Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple announces Darwin 0.3 133

Posted by Hemos from the more-to-download dept.
J. FoxGlov writes "Macintouch reports that v0.3 of Darwin, the open-source foundation for Mac OS X Server is available on Apple's Public Source site. Apple Developer Connection members can get it on CD for $29. Check Public Source for more about the Darwin SDK and the new Darwin. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple announces Darwin 0.3 More

Apple announces Darwin 0.3

Comments Filter:
  • From my prospective Linux alone won't crush Windows it'll be a 1 2 punch of both MacOs and Linux that dose the job.
    There will allwase be the techno types [geeks and near geeks] who want an advanced os thats Linux.
    There will also be the users who don't want to under stand how computers work thats what Macs for.
    Windows trys to be a good os for both kinds of users and ends up being worthless. Thats why Linux AND MacOs will crush Windows together.
  • Yeah, right..... You've been sleeping the last six months?

    /G
  • I don't think that's necessarily an issue.

    Say you're a Mac developer (you're not - but just say you are), and you have found a bug in the OS. At the moment you have to submit the bug to Apple, and they MAY fix it.

    With Darwin, Mac developers can go straight ahead and just fix the bug themselves. This just wasn't POSSIBLE in the past. I think this will be one of the biggest advantages to Darwin, and might do less for Linux people than it will for Mac OS people (I hope I'm wrong here, already the HFS+ drivers look like a nice addition which could be ported to most Linux distros).

    All I will say is it's better for Apple to do this, than to keep ALL of it's source closed.
  • If the market share has increased then how do you explain this [statmarket.com]? It seems that no matter how many of those tacky Imacs they sell, there seems to be no change in the number of Mac Users on the internet (and if you look closely you will see that the line is ever-so-slightly decreasing). If this is Macintosh's big break into the internet, I'm not impressed.
  • Linux will never kill the MacOS because Mac's have plug-it-in-and-it-works functionality, something Linux can only dream about and will proably never achieve.

    With a Mac, I could just plug in an ethernet card, install any drivers, reboot and go. With Linux I have to spend two days piddlefarting around with the kernel and modules to get it to work.
  • Why? Because it's not Linux. You rarely see any news items without someone mentioning the word Linux in them. Why? Because you get this sort of response otherwise. SGI is doing far less for the "OSS" community, yet because they are using Linux, and Linux only, there are widespread rumors of "making Linux the best SMP platform around". When in fact SGI is doing worse financially than Apple (Apple is making record profits). But no, Apple is dead. Why? Because they're not using Linux. Get over it. Darwin is a cool idea that aims to make servers out of some already very nice boxen. When it was mentioned PPC might become the Linux RISC CPU of choice, perhaps they were wrong. Perhaps it'll become the BSD CPU of choice. Sure it's not a 64bit PPC, but it's a (relatively) inexpensive PPC server. And it (B&W G3s) looks damn cool, altho the Beige G3s are far superior in quality.
  • And you're full of shit. Linux is not the end all OS, get over yourself.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Yes. We are hearing this every 2 monthes for 15 years. You are probably right. But this seems not prevent them to still sells computers :-)
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • That was the purpose of the Star Trek project in 1993. Bringing the MacOS were no one as gone before: on Intel based PCs :-)

    OK, the project was killed, but that is another story.

    Beam me up Scotty !

  • certain developers have CDs of rhapsody for x86.
    looks alot like next step...
  • What do you get? It looks pretty much like plain BSD on top of Mach... it's hard to see what the incentive would be to hack on it, unless you want to write command-line apps for MacOS X. I suppose it has HFS+ filesystem drivers, but otherwise it doesn't look like there's anything you couldn't get with, say, LinuxPPC. And at least then you'd get an X server. It doesn't look like Darwin includes any sort of GUI -- certainly not the Mac GUI.

    I suppose Apple's hope is that they can get the community to fix bugs in their kernel and in their daemons and CLI apps, but what's in it for the community?

    Am I missing something?

  • Along the same lines...

    Is this going to be available in Kansas?


    j-a-w-a-d------------------------------
    replace ,'s in e-mail address with .'s.
  • This has to be an attempt by apple to follow the course of linux. They are attempting what M$(aka Big Brother) are unwilling to do, it is a strategic move, that, unfortunatly will not help them gain the user base they want as most code-monkeys are running some non-commercial form of linux.
  • I have to agree Darwin isn't useful for much now -- it's kind of a toy for now, kind of like old versions of Linux (pre-1.0). They lacked really useful software and did not have a GUI (X Windows didn't come instantly to Linux, it was ported slowly by various projects, most famosly XFree86.

    Darwin, when it gets more apps ported to it, might be an interesting alternative to the NetBSD, MkLinux or Monolithic Linux kernels on the PowerPC -- it's something new, that likely has some benifits from other kernels.

