NetBSD's COMPAT_DARWIN Adds XDarwin Support 255
Dan writes "NetBSD's Emmanual Dreyfus says that COMPAT_DARWIN is now able to run Mac OS X's XDarwin (this is, the X Window server for Darwin). The server is fully functional: display, keyboard and mouse work. He says that running Darwin has no interest in itself, but having it working ensures that NetBSD's IOKit (1) emulation is good enough to be used. Darwin is Apple's Mac OS X core. A fully functional Darwin binary compatibility on NetBSD/powerpc & NetBSD/i386 will imply getting MacOS X libraries to run any Mac OS X program, just like NetBSD is now able to run binaries from Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, and many other OSes."
Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:3, Funny)
Or is that, iconic?
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:4, Interesting)
NetBSD has a substancial cross-platform 'packages' library of source code and a robust build system. Most packages, when they appear ready for one architecture, are ready and buildable on any other architecture. If you're not going to be running MacOS stuff in that 'Macintosh' API layer(s), you're FAR BETTER OFF running NetBSD/macPPC than you are running Darwin alone on your Apple hardware. Furthermore, if you run multiple architectures, with NetBSD you'll be able to admin the same exact
I threw Darwin on my beige G3 machine last week, from the ISO downloadable from the OpenDarwin project. It installed fine and booted properly (I had specifically told it what drive to install itself on and it instead installed on a different drive, wiping out my MacOS 9 partition, but I don't hold a grudge about that)
I looked at the Unix command prompt, said 'gee whiz, it works, but there's no packages to run' and took it off. I noted while reading the howtos at opendarwin.org that the binary packages they have built require you to use the MacOS X installer to put them on your system.
I do not own a copy of MacOS X. It was a no-starter proposition for me. Nor am I about to buy OS X for a Beige G3 just to install 'free' software packages on it.
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that you'd be a little nuts to bother, but please don't cloud the issue. Software availability for both NetBSD and Darwin is really pretty good; the reason to pick one over the other should be based on the kernels, if you want to be technical, or licenses, if you want to be political. (Technically: NetBSD is NetBSD, monolithic but proven; Darwin is xnu, a curious hack on Mach. Some people dig it, some people don't trust it.)
If you're a UNIX neophyte,
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:2)
As of the last time I tried to use dports, there was no tracking of installed packages and no upgrade functionality beyond manually uninstalling a package, fetching the latest package tree from CVS, and then installing the new one.
The package selection is not bad, but there's certainly quite a bit of work to be done before it becomes a viable package system for OS X.
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple might have a proprietary OS in Panther but it is based on standards that allow for easy networking and integration into existing frameworks.
Standards not always good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just an aside, and doesn't directly relate to MacOS.
For a long time, I used to think "standards good, propriatary bad". I wanted everything I used to be standards compliant.
Then I got into the industry, and ran into some of the standards-setting folks.
The good news is that generally folks involved with setting standards are reasonably (not necessarily the best) competent. It's not as good a situation as the brutally harsh meritocracy of Linux development, where code with vast amounts of time and effort can get thrown out because someone else came up with a better/faster system, but it ensures some degree of sanity.
However, politicking involved in standards committees is horrible. Generally, standards are set by industry consortiums, a recipe for disaster. Everyone has their personal pet features they want in, for starters. They then have to advance the interests of their company, so they try to exclude things that might benefit their competitors, and include support for things they're working on (even if they're technically inferior -- so if IBM is making a worse system than Dinky Company, Inc., it's likely that the technically inferior method gets used.). People are under pressure to finalize standards in time for products based on them to come out -- if there are still issues, too bad. Because different companies may prefer different methods of doing something/have different methods under work already, standards need to include support for both. Standards are frequently bad about exluding redundant methods of doing something. Finally, standards are frequently designed for companies doing a product implementation. They often cost money, and while complete they may not be particularly clear. This compares poorly against the RFCs that provide specifications for traditional Internet protocols today (yes, traditionally RFCs weren't final specs, but they are today).
I've come to realize that "open" is more important than "standardized". If you write a good specification for something, distribute it freely, and you've done a good job with designing the system, others can (and will) adopt the system (if it's better than the alternatives). yEnc, gzip and png were originally "open", though not standardized, and (perhaps more crucially) none were produced by industry consortiums.
