?
---
Not at all - I never said they should. I'm just saying that if someone is going to point fingers at Apple, they should take a look at whose side they are on. So far, Apple has been every bit as open as Be has been - even moreso, actually.
---
Would you please get your info before you speak out your ass...
Show me a free Linux distro that comes with...
---
I disagree - Be would offer the full install if they were truly going 'free beer' (BeOS 'lite' is crippled and you know it). Also, you seem to be under the impression that I'm a hardcore Linux user bashing BeOS - patently false. The BeOS is probably one of the cleanest OS implementations I've ever seen, and was my primary OS for some time. My issue isn't with the OS, it's with Be. Stop flaming me for a second and listen to what I'm saying.
Talking out one's ass, indeed.
---
Wanna bet? Jobs is scared.
---
Maybe, but not of Be. Once again, I am not flaming the BeOS - a great OS. I am just saying that Be does not pose a threat to anyone at this point. The apps aren't there, the developers aren't hanging on like they should be, Be keeps changing their damned mind on where they want to go, etc. It's not exactly a platform people are putting faith in. The buzz in the Be community (and from Be itself) is with their IA plans. They've pretty much given up their future on the desktop.
---
A lot of stuff is still closed. Why did the LinuxPPC team have to reverse engineer the G3 then?
---
Because they didn't have anyone spoon-feeding them information. I never said Apple has engineers helping these guys out - that's how Apple stays in business, by worrying about their own multitude of problems.
However, Apple hasn't done anything to stand in the way of alternative operating systems - they're just not going to do the work. After all, if Apple were so terrified of Be or the Linux/BSD people, where did MkLinux come from? How about Darwin? It just doesn't make sense.
---
They are hacked OSs.
---
MkLinux wasn't hacked. It was done with Apple's blessing and with help by paid Apple engineers. Darwin is not a hacked OS, it's the core of MacOS X.
And for a hacked OS, LinuxPPC works pretty damn well.
Seriously, though - what has Apple got to lose by letting Be sell an OS for their hardware? If you were an Apple stockholder, which would be best?
1. BeOS + Intel hardware = 0% profit
2. BeOS + (MacOS + Mac hardware) = 100% profit
3. MacOS + Mac hardware = 100% profit
I'd say #2 and #3 are far better than #1. Apple simply doesn't have any reason to block Be out. They make their cash from the hardware, and it's not like they're going to stock bundling the MacOS any time soon. At worst it'll lose them upgrade sales and maybe some 3rd party developers, but that's better than losing it all to the 'other' platform, no?
Think about it. Apple is more rational now than it has ever been. They wouldn't turn down a good thing, even if it isn't the best thing.
---
Well, we'll see. Right now there are literally hundreds of thousands of people trying out BeOS.
---
I hope they do well. The BeOS is simply too good to die - then again, the same has been said before of great technology...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Re:is there info on Darwin? (Score:3)
Darwin is a complete operating system based on the
foundation technologies in Mac OS X Server. It is an advanced BSD Unix system which offers advanced
networking, services such as the Apache web server,
and support for both Macintosh and Unix filesystems.
That's a direct snippet from: Apples Darwin page [apple.com].
Forgive the copy & paste, but since there don't appear to be any links to this yet, here it is.
Re:The Last Hurrah (Score:3)
My university has a similar situation, where few people use the Macs. However, our IT department is smart in this area, and continues to support them and upgrade them. There are some areas of campus where they are used heavily, such as in the Art department, but even in other areas some users appreciate them. Most people I've come across gravitate to the PCs not because of software (both sides are generally outfitted with the same things, MS Office, browsers, and the like) but because it's what they're used to. When asked why they don't use the Macs, they respond that they don't like them, and can't say why.
Apple tried to take over the world once, and failed. Some would say that Microsoft beat them to it. In any case, I think they have learned from that experience. Now they aspire to be the luxury car manufacturer of the computing world. They realize they don't need to take over or be everything for everybody. They simply make a damned good product, and their twelve percent is just fine.
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:3)
Cocoa is not an abstraction layer, it's an application development framework (i.e. collection of core classes) much like JDK, only worlds better.
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:3)
Also, it's my understanding, that OpenBSD has one of the tightest and most secure TCP stacks around. That's why CISCO uses it in their routers.
Just my $.02
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:3)
You don't think Be's decision to drop PPC support could have anything to do with Intel's major investment in Be? Are you sure you know who's "bullsh*ttng" you?
BeOS has the cleanest and most intuitive UI available for any OS. BeOS ease of use cuts into Apples core market.