    I think we can at least hope that the vast majority of GNU utilities/programs can be ported and used on this platform -- it would be great to be able to use things like the X11, GIMP, GNOME or KDE on it -- this could make it an actually worth while project.

    Remember, Darwin should be a fairly optimized kernel for PowerPC 750 computers -- since Apple is the number one desktop vendor of them, and they really know them well.

    So it's just another opensource UNIX-like kernel -- obviously it will attract a whole new audience, those that don't want Monolithic Linux, Netbsd or MkLinux on there PowerMac, but they do want an really fast optimized UNIX-like OS.

    And, yes Apple won't mind if you did some debugging for them or if you improved gnu utils for there platform -- but they don't really expect that.

    Improved HFS+, Booting, Hardware and AppleTalk documentation (in the format of objective-c++ -- that few people understand well) :-( will speed development of drivers for other populuar opensource UNIX-like kernels.


  • > Is this going to be available in Kansas?

    Of course. You just won't be told that it's the only OS. :)
  • So you're saying most people DON'T use RedHat? People say things like "if big companies don't wake up to open source, they'll die," or something along those lines, but then Apple goes and does it and everybody thinks it's evil. Everything every company does is a strategic move. Apple realized that its OS wasn't exactly the most stable one around, so they're taking some serious hints from, well, the most stable OS around. Why everybody thinks this is some kind of incestual sin is beyond me. Apple Open Sourced it to try and get people to hack on it. Obviously it's going to be hard for a huge corporation to get the kind of grassroots support that Linux has gotten, especially one as despised by geeks as Apple (well, Mac), but they're trying. I think their heart's in the right place. Of course they have the profit motive, sure, but they want to stay alive just like RH and any other company, and if they see the wave of the future is Open Source and *nix based Operating Systems, why shouldn't they embrace it? I mean, it's not like they're trying to incorporate win2k into MacOS [shudder]. This is a proven, basically universally loved platform that they're trying to adopt. They are not moving to Open Source because it's "hip" (well, maybe a little), they're doing it because they see that that's where the future of the industry is headed.

    Yeah yeah yeah, they didn't release the entire source code, and it's not under the GPL. Well could you imagine what would happen if MacOS was completely GPLed? Sure, the OS would probably improve by some orders of magnitude, but Apple would probably go out of business. It's easier to start a company out with a free product and figure out a way to sell it than it is to base a company on a pay product and then give it away. That's why Red Hat may actually make money, whereas Apple surely wouldn't if they gave away the entire source to their next-gen OS.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Will Darwin be available in the state of Kansas? If so, will it be allowed in public schools?
  • .....that certain (mainly if not entirely anonymous) posters around here are quick to belittle the makers of any OS which isn't open source, or worse, doesn't conform to their idea of what open source should be, or isn't Linux, etc.

    Come on, folks. So the APSL isn't to everyone's taste. Nor is the (L)GPL, the BSD licence, etc. But it's a step in the right direction - namely, towards the goal of producing Software Which Doesn't Suck. And that is to be welcomed. (And having had a look at the APSL I'm rather confused about which parts of it people have a problem with. After all, it's their base code, if they release it they can put whatever restrictions they damn well feel like on it.)

    Comments such as "Mac is dead" don't really help the argument any. Not to mention that they fly in the face of any real evidence (the G3 and iMac seem to be doing quite well, thank you very much).

    Motives aren't all that important. Companies have a strategic aim to keep existing, and that generally means making money. So if public release of source code, in Apple's view, helps them along that road - and, incidentally, releases more source to the public in the grand design of producing Software Which Doesn't Suck - I'm all for it, on both counts. If only Microsoft would follow the same route, we might even (eventually) end up with a version of Windows which didn't suck, though this is probably heresy. ;)

    I might have to go get myself a Mac now, so I can take a better look at this thing. Hmm.

    "Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
  • Neat, but are they allowed to have this in Kansas? ;-)
  • BSD is dead. Mac is dead. Put them together and you get one of the best OSes and one of the most highly profitable companies in the industry.

    This is typical Slashdot facts do not matter bullshit. Have you used OSX or Darwin? They are simpler incredible systems. High performace. Simple interface and all the power of a real BSD underneath. I was in heaven.
  • There are a couple of good reasons for microkernels. SMP support becomes a lot easier, as does realtime support. In order to get good RT support you have to make sure that either the entire kernel can be prempted, or that whatever sections can't be prempted are really short. If you have a microkernel you can ensure this relatively easily, and since the rest of the OSes functionality is implemented as servers above the microkernel, they can all be prempted. Don't get me wrong, I run linux, but there are some features it does not have and likely never will. For instance, try to burn a CD in the background when you have something suddenly utilize a lot of the processor or the bus. Chances are your CD is ruined. If you had an OS based on a real time kernel (and the CD-R software utilized that functionality), and an isochronos bus (USB, Firewire), you could safely burn the CD in the background, and do whatever you wanted.
  • Please describe some of the internal strife that wrecks FreeBSD.