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly, all PPC clone makers were using Apple's ROM under license, it's not like Apple went out and found people making compatible computers and squashed them. These people willingly put themselves "at the mercy and whims of Apple". In much the same way as PC manufacturers grease and prostrate themselves before Microsoft.
Further, management changed at
Re:Next stop, Quartz... then Aqua (Score:4, Insightful)
Quartz isn't necessary to run most Carbon apps. I'd start there.
Plain English (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Plain English (Score:5, Informative)
That would require emulating the Apple's APIs for everything in the OS.
Given that most of it is proprietary, this is very unlikely to happen, though not impossible (just look at Wine)...
Re:Plain English (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, if I'm reading this correctly, it would mean running their libraries, containing those APIs, in binary form. There's your OSX on x86. Of course, it'll be slow as mud on that kind of hardware, but for those that keep screaming for it, there you go.
Probably breaks your EULA with Apple, if you agreed to one. And their lawyers would probably come down on you like a ton of bricks if you tried redistributing them, but for however many folks have an OSX disk, want to run it on x86, and didn't agree to
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
If you read the link [hcpnet.free.fr] you'll see that it's currently only working on PPC, although the x86 version is being worked on. If they got that done, presumably they would be able to run the libraries, unmodified, but it would still be emulation. I think you're a little confused there. Running PPC binaries on an x86 processor would by definition involve emulation, which has nothing to do with modifying the libraries, rather probably a translation module that reinterprets the instructions on the fly.
The PPC is a fa
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
By what do you base your claims on?
and the performance hit of doing this will be tremendous.
This is interesting and valid. There's no way to avoid the hit of dealing with the fact that the x86 has far fewer general-purpose registers than the PowerPC. It'd be significantly more efficient to emulate the x86 on a PowerPC than the PowerPC on an x86.
The best bet for good-speed x86 usage would require a recompiler that recalculates register allocation. It
Re:Plain English (Score:4, Interesting)
> > course,
> By what do you base your claims on?
I make a similar claim. I base it on
experience writing assembly code and
compilers to assembly code for both
architectures.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
Re:Plain English (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, this is not emulation, rather source compatibility.
Throw in a GNUstep Makefile and new interface files, and you can have apps that compile from the same source on any free *NIX with GNUstep and on OS X with Cocoa.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
It should read:
Re:Plain English (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember this is binary compatibility, not emulation: programs run at full speed, but only on a NetBSD machine with the same CPU the program was designed for. Binary compatiblity does not enable running Linux/i386 binaries on NetBSD/powerpc, for instance.
So far Mac OSX only runs on PPC. So if you run NetBSD on PPC, your set. But then, Why not use MOL (Mac On Linux)?
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
If you're going for Insane Hack Value, they're all about as viable. The nice part of NetBSD is that is runs on damned near anything. If I don't have to fire up an OS X instance from within my Open Source OS of choice to run OS X binaries, hey, that's pretty cool.
I'd imagine OS X binaries on NetBSD/PPC is just another instance of "because I can." Then again, I've really found no major disadvantage to running OS X versus Linux on my Mac.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
that OS X does not and will never support.
In fact, it's a lot cheaper than anything
apple will ever produce. Admittedly, none
of the stuff that is available on the market
today is G5 (please, please prove me wrong!)
but on a $/MFLOP or $/MIP basis, if you don't
need the candy and macaroni, it would be
insane to make, for example, an apple-based
compute cluster of G4s, as opposed to an
off-label cluster of G4s. G5 will come too,
one can reasonably expect.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
Still, the main reach of either project is to run OS X programs while sticking with a non OS X base OS. If you're not bothering, then you don't really need Darwin support at all. Just slap NetBSD/PPC on a G4/PPC970 (eventually, if it's not already done,) and go to town.
If I just needed a diskless PPC system with two ethernet ports and a serial console, I agree. Apple would be the last vendor I'd go
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
NetBSD (speaking hypothetically, assuming a
completed portability layer), while my NetBSD
code will *only* run on NetBSD.
Okay, so it's not a VM, but I won't be
running post-stack migrations on
any time soon.
Re:Plain English (Score:3, Informative)
The FSF calls the BSD license "GPL compatible" in that regard.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
The FSF calls the BSD license "GPL compatible" in that regard.
