Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 3rd May 2005 23:51 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives The Darwin 8.0.1 Installer CD is available and corresponds to the open source core of Mac OS X 10.4.
Order by: Score:
KDE?
by Wally on Wed 4th May 2005 00:34 UTC

sorry if its a dumb question, but can you compile kde on top of this? or gnome or other apps for that matter

question?
by Gregory on Wed 4th May 2005 00:37 UTC

heres a dumber one.. is this basically Mac OSX stripped of the GUI?

RE: question?
by Jon on Wed 4th May 2005 00:38 UTC

kinda, yes. And stripped of some closed source drivers/APIs too.

RE
by Gregory on Wed 4th May 2005 00:42 UTC

'kinda, yes. And stripped of some closed source drivers/APIs too.'

Thanks Jon, I figured as much. Makes me wonder who is beneffiting more from the partnership, darwin or Apple?

Re: RE
by C on Wed 4th May 2005 00:52 UTC

What do you mean, who is benefitting more? Apple has developed OS X, and for one reason or another has released the code for their kernel for free. Darwin is an Apple project, havn't simply partnered with an OSS group of some sort.

Oh yes, and the reason off the Darwin site: Apple's open source projects allow developers to customize and enhance key Apple software. Through the open source model, Apple engineers and the open source community collaborate to create better, faster and more reliable products for our users.

IIRC, OS X's code is built upon BSD stuff.

RE: "dumb" questions
by Anonymous on Wed 4th May 2005 00:54 UTC

Yes, darwin is OSX stripped of all teh gui related stuff (including the APIs that go with them), although it DOES have some binary drivers IIRC. Yes, you can get KDE and GNOME to both work.

darwin + kde/gnome
by Wally on Wed 4th May 2005 00:58 UTC

should be interesting if someone came up with that. kde/gnome instead of aqua on top of darwin.

Let it go
by Pervis Johannsen on Wed 4th May 2005 00:58 UTC

Apple benefits greatly from the opensource community but I don't think we should begrudge that success. The point of opensource is that it IS OPEN to anyone who wants it. Apple is choosing not to re-invent the wheel. I applaud their use of open code rather than making yet another proprietary mess. I know that Apple's extensions are largely proprietary, but the fact remains that the core is open, making it easier for developers to understand and code for when they've worked on other similar implementations of the same code.

I just don't see the logic in only approving of some uses of opensource. If it's open, it's open - let it go.

Another question
by Anonymous on Wed 4th May 2005 01:02 UTC

Is anyone actually using Darwin without the rest of OS X for Real Work? As far as I can see, on Mac hardware there is no reason not to run the rest of OS X, while on x86 Linux and *BSD and even Solaris seem to be much better supported.

Re: Re: RE
by Donald Grayson on Wed 4th May 2005 01:09 UTC

What do you mean, who is benefitting more? Apple has developed OS X, and for one reason or another has released the code for their kernel for free. Darwin is an Apple project, havn't simply partnered with an OSS group of some sort.
<p>
Actually, Apple took one of the BSDs and added to it, they did NOT create Darwin/OSX from scratch. The BSD license does not require them to release their code though, so it is nice that they are, however a cynical person would recognize that anyone who wants to attract Unix developers P.L. (Post Linux) has resigned themselves to opening at least some of their code to the community.
<p>
Before I get flamed, two addendums: While I know that Linux is just a kernal and useless without the pre-existing GNU software and the OSS movement that started it all, Linux has done more to put Open Source into the public (non-developer) forum than GNU ever did.
<p>
Second: Developers who have worked on code that Apple has shared with the community are increasingly less thrilled with the reality of their contributions rather than their public statements about it. Specifically the strides that Safari makes while the KHTML people (whose code Safari is based on) attempt to decifer the code that Apple publishes (with piss poor documentation) to glean something worth adding back into their project.

RE: Another question
by Nate