    Also, if if DeRaadt chooses not to support a VAX port, that is up to him and his developers. He still has half a dozen platforms OpenBSD does support. You misread that. It is an invitation to anyone who would like maintain a VAX port.
  • I tend to find this a good thing. It makes it dirt simple to upgrade. I've spent far too many hours downloading the latest shutils, textutils, etc for a Linux system to bring it up to date after an install. With FreeBSD, you can simple update everything once with CVS and a simple make world. If you do not want to make world, it is easy enough to make just those applications which need remaking by hand. I have never had a problem with dependencies doing this. This is made simpler by the daily snapshots.
  • "It is very weird why Apple just didn't adopt NextStep straight out, but instead had to tack on extra stuff. But because Apple has chosen hardware over software, their long term outlook is grim."

    Oh please. If this is true why doesn't Apple take steps to sell hardware for Be and Linux users?

    And since when is being an OS innovator a sign of health? If that were true Linux would be dead. There's no innovation in Linux other than the means of distribution and contribution. Its that the Linux community makes a stable OS that is drawing all the attention. And Windows isn't very innovative. Last time I checked MS was still making money hand over clenched fist on that product.

    So why didn't they adopt NextStep? Well for one, they tried to. They called it Rhapsody but developers didn't want to rewrite all their apps for it and who can blame them? So they come up with the Carbon strategy.

    And within the next 6 months Apple will release *2* new OSs. OSX client and Sonata/8.7/9.0 which has features your other OSs don't have.

    Just because some OS isn't Linux or commands 90% market share people here think it's dead. Well fine. Until I can do graphics intensive and professional level print work on Linux I'll stick to my Mac. And don't try to push off GIMP as an answer. It's great, but doesn't have the features needed for professional designers. Maybe when Linux gets ColorSync and I can take my files down to the print shop Mac will be dead. Or maybe when I can use an Avid like OS software it will be dead. Or maybe when Adobe and Macromedia port their apps to Linux it wil be dead, but I am not holding my breath.


  • Exactly.

    For my uses, in my opinion, etc, the best thing about FreeBSD is the centralisation of source.

    There is one FreeBSD. It's not a bloody pick-n-mix, but a unified software product with a clear across-the-board versioning strategy, so you know what's being installed, and where, rather than a free-for-all like Linux.

    The whole pedantic argument about Linux being a kernel and not a full operating system that RMS goes on about is exactly the problem.

    At the moment, buying a computer is sometimes more difficult/dangerous than buying a house or a car. You can go the easy route and get ripped off, or spend every waking minute reading up on the latest news to build yourself one.

    Linux can suffer from this. If you can find a good distro, you're okay, but chances are, another distro will have features you want, and you end up with a patchwork system. How can you have any level of confidence in that?

    FreeBSD.. you have a single tree maintained by a well-defined group. Everything concentrates on that (okay, let's forget about the other *BSDs here...)

    As far as Darwin's concerned? I like the fact that Apple recognises the other *BSD teams and at least says they're going to work *with* them on the new MacOS NeXTy things.


  • Damnit man, what's your problem? Why is Darwin bad simply because it comes from Apple? Would Darwin be good if it came from a different company?

  • It just seems that *BSD has an extra heaping helping of bad attitudes that make commercial vendors look like pikers.

    You haven't dealt with the NetBSD/mac68k [macbsd.com] folks, then. A more helpful group of people you won't find anywhere on the Net.

    -- Dirt Road

  • ... Mac OS X is something of a Frankensteins monster: Apple over NextStep over BSD over Mach. .... I don't think this is what Ken Thompson had in mind for Unix.

    If you're talking about "do one thing and do it well," I doubt he had Emacs in mind either. People use it anyway, although I can't understand why.

    -- Dirt Road

  • You know, I live in Kansas. I've lived hear for about 7 years now. It's too bad that evolution got screwed over by the Board of Education. That's what we get for living in the bible belt. It's so sad that people do this kind of thing...
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • YACU (Yet Another Clueless User) has done it again; bought into Linux as the solution to everything computerese like people think Aloe cures every skin problem.

    The problem here:
    A) You /can/ run Linux on Apple hardware. So whats the issue? (LinuxPPC)

    B) MacOS is a prooven, popular OS in the media/art/music industry. Dropping MacOS would garauntee that hundreds of music makers you listen to everyday would have to switch and suffer the wrath of Windows. And all their happy music might turn to sad music.

    C) "give us great software" - with Darwin, they are trying more than ever to forfit some of their proprietary knowledge to let the developers into the action. The "get developers to fix it for free" argument is stupid. No developer is /forced/ to worked on the source, so how are they imposing on the community? Obviously, if you have an interest into making your OS of choice better, what could be bad about getting the critical sources to it?