And because that code was originally under a BSD license, it is quite probably legal and completely legitimate to strip off the GPL from that code and once again distribute it as truly free software. (Note this is only possible with GPL'ed software, where the source is still available - commercial binary-only distributions are still protected b
Re:Plain English (Score:2, Insightful)
Why bother? You can just download the original BSD-licensed code and distribute that. And you wouldn't even annoy any zealots.
It (probably; IANALEither) wouldn't be legal to take any modifications from the GPL'd version, because those modifications would never have been BSD'd. If you thought you could,
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
> BSD license, it is quite probably legal and
> completely legitimate to strip off the GPL
> from that code and once again distribute it
> as truly free software
Only if no-one has modified it while it was
a GPL beastie. If they have, you have to
track them all down, one by one, and get a
release. Unless of course they've assigned
their copyrights to the FSF, in which case
you are screwed, cos there's no way RMS is
gonna re-BSD stuff that was entrusted t
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
Re:Plain English (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The GPL forces *developers* who want to *distribute* your code in their programs to also use the GPL. The GPL doesn't apply at all to *users* of the software.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
Among others it grants the user the right to be able to get the sourcecode, and if he redisribute the program, he must be able to provide the sourcecode as well.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>
That's the whole point. The FSF wants more code to be free software. By creating a set of libraries that only free software can take advantage of, you encourage more programs to become free.
Re:Plain English (Score:2, Interesting)
oh, well...
cheers,
mitch
Re:Plain English (Score:3)
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
Re:glibc is GPL, but with an exception (Score:2)
It seems to me that dynamic linking versus static linking should be important. If I dynamically link with glibc, and distribute my app, then YOU have to provide the actual glibc shared libraries for the app to run--and therefore it's your responsibili
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
If you use the BSD license *your* code is always available as well, regardless of who else uses it or how.
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
The GPL is about *preventing* programmer greed. It stops people from distributing GPL-covered inside other non-GPL projects. This is to enable GPL-covered code to compete with proprietary systems. BSDL-covered code doesn't really compete with proprietary systems in the same way, because it can simply be incorporated into those proprietary systems. Some people view this as a feature, others don't.
The GPL exists to prevent people from using copyright laws to restrict other people's right to distrib
Re:Plain English (Score:2)
That's correct. It's not a new concept, really. It's the basic principle behind laws in any free society. For example, in the U.S., residents have the freedom to own and carry guns, but there are restrictions on their use of those guns. For example, they are restricted from firing their guns randomly near crowds of people. Those restrictions are in place to protect the freedom of others to assemble in crowds without getting killed by str
So what's the implication here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nifty for sure, but you start to wonder about the usefulness of this...I mean, in order to legally use the more interesting, useful parts of the OS, you would have to own a copy of OSX, unless for some reason the soft Unix underbelly of Darwin doesn't fit your needs, and you want a more traditional BSD, but still be able to use the OSX GUI.
If you're making a unix binary compatibility for just standard CLI or X-Windows, it cries out of 'what's the point'.
So what is the point?
ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:5, Informative)
They're trying to get the OSX environment running on NetBSD instead of Darwin. I'm failing to see the point of this other than a different package manager...anyone else see a benefit to this? Drivers? Cheaper hardware? All looks the same to me...
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:2, Informative)
-On PowerPC machines running NetBSD, be they Macs or the few open PowerPC boards (AmigaOne, Pegasos) cropping up.
-Hopefully with a simple recompile on NetBSD i386/etc. So for companies that have the sense to open-source their drivers, this is a shortcu
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:4, Interesting)
IOKit allows these drivers to work on NetBSD/PPC.
Nice.
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:2, Insightful)
However, there may be a loophole - as I understand Apple'
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:2)
If your Mac can run NetBSD, then when the time comes that it won't run MacOS X versions, you could switch over to NetBSD, espe
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:5, Funny)
(Does it count as a troll if you're serious?)
Wait, let me see if I can connect some of them...
Microkernels being slow are the reason Macs are so much slower than PC's! And if Apple would just:
(a) port to x86
(b) drop the microkernel in favor of Linux
(c) allow clones
(d) run Windows apps
(e) use Windows drivers
(f) eliminate their greedy 75% profit margins
Hey, this is fun!
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:5, Funny)
Linus says microkernels suck. I think we should all place our blind faith in whatever he says. So, next time someone comes around offering you a shiney new microkernel, remember to just say "no".
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:4, Funny)
My PC runs a microkernel OS (Windows 2000), but I didn't notice any slow-downs when I switched from Windows 98.