What a joke. Apple's real core market (the one Apple actually makes most of the money off of that is), is pro graphics. BeOS is not serious competition in this market; Adobe owns this market, and doesn't seem to care about Be.
If Be Can't succeed on Intel, how do you expect it to succeed on a platform 1/10 as popular? A platform that people buy for its hardware software integration (and thus are less likely to install a 3rd party OS on)? Be's problems have very little to do with Apple.
In any case, just because Apple won't give things away to competing companies doesn't mean Apple isn't serious about open source for the benefit of developers and users.
--
Yet another UNIX (Score:3)
A Microsoft OS
A Unix
Consider:
FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD
Linux
BeOS (Which certainly has a lot of userland stuff fron Unix)
Solaris for Intel
And now Darwin.
As a sad old Unix hacker, this makes me happy. But is there no other architecture out there? How about MVS for Intel? VMS? OS/400?
Or is it just that Unix is so far technically superior that it is the only realistic option?
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:3)
>>>>>>>
Why release the source to BeOS? So they can put it into Linux? Face it, Darwin is not an Open Source OS. It is simply the Open Source Mach kernel with the Open Source BSD code around it. The only thing Apple did was to not take advantage of the BSD license and released the code. Open Sourcing MacOS X is nothing. Nobody will use it in its current form, people will use MacOS X for the GUI apple chooses to keep closed.
2. BeOS 5.0 is crippled, and just an attempt to get people interested so people will code for these supposed Be-powered toasters and set-top boxes. It's obvious Be is giving up on the OS front. Threat? Not likely.
>>>>>
Would you please get your info before you speak out your ass. BeOS is just about as uncrippled as a free commercial OS can be. 1) There is no SMP support if you boot from the file. That is not due to any technical limitation, just a limitation on how Windows leaves the system. 2) Some of the commercial stuff does not come with it. Why should it? Show me a free Linux distro that comes with RealPlayerG2. The stuff that is taken out is propriotory stuff that COULDN'T be released because of license costs. In all other respects, its the same OS. As for the diskfile, you can mount any partition you want. Install the OS to a 512 meg file, and mount
3. JLG, head of Be, is largely responsible for Apple having been so closed in the past. He was one of the biggest critics of cloning back when he was at Apple. Read up on his history - he's a smart guy, but he's not perfect.
>>>>
Yea, true. There were a lot of harsh relations between the two.
4. Be realistic. Jobs doesn't care about the BeOS one way or the other - he just knew that it wasn't Apple's job to subsidize Be's development. Should Apple pay Be's dev costs? Not now, and esp. not back when they were practically dead (ie. around when Be started backing away from PPC, coincidentally).
>>>>
Wanna bet? Jobs is scared. Why do people use the MacOS? Newbies use it, and media professionals use it. If they can get it done better on BeOS (quite a few media apps are being ported) why stick with apple OSs? In the end, if a large media app base moves to BeOS, Intel would get a major part of those because its hardware is cheaper (and for 3D)faster and more available. Why did they help out Linux development (MkLinux) and not BeOS? Its not like Be is asking them to write code for them. All they want is an official manual with the specs.
5. If the Mac platform is so closed, explain: LinuxPPC, MkLinux, Yellow Dog Linux, BSD, and Darwin. I'll wait.
>>>>>>>
They are hacked OSs. Face it, all of those OS reverse-engineered the system specs. BeOS doesn't want (or doesn't have the manpower) to reverse engineer stuff. Remember, they are a real company with investors to answer to. You can bet that if they did they'ed get hit with a lawsuit pretty fast.
6. Conveniently timed Intel investment? Hmm...
7. ROM in RAM architecture, move to industry standard components, etc. This is a platform being opened-up, not closed.
>>>>
A lot of stuff is still closed. Why did the LinuxPPC team have to reverse engineer the G3 then?
All the while, Be has been switching business focus repeatedly, meaning (to me) that they just can't do it. Be is not a threat to anyone - if it was only judged on its technical merits, it'd be sharing the market with the MacOS and Linux, and Windows would not exist.
>>>>>
Well, we'll see. Right now there are literally hundreds of thousands of people trying out BeOS. 30K in one german server alone.
Re:Yet another UNIX (Score:3)
BeOS open, Darwin open ... (Score:3)
hah.
- j
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:3)
Re:Has anyone tried to compile it on x86 yet? (Score:3)
Re:is there info on Darwin? (Score:4)
Neat, eh?