    D) The USA Networks movie of which you speak (Pirates of Silicon Valley) is a movie. With actors. And lines. And stuff. Believing Jobs is exactly like how an actor protrayed him on USA Networks just goes to show that you can't formulate well thought out opinions of your own based on personal research.

    The end.
  • I mean, it's just BSD unless you also port the Carbon and Cocoa APIs and the interface to x86.

    There's nothing in it for Apple. As people often forget, Apple is a hardware manufacturer. They get the money to fund OS development from hardware sales. Port the OS to x86, and suddenly no one's buying Apple hardware anymore. No more hardware, no more money for OS development. Do you see the downward spiral here?
  • Hmm... It's interesting that you quote science in your reply to my message: on what grounds do you base your assumption that just because a server is running an certain operating system that this will have anything but the most minimal affect on the OS statistics of visiting browsers?

    Perhaps you might veto the servers you visit when browsing, but the average user (which is the majority group) probably doesn't.

    BTW I can guarantee that even Slashdot will have more hits from Windows OS than it will from Mac OS.

    Personal Note: I think that is a good thing. It doesn't matter how evil Bill Gates is, Windows shits all over Mac OS any day of the weeek.
  • You know what? There's a reason why without ACs certain things wouldn't be said. It's the same reason that they're called Anonymous Cowards. If you're too afraid to have your name associated with an opinion, then you really shouldn't be saying it, and we most certainly shouldn't have to be seeing it when reading the posts of people who have the courage to put their name on an opinion.

    That's my flame, and I'm sticking to it. The only reason I've ever posted AC was laziness, not because I wanted to use it as a shield for a controversial opinion. I note that you mention that we have to support our opinions with logical and useful arguments. Why shouldn't everybody be held to the same standard?
  • Right On Mocha Man!

    Why indeed?

    Being a very WYSYG, GUI guy yet strangely, quite a happy user of the alledgedly "dead" platform, I've never understood the vitirol directed towards Apple by many who like to think of themselves as "intelligent". Generally speaking, if we learn anything at all from history, isn't it that conformity and dogmatic indoctrination only promotes ignorance, fear, hatred and mediocraty if not outright suffering? Conversely, isn't it diversity and tolerance which ultimately is the basis for the success of egalitarian notions like Open Source?

    In other words, connect the dots ye nerdy curmudgeons!

    IBM releasing PPC motherboard specs, Darwin and QuickTime, multiple core G4 and Altivec, Firewire, the Mach kernal with Free BSD, OpenStep(Cocoa/YellowBox) API's for easy and powerful cross platfrom development and the icing on the cake, Quartz the new imaging engine with system wide alpha channel compositing, native HTML, vector imaging and PDF built in!

    If this is not "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters" then what is?

    Don't get me wrong, I have immense respect for "hacking" on any level, though only a theoretical interest for myself, but let's face it, the low level coding and higher level GUI approaches are symbiotic and need to be to ultimately succeed. And besides, great engineering is all about leveraging strengths and making practical tradeoffs isn't it?

    There is no end all be all.
    The point of the journey is not to arrive...

    cheers!

    mArtin
  • According to the Darwin projects page [apple.com], tcsh stands for "Turbo C Shell". That's the first time I've heard that explanation; the manpage says that it's named after TENEX...
  • right on! you've got it in a nutshell. i do mac IT work and am familiar with NT and linux and i'd take the mac OS any day of the week.
    the "mysticism" argument -- that's the best formuation of the arguement i've ever heard.
    go with what gets you there the fastest.
  • Probally because the only monolithic kernels on that support Mac hardware are LinuxPPC/NetBSD/OpenBSD.
  • Heh. Why use a microkernel? Go ask Torvalds, or read his response to a fairly pro-monolithic-kernel chap in the Letters section of a recent "Communications of the ACM" (don't have the issue w/ me; it's the one that has a special section on lifelike graphics). It's a pretty interesting read.
  • There will also be the users who don't want to under stand how computers work thats what Macs for.

    What a bullshit generalistic statement that is. There are plenty of Mac users who know a lot about computers. I've got a Mac. An a Linux box. And a Winblows system. Don't assume that because someone likes a mac they don't grok computers.

    This attitude that the easier to use one's computer is, the less that person understands 'em is a big mistake.
  • SCSI

    'nuff said.

    --Corey
  • Darwin is not meant to try to suck developers off of Linux and the other BSDen. It is meant so that Mac developers have a chance to look at the underlying parts of the system. It is meant for people who want to do 'unofficial' installs of MacOS X on older PowerMacs. It's meant to make the Mac community stronger and to allow people who use the Mac to have more freedom in how their system runs and more of a chance to fix things themselves.

    It's not meant to be the replacement for Linux. It's not meant to be the replacement for all of BSD. It's just an opening of the underlying layers of a previously wholy proprietary system. It means no more secrets here.