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:2)
>It already runs on generic x86.
Mac OS X does not run on generic x86. I didn't specify, but you knew that's what I was talking about; don't pretend. The people bitching about Apple not porting its OS to x86 aren't going to use a bare Darwin system.
>I don't think Apple has the resource to write drivers for all the x86 hardware and hardware vendor will not do it either as they usually not do it for Linux.
Exactl
Re:ah, so THAT's the point! (RTFA): (Score:2)
with PPC hardware. It lies with Apple
hardware. The economies of scale that one
might expect with x86 motherboards just don't
exist, really, because the market is so
fragmented -- and the G5 power is hot.
Not just nifty (Score:2)
This ability could actually improve Max OS X's adoption by the enterprise - companies will know that they won't have to depend upon Apple to make any des
Re:Not just nifty (Score:2)
Re:Not just nifty (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not just nifty (Score:3, Informative)
Check Here [gnu.org]
Re:Not just nifty (Score:2)
If yes, I'd love to see some docs on how to do it. If not, Darwin is not a solution to the problem I specified.
Re:So what's the implication here? (Score:2)
The point is called "hack value". They do it simply because they _can_ do it, and nobody did it before them.
Re:So what's the implication here? (Score:2)
To see if it can be done?
(Kids these days, just don't grok the old-school hacker/tinkerer aesthetic... grumble grumble)
Re:So what's the implication here? (Score:2)
it is tremendously useful for running code
developed for OS X on non-apple hardware.
It means you don't need Apple hardware to
run OS X and its applications.
Re:Here's the point! (Score:2)
Re:Here's the point! (Score:2)
If that works, then it would be of MARGINAL interest to me. Okay, I admit. More than that.
Re:Here's the point! (Score:2)
If those boxes exist or will be released then I'd be interested.
Re:Here's the point! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Here's the point! (Score:2)
The PPC port only began after NeXT was absorbed into Apple, soon after which point Apple cancelled support for the other hardware platforms that OPENSTEP ran on.
One of the reasons progressive releases of OS X have been getting faster is that Apple is still optimizing the kernel and core frameworks for the PPC architecture.
Re:Here's the point! (Score:4, Insightful)
Knock yourself out, but I can tell you right now that it won't be nearly as impressive as it sounds. X86 cpus really look bad when they try to emulate PPC/SPARC/Alpha and the like. You'll be a hell of a lot better off just buying a PPC box.
Only apps without Aqua (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only apps without Aqua (Score:2, Informative)
I think you are being short-sighted here. A smarter and more realistic goal would be to get the compatibility with Darwin good enough that you could run Aqua and the rest of the OS X userland on top of NetBSD, without having to rewrite it al
Re:Only apps without Aqua (Score:2)
Not that I have a problem with encroachers being warned off, of course, as nearly as much research and effort goes into designing an effective user interface as goes into the rest of a successful product. But I'd hate to see NetBSD embroiled in difficulties similar to those that faced themes.org regarding the copyright of the Aqua theme.
Re:Only apps without Aqua (Score:2)
I doubt Aqua is going to be recreated as much as, once IOKit support is complete, people will be able to run Apple's core Aqua/Window Server binary frameworks on NetBSD and then run native OS X apps in non-emulation.
Rewriting Aqua would be a gargantuan task. Allowing people to run the libraries necessary for Aqua presents fewer hurdles, and is
XDarwin and NetBSD/powerpc binary compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:XDarwin and NetBSD/powerpc binary compatibility (Score:2)
Indeed, imagine [netbsd.org]...
IOKit emu + NetBSD drivers? (Score:2)
So the question I have is, does this mean that now NetBSD on PPC can use Mac OS X drivers? The short article doesn't really point that out. Seems like a nice bonus before working on the Window Server.
some posts here are crazy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:some posts here are crazy.. (Score:2)
no really, some tasks are faster with a gui than cli. Many things are more quickly accomplished with a cli. Both are valuable, none of the above really require the bloated gui's in use by most but gui's can be valuable nonetheless.
Re:some posts here are crazy.. (Score:3, Informative)
Um, folks use GNOME on Darwin on x86.
And while I don't use GNOME, it's matured a *lot* since the 1.0 days, and is pretty stable, so your jibes aren't exactly accurate.