Wow, it almost seems like Open Source... ;)
BTW, my source? Ernest Prabhakar himself (Head Honcho for CoreOS aka Darwin) on the darwin-developer@public.lists.apple.com mailing list, Feb 15, 2000:
> How much of what happens with Darwin between now and the release of OS X client in summer (keep the fingers crossed) will actually end up in OS X client.
Our goal is to make (most of) the CVS repository "live", so that (external) Darwin developers and Apple engineers are working on the exact same code base. Obviously at some point we'd "freeze" a version for our bake cycle, but the goal is that the vast majority of the time *all* external Darwin modifications go directly into Mac OS X.
We're actually pretty far along with this, if you look closely at the repository. The problem is that the current Darwin OS 0.3 release is NOT synced up with the CVS repository. We're trying to fix this as soon as we can.
Good enough for you all?
Re:Note from BeOS: Apple is bullsh*ttng us (Score:4)
1. Apple has provided two open-sourced operating systems. Be is 99% proprietary (the only open part being what they had to open-source due to licensing conflicts).
2. BeOS 5.0 is crippled, and just an attempt to get people interested so people will code for these supposed Be-powered toasters and set-top boxes. It's obvious Be is giving up on the OS front. Threat? Not likely.
3. JLG, head of Be, is largely responsible for Apple having been so closed in the past. He was one of the biggest critics of cloning back when he was at Apple. Read up on his history - he's a smart guy, but he's not perfect.
4. Be realistic. Jobs doesn't care about the BeOS one way or the other - he just knew that it wasn't Apple's job to subsidize Be's development. Should Apple pay Be's dev costs? Not now, and esp. not back when they were practically dead (ie. around when Be started backing away from PPC, coincidentally).
5. If the Mac platform is so closed, explain: LinuxPPC, MkLinux, Yellow Dog Linux, BSD, and Darwin. I'll wait.
6. Conveniently timed Intel investment? Hmm...
7. ROM in RAM architecture, move to industry standard components, etc. This is a platform being opened-up, not closed.
8. BeOS is very easy to use, and a great OS overall. But Be's whining about Apple has gotten very old, esp. as Apple has made their platform MORE open. It just doesn't stick.
All the while, Be has been switching business focus repeatedly, meaning (to me) that they just can't do it. Be is not a threat to anyone - if it was only judged on its technical merits, it'd be sharing the market with the MacOS and Linux, and Windows would not exist.
Face it: Be was tempted by the size of the Intel market, and bolted. Now, they've realized that they're screwed going that route, and are jumping into yet another market (so-called 'Internet Appliances'). Good luck, but I just don't see it happening...
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
3 C' (Score:4)
This isn't quite right. Mac OS X will support three API's (4 if you count Java) Classic, Carbon, and Coacoa.
Classic is basically Mac OS 9 running as a single process inside the Unix environment. It has a number of enhancements that make it work nicer with non-classic apps, but basically it's just a Mac OS emulator. It will allow users to run their old apps right out of the box, but without the benefits of protected memory and preemptive multitasking.
Carbon is a subset of the existing Mac OS API that allows developers to quickly "tune up" their apps to take advantage of the modern OS features. It provides a gentle migration path for existing users, and is designed to allow developers to make minimal code changes. Each Carbon app is a full Unix process, with all the advantages of preemptive multitasking and protected memory.
Coacoa is the Next-derived API that is based on OpenStep and Objective C and was originally slated to be the only API offered in Rapsody. This is an object-oriented API that I've read is one of the best development environments ever created. Apple presumably sees it as the future of the platform, and will be encouraging developers of new products to use it rather than carbon.
So Coacoa and carbon are not simply abstraction layers to an underlying API. They are themselves full-blown API's.
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:4)
John Carmack's X-Windows for Darwin... (Score:5)
The OS X Server version is already running - http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Workbench/2000-0
Re:Why didn't Apple go with Linux? (Score:5)
I could go on an on, but I'll stop. In short, a BSD or MIT license allows a company to go Open Source without inadvertantly running afoul of someone else's copyright.
Re:is there info on Darwin? (Score:5)
Apple is exposing (correct me if i'm wrong here) three APIs-- one for Darwin, which is most of the BSD/Unix api's, one for "Carbon"-- halfway between old-style mac stuff and the newest-coolest, and "Cocoa", which aside from being a lame reference to Java, should provide real advantages in speed, and of course stability. Did I get that right?
anyway, it looks like lots of Linux stuff should now be trivial to port to mac, and THIS IS GOOD FOR EVERYONE because it means that Windows will have less software than Mac or Linux. cool.
Re:OSX vs BSD (Score:5)