    Now for the cynical side:
    It means that Apple can freely use code from the other BSD variants and certain GPLed code. Since the source to it all is available on the FTP site, they won't be violating anything by not distributing it on the Consumer version install CD, if I recall the GPL correctly. Of course, they don't HAVE to give out the code to the BSD license derived software, but I think Apple/Next learned their lesson with Objective-C and gcc and would rather have good will than potential legal hassle on the GPLed components.

    Plus, why not open up the BSD layer? It's all already out there anyway, and it can only help Apple to do it.
  • Cut this guy a break. I'd like to see it too. It's my understanding that this was planned by Apple from the beginning and now has been killed (probably as part of the Quicktime lawsuit settlement). I'd love to get MacOS (or Rhapsody or Darwin with the gui or whatever they're calling it this week) to run on my x86 PC. I've used Macs previously and LOVE the user interface. The only problem was that the underlying structure sucked and the machines would crash multiple times daily. If I could have the beautiful, inuitive, easy-to-use Mac gui over a *nix then my life would be much better. (And don't tell me to run E with the E-mac or Apple Platinum themes. I do and they're nice, but not the same)

    Skippy
  • /dev/wd0s2a:

    Winchester Disk 0 (your first IDE disk)
    Slice 2 (your second "PC" partition)
    Partition a (the first BSD partition in
    the BSD disk slice)

    It's not really that tough.

    Though I have to wonder what you've got mounted
    on /mnt/usr2 - seems pretty lame to me.

    --Corey
  • Apple did a Linux distribution, MKLinux... LinuxPPC and MKLinux teams worked very closely together. So I think maybe Apple doesn't dislike Linux as much as you might imagine.
  • This is so true. I bleed six colors, but I'm no newbie. I worked as a sysadmin for Linux, Solaris, SunOS, AIX, DEC/OSF, IRIX, and HPUX for two years. I have run multiple subnets of machines running MacOS, Windows, various UNIX flavors, and other more obscure OSs. I have been programming for over 15 years and can code in more languages that I care to admit. All my friends are of similar levels of experience, and we all prefer Macs.

    I love Linux/UNIX and all of their strengths, but they have never and probably will never compare to the elegence of MacOS. With MacOSX, if Apple does it right, I'll have the Mac user experience with a powerful foundation and all the nifty CLI tools to boot. It's the perfect OS.
  • I work w/ macs exculsively and can telll you ecaxtly y they are doing this... they want folks to port the quicktime streaming server (part of darwin) to every comceivable platform so that quicktime can (and thank god will ) CRUSH RealNetworks and the sucky realplayer hold on streaming media. Everyother part of darwin really isn't new and don't really matter to them chris
  • no no no.
    apple is primary concerned w/ the proliferation of QT as the dominant force in streaming media, the QTR streaming server is part of darwin, and they want to see that ported evrywhere, for free, so that qt will dominate, which is fine cuz in case you didn't know qt rocks.
  • I'm the one who submitted the article. :o>

    Actually, evolution isn't banned from public schools. The issue is just in the hands of local school districts. The state board of ed just passed the buck, and no district I know of it planning to change its curriculum. Ergo, evolution will still be taught the way it's always been.

    J.
  • On monolithic kernels:

    Believe it or not, Mac OS X is designed from the ground up to be as hardware-independant as possible. It could have easily run on all platforms with nothing more than a recompile required to run a different program. There were also rumors of it at some point being able to boot from inside of any FS you installed it on, so long as it could read that FS.
    The Mach kernel makes even _more_ sense within this context, and there's really no reason to switch now that they're going to nail OSX to the PPC platform.

    Oh.. also, Avie Tevanian, currently head of technology or something at Apple, happened to be one of the people on the original Berkeley team that created the first version of Mach. That may just be a coincidence though.

    Btw, don't flame apple for PR stunts. If you don't want to develop for Darwin, don't, but there are certain mac-based developers of hardware and some software for whom having the low level code of Mac OS X available to them will be a complete Godsend. If these people are made happy by the Opening of the Source, then whatever posturing apple does is justified.
  • Bzzt. Wrong answer. What is SGI's ultimate goal? Thought so. There's wild speculation about how they want to replace Irix with Linux and all that shit. No way it's gonna happen. Linux isn't up to the task.
  • I actually had intended it to be my root partition. As you can see, it ended up not being that.

  • Choice is what is in it for the community (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Choice is what is in it for the community. The FreeBSD camp now has the trimmings for a PPC version. (Will this happen? Remains to be seen.) This is great news. Another great OS choice on another great hardware choice. People in graphic arts who love their Macs might enjoy an Apple marshalled free unix effort too. Imagine if Adobe jumps on the bandwagon. Score one more for Open Source. As a FreeBSD user I am excited to see this. Used to be one could search the Apple site for BSD and find little snippets referring to FreeBSD. But all is not well... How odd! The Open Source movement convinces Apple that O.S. is the really best development model but then some /.ers respond skeptically. Can only starving college CS majors be Open Source Cool(tm) to the exclusion of companies? We should all cheer this as a win! Lazy but not Anonymous, Jason C. Wells
  • I'm curious why it is everyone seems to be so bloody condescending toward Apple. I mean, half the postings I've seen so far are along the lines of "Who cares?" or "it's just a ploy to impress people, don't download it - it's not *pure*".