Re:some posts here are crazy.. (Score:2)
It seems that absolutely no comments will be tolerated that don't enshrine Gnu software as the greatest creation in human history.
Where is the old Slashdot, where actual discussions could take place, and opponents could be wrong, but tolerated? This place is *way* too PC now...
Why I find this interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of Theo talking about running SunOS (68k) binaries on really fast 68k hardware supported by OpenBSD.
Enlighten Me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Enlighten Me (Score:3, Interesting)
I've watched people using Aqua and a ton of other interfaces. About the fastest you'll see anyone is when they're using a fully keyboard-driven interface and are extremely fami
I hope it gets ported to the FreeBSDpowerpc (Score:2)
Its by the far the most easiest BSD to use and has alot of example files and scripts to hack with.
Do you ever just read a headline like this.... (Score:5, Funny)
"NetBSD's COMPAT_DARWIN Adds XDarwin Support" What the fuck is that? It's not even vaguely english. Probably the majority of people who know what it means are reading this site right now.
Reminds me of (what else) The Simpsons:
Comic Book Guy [reading comic]: "No aquaman... you cannot marry a woman without gills! You're from two different worlds!"
[looks up to see a nuclear warhead streaking towards him]
"Oh, I've wasted my life."
[kabooooom!]
Re:Do you ever just read a headline like this.... (Score:2)
Which seems to be to be a good argument for putting it on Slashdot.
This was listed under Software, BSD, and Operating Systems (all tech forums on a website frequented by technical people). If you can't handle reading about any of the three above topics from a tech standpoint, then why the hell are you even on Slashdot,
Re:Do you ever just read a headline like this.... (Score:2)
I was just making the point that sometimes things get a tad esoteric here. I am a technical person, but sometimes headlines don't even make sense to me.
Of course personally I would like to see a bit less 'news for nerds' and a bit more 'stuff that matters.'
What this really means... (Score:3, Interesting)
So if you appreciate this, please do whatever Slashmojo it takes to make it visible, or do the same for the original [slashdot.org]?
---
IOKit points to drivers. So if someone crafts a driver for the Macintosh (popular consumer hardware platform, that), it should work:
-On PowerPC machines running NetBSD, be they Macs or the few open PowerPC boards (AmigaOne, Pegasos) cropping up.
-Hopefully with a simple recompile on NetBSD i386/etc. So for companies that have the sense to open-source their drivers, this is a shortcut to using them on NetBSD without rewriting the code itself for a new API.
Niche, but a nice hack, and with XDarwin working, also a convenience for PPC users if they come across a plain X11 app only available as a Darwin binary. (Rare now, but we don't know how it'll play out; look how annoying the Macromedia Flash plugin makes life on FreeBSD/i386; it's only distributed as a Linux binary, so you need the 'Linuxulator' to take advantage.)
---
Yep. As others have pointed out, it's also a shortcut to letting the Quartz server binaries from OS X run on NetBSD/PPC (just like X11 needs to be built to talk to the hardware through standard UNIX APIs or direct rendering modules, Quartz needs to be able to talk to the hardware through IOKit), but Apple's EULA probably bars that, so I don't see that as bragging rights. Drivers are third-party code, so they're not governed by Apple's licensing.
However, there may be a loophole - as I understand Apple's EULA, they don't care what you do with the software, as long as you only run it on their hardware. So Mac-on-Linux, which is more of a VMWare type deal, is perfectly legal under Yellow Dog or whatever -- *if* you're running it on Apple hardware, and have a license for your seat of OS X -- and Quartz atop NetBSD should equally be fine. (It could even be useful, depending on your opinion of NetBSD versus xnu [apple.com]. I gather a few people actually use Linux+MoL for improved stability; NetBSD+COMPAT_DARWIN+Quartz would offer the same, but with even fewer virtualization overheads.)
However, since Apple doesn't sell any version of OS X permitting use on non-Apple hardware, users of the new 'alternative' PowerPC boards are left out in the legal cold. (In the USA; if you live in a jurisdiction where EULAs don't hold and software is sold on copyright alone, go wild... but don't expect Apple to tolerate it any more than Microsoft tolerated DR-DOS or post-partnership OS/2.)
---
Okay, new content for this post: Can we stop arguing subjective things like package managers? It's a great distraction from the real issues in this thread. To lay that one to rest... well, let's put it this way - you can use the NetBSD pkgsrc collection on Darwin if you really want to. [netbsd.org] Choose your poison based on the kernels, not subjective nonissues with userland.