    Well, so what if it is a publicity stunt? I, for one, don't believe that Apple's doing this through some sort of perverted notion of altruism. No way, they're trying to attract back some market share! But who cares?

    I know Richard Stallman would likely say that it's not real free software, but listen, it's great to see a company doing this at all! People now have some new code to play with if they want; they have a new option. Maybe, just maybe, there's even something we can learn from the architecture they've thrown together. Hey, there might even be some great idea in there that could be incorporated into Linux to make it better. And perhaps not, but at least they've opened up the code to let us learn from what's there.

    If nothing else, it's a new toy for interested people to play with, modify, and hack.

    So Apple produces proprietary software (in general). So they don't swear alliegiance to the Free Software Foundation. Who cares? They've done something right. If someone hands you a free hamburger, you don't whine and complain that it wasn't a steak, you take it and say thanks or you leave it and say no thanks. Now I know some people are going to say "but they're trying to pass this hypothetical hamburger off as a steak!" My response: you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. They've tossed one more modification of BSD onto the table. Dissect it, hack it apart, figure out what makes it tick, or leave it alone, but please, stop whining!

  • Does it have something to do with their growing marketshare or their constant profits? Back up your arguments before you make such a silly "statement of fact."
  • The Mac is dead. No, this is not flamebait. It's just a statement of fact.
    Thank you, oh, Anonymous Coward, for blessing us heathens with your Statements of Fact. We were lost, so very lost, before we felt your hand at our backs, guiding us upon the One True Way.

    Sarcasm aside, shouldn't you say, "I do not personally use MacOS, nor do any of the people I usually see use it"? As long as my Macs run, MacOS is not dead. And as the only maintenance they've required in eight Mac-years (I have three) of operation is a motherboard battery-replacement and a (portable) power supply replacement, I don't see them "dying" for quite a while. Nor do my friends who use Macs. Indeed, you might as well say "Amiga is dead", though you'd be wrong, and quite a few Amiga users would be quick to point that out, my girlfriend's mom - a commercial video editor - included.

    If your post was not flamebait, then this is not a flame, merely a "clarification of fact". And please, don't be so quick to declare other peoples' platforms dead, eh? Take a look, see what's going on on the other side. You'd be surprised at the things the "dead" can do.

  • Who can first port it from the apple box's to x86 box's. Imagine apple OS on a x86 oh the humanity!
  • Apple believes Darwin the advantage Darwin has over other OS OS's (wow, another overloaded acronym) is that a single company will be responsible for it. Not only does that make the issue of maintenance easier, but it also ensures they can continue to force their customers to use Apple hardware.

    We are seeing an outpouring of operating system choices lately. The differences between the operating systems are becoming very blurry. Where will this lead? Taking hints from Darwin's theory of evolution, the operating system(s) that survive will be the ones that adapt best in a changing environment. Apple is definitely going to have a competitor.
  • Mac OS X Server, as it currently stand, compiles 90% into both Intel and Mac hardware. Fact is, the Developer Release 2 (Rhapsody DR2) did ship for Intel hardware.

    OpenStep shipped for Intel.

    So, why didn't MOSXS ship for Intel? Support issues. There are so many issues in supporting the wide range of hardware combinasion on Intel hardware that Apple didn't wnat to get into it. So, the last couple of peices of Rhapsody were not completed for Intel, but the bulk of the OS is ready for that.

    This is where Darwin gets in. So many people were upset in MOSXS not shipping for Intel that it's enough to start a movement to make Darwin compile on Intel. Most of it does. Some doesn't (current numbers are that 80% of Darwin can be compiled for Intel). The Open Source movement has the opportunity to complete and add drivers required for a complete version of the core OS to run on a wider array of intel hardware. That's what's in it for Apple.

    For the users, it's a solid BSD/Mach, SMP-ready OS that wont require too much tweak before other thinks like X, Gnome, KDE etc would require to make it complete.

    It's a -SERVER- OS.
  • Saying Apple is not being as open to consumers as it could be (by helping a rival OS on its own hardware, the BeOS) is different from saying the outlook is grim.

    Linux is not ready for consumer prime time. It just isn't. Until you can hide *all* the command line functionality *all* the time there will be room for the BeOS, Windows, and other consumer-oriented OSes.

    And for most consumers out there, the off-the-shelf options they have are Windows and Mac. And guess what?? There are more apps being written for the Mac, and more Macs being sold, than in many years. This is "grim"??

    Sorry, but Linux will *not* be taking over the desktop any time soon.
  • Wow, you're so full of insight.. I wonder, do you have to change your phone number often to fend off the job offers?