Re:What this really means... (Score:2)
Running Mac software on Linux/*BSD (Score:5, Informative)
The Cocoa API is basically the NextStep API with Quartz replacing Display Postscript for the display composition/rendering and a number of additional classes and extensions since. (Display Postscript was licenced, Quartz is based on the free PDF specification).
The original NextStep API exists on non-PPC platforms in two forms;
The first is Apple's own implementation which was called 'Yellow Box' back in the NextStep days and let you recompile your apps for Windows. Alas there were licencing issues that Apple claim meant the runtime was expensive to deploy.
Apple still use this runtime in WebObjects for Windows - I don't know if it's been extended to keep up with the OSX enhancements.
The second option is an interesting project called GNUStep [gnustep.org] who are working towards a complete implementation of the NextStep API and have stated they will add Cocoa's extensions where they provide value. With it being open source you could always add any missing classes/functionality yourself.
This project is usable on FreeBSD and Linux and the core and gui classes are nearly complete however the developer tools themselves are not. This i not a problem however if you are developing on OSX and using them for a port.
There are lots of good reasons to do this. (Score:2)
So I'm always jonesing for NetBSD because, for me, it performs better. I am sure there are other good reasons to do this, and of course there are good reaso
Re:Totally Confused (Score:5, Informative)
We have no free software display server for Quartz. Emmanuel Dreyfus had three options to get the job done:
1) Write a Quartz display server
2) Write a Quartz to X11 bridge
3) Emulate enough of MacOS X to get MacOS X's Quartz display server to run on NetBSD.
He chose option 3. It is not an easy job since MacOS X I/O are done through the IOKit, which completely differs from UNIX I/O API.
XDarwin is the X11 server for MacOS X. It uses the IOKit to access the display, keyboard and mouse. Having XDarwin fully fonctionnal on NetBSD means that NetBSD IOKit emulation is in good shape. It is the first step on the right direction.
Next step is to run MacOS X's Quartz display server itself.
I keep seeing this, and I keep laughing (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, all those MacOS X boxes... 3% market share... millions of people... plus, since Macs from back in 1998 can run the latest version of MacOS X (I'm typing on one now), and lots of people do that, probably significantly more than 3% of the installed base.
BSD sure isn't in any danger from where I'm standing, although who'd'a thunk that Apple would be its saviour?
-fred
Re:Who actually uses NetBSD? And why? (Score:2, Informative)
NetBSD is a stable, reliable, free, well-written, and administrator-friendly UNIX system. There are many reasons for running it.
> FreeBSD is stable and great as a Linux alternative.
So is NetBSD.
> OpenBSD is known for security.
This is what OpenBSD marketing claim, not the reality. OpenBSD web page claims one security hole in the default install for 7 years. They forget about 2 OpenSSH server bugs, one OpenSSH client bug, and 2 DNS clie
Re:Who actually uses NetBSD? And why? (Score:3, Informative)
% ident -q /usr/bin/* | grep NetBSD | wc -l
120
% ident -q /usr/bin/* | grep FreeBSD | wc -l
191
% ident -q /usr/bin/* | grep OpenBSD | wc -l
203
% uname -a
Darwin ibook 7.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0: Wed Sep 24 15:48:39 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-517.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
But yes, your point that Apple used code from a variety of BSDs is still correct.
Re:Who actually uses NetBSD? And why? (Score:2)
You know, you could make a better "shouldn't use it" argument about the systems you listed as vital above. I'd rather use Linux for any of the above things (secure system, stable system, desktop system), but while Linux runs on many, many devices, NetBSD still runs on systems that Linux can't. So if I needed a free *IX fix on some systems, I'd need to use NetB
Re:Who actually uses NetBSD? And why? (Score:2)
Personally, I don't use NetBSD much, but it's great on old 32-bit Sparc boxen. The Linux MMU code really sucks on this platform, and they feel much faster running NetBSD. A friend of mine uses a
Re:App Compat + Hopefully a New GUI? (Score:2)
I don't know how Apple even does it. AUX did it by maintaining a
Re:Why does it have to be called that? (Score:2)
Seriously, try typing your name and then compat_darwin 2000 times.
Re:Why does it have to be called that? (Score:2)
It's a dark day on "News for Nerds".