    Tell me, what DO you do with the millions people pay you for your wisdom..
  • Well, I don't think you'll be able to use CVS and make world with MacOS. I would imagine that they've customized it, and that it has branched from the BSD tree. But they can still port bug fixes and patches, if they pay attention.

  • I don't think that it's an issue with porting the _OS_ to intel, I think it's two things: primarily a business issue -- Steve wants to make 'insanely great' stuff, but needs money to do it, so Apple has to protect it's core business which is selling boxes; secondarily it's a _driver_ & customer issue -- Apple doesn't have the resources to write drivers for every random piece of Intel hardware, and aren't big enough to make it worth the hardware manufacturer's time/money. If the drivers aren't there, or aren't stable, the customers aren't happy, call Apple and complain, and the press (who loves Apple bashing) picks up on it and says 'Don't buy Apple stuff, it sucks! (because it won't run correctly on my 4 year old packard bell')
  • Ehm, FreeBSD hasn't lost any devices or device names as long as I've used it. Get a life, get your head out of your ass, and do use Linux. You'll raise the Linux user's average IQ.
  • Get out of your basement. Discover the world. There are a lot of things out there that are pleasant to look at, to touch, to experience. Maybe this will cure you of your bitter disdain for anyone out there who doesn't spend 22 hours a day playing with command lines. You are not better in any way than someone who doesn't care about the processes running inside the household appliance that they use for internet access. The fact that they don't want to be surrounded with ugly tower cases with their covers removed and ribbon cables hanging out of them is perfectly OK. Many people would rather live in pleasant surroundings. Their highly developed aesthetic probably means they are at least as capable of applying their intelligence to everyday life as you are. Possibly more.
  • All Apple brought to the table was the PPC port and co-ordination effort. Now I am not saying that isn't important, it is, but if and when the demand for FreeBSD-PPC builds, this kind of thing would have happened anyway.

    Yes... if and when! But Apple went and did it. They've made some sort of a contribution.

    Darwin is fine and dandy, but as other have said before it is NOTHING NEW. Every part of Darwin's source code is available in one form or another elsewhere.

    I would hope then, that you would react with an equally vitriolic response when a FreeBSD port is released by a non-commerical organisation, because hey, every part of its source code is available in one form or another elsewhere. As the previous poster mentionned, you've conveniently ignored QT streaming server.

    If you don't like LinuxPPC or NetBSD, fine, but don't come here and tell us off because we don't jump and scream YAY! every time a big corporation jumps on the Open Source bandwagon.

    Personally, I use Debian Linux on Intel hardware, and don't even own a Mac. It's simply unnerving to see the levels of hypocrisy displayed by a few self-righteous free-software zeolots. What's really the issue is that, had the same software been released, and the same effort been made by say, Software in the Public Interest, everyone would have cheered (except perhaps the hard-core Apple haters, who frown upon anything remotely Apple); but because Apple (my God are they evil) released it, some people scoff.

    Would you rather they go back to producing proprietary-only software? I'd much rather see some large corporations show that they are willing to try open source, without necessarily making a huge commitment at first, and then - if it works for them - make a firm commitment. Corporations are simply unwilling to commit to a (fairly revolutionary) concept that could potentially (in their eyes) flush them down the toilet.

    How long has Apple been in the Open Source arena? Less than a year now. You can't possibly expect them to drop everything and go 100% open source instantly. But by encouraging them, they may open more software up. By shouting insults, they're more likely to simply give up on a community that seems not to want them involved.

    It's disheartening to think that there are segments of the open source community that spend so much time complaining about Apple and others who've begun contributing. It's simply counter-productive to the movement as a whole. If we want wide-spread adoption of the open source concept, we're going to have ensure that there are no double standards, that everyone is equally welcome to contribute. Otherwise, others will decide that it's simply not worth the bother.
  • and look at the real world living and breathing outside the walls of your cool, dark little room.

    99% of the consumer market would NEVER give half a piece of crap for the ability to screw with source code, re-compile a kernal, set up a GUI, or scour the 'net for help on how to set up PPP.

    To them, the perfect computer is one that you plug in, turn on, and start to play. A great computer is one that is so transparent that it allows you to do what you need to do, with no hassle. The computer is not supposed to get in the damn way.

    Take it or leave it, but the Mac is the closest thing this world has to a great computer.

    If you don't agree, then I'm pretty sure there are plenty of flashing lights somewhere that need your attention.
  • Why would people NOT want a monolithic kernel? Aside from the bullshit "it's old" crap, a monolithic kernel design actully has some speed over the abstracted microkernel design (Which, BTW, MkLinux uses -- it's a port of Linux to Mach)... And I doubt Apple's experience with the PowerPC is going to count for much. They are, after all, the folks responsable for MacOS 9. They had to buy out NeXT in order to get a modern OS.

    As I recall from way back when IBM was porting OS/2 to a micro kernel design, the main advantages to uK are ease of porting and almost implicit SMP support -- all in exchange for a little speed. Well, I don't follow LinuxPPC that much, but I know they are running well under PPC and I believe the SMP support is there.

    What possiable reason should anyone want to spend time bringing Darwin up to speed? Because it's there? The fact of the matter is that Apple is just trying to cash in on the Linux craze...They see a non-Microsoft OS gaining huge momentum and the fact that it's not MacOS is driving them out of their minds. Everybody is talking about "Open Source" and no one is talking about the Mac anymore... If they where really serious about Open Source (or Free Software for that matter) they would release all of MacOS, or at least ease up on the whole QuickTime codec issue. But they're not..In fact, their Apple "Public Source" License has a few built in measures that could kill an APSL project if Apple disaproves of it. If MacOS where to reach a stable position in the market, Apple's support for open source will disappear over night.

    Sorry for the rant, but Apple and Sun's "open/community" source projects really piss me off. Just read the APSL -- it gives Apple quite a bit of power over any APSL project, such as the ability to shut one down just by FILING a suit.
  • Yes, Apple's entire Darwin idea was probably inspired by the popularity of the open source movement. Apple is trying to follow in Linux's footsteps, and capitalize off the enthusiasm surrounding the open source movement. That is most likely the case, and I'm all for it. I'm for ANYTHING that can convince ANY company as proprietary as Apple to open up some of its source code.

    I doubt we'll see Microsoft do anything similar. Apple obviously knows this as well. More power to them.

  • I am inclined to believe that this is a Good Thing(tm). Of course they did it for a marketing objective. Everything every company does is for a marketing objective, to make money in the long/short run. That isn't wrong. What is wrong is to not play fair, to force everyone else's hand, to damage the overall industry to get ahead (and if you have any idea who I'm talking about, good for you). I don't see anything wrong with what Apple has done.

    Potential for bad: some hackers waste their time.

    Potential for good: We're actually going to know what is going on behind a commercialized OS. We've all heard the rumors about the crazy stuff in Win98 code:

    // There is a memory leak here, but I can't figure out what causes it...

    or

    // Crashes here. I would fix it, but release is next week, so no time. We'll get it in the service pak.

    and of course

    if(appID=APPID_NETSCAPE_NAVIGATOR){
    SetTimer(random,CrashIt)
    }
    if(dosVer&DOSVER_DRDOS){
    MessageBox("Your machine is running an unstable operating system. Upgrade to MSDOS 5.0.");
    }

    So obviously if they are willing to let the source out, they are comfortable with it. They are confident about it. They have nothing to hide, and can prove it (at least for the part released, which appears to be the most critical part of the OS). No more secrets. This is a Good Thing.

    Ok, so it's license sucks rocks. So? I wouldn't expect a whole lot of big user development on their kernel. I don't think that is the point. I'm sure they'll accept and take a look at all submitted bug fixes, but that isn't the point either.

    The point is that everyone can study the OS and know everything about it that they need for programming the Mac. I'm reminded of the source code to the original PC BIOS that appeared in the appendix of the original IBM Technical Reference manual (still good reading, by the way, if you do low-level PC programming). I learned a lot about what was going on. When I had a question about "what exactly does this function do," and the docs were sketchy, I could jump to the assembly code in the appendix and figure it out. For some things, the BIOS source was my only doc - like how to program the timer chips, etc.

    With MS's OS's you can't do that. And believe me, the docs are sketchy sometimes. With no source to look at when things get confusing, you're always hoping that there is someone on some newsgroup with the answer. And the MS Word team gets privy info on the undocumented API's. None of that with an OS OS :P.

    I don't think I'll ever look at the code. I'm stuck in a rut programming my PC under FreeBSD, Linux and Windows. But for those who do need to do a lot of programming on Mac boxes, I have a feeling that this will help a bunch.

    Hope that made sense. Happy hacking!
  • What a lengthy argument: most impressive. But, in the end, it appears that you agree with me, Mac OS is way behind on the whole OS sweepstakes. I'm not including the obvious clap-trap about how people only surf OS-related sites. The whole point of the internet is that who is supposed to know?

    Personal Note: I don't care that you don't care so Nyah Nyah!
  • I'm not saying Mac isn't useful to computer experts.
    I am saying Macs best market target is newbe users.
    MacOs makes a great Geek Os but it's image prevents it from selling as one.

    And just as there are plenty of Mac Geeks there are plenty of Linux newbes.
    But Linux faces the same stereotype in reverse.
  • asdfsdafds
  • i've setup a mirror of the 0.3 release in australia since quite a few people have difficulty getting a hold of a 44M file.

    ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/darwin/

    does anyone know anyone in apple to talk to about
    actually arranging mirrors ? i can't get anyone to
    answer mail..

    -jason

Slashdot Top Deals

In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them.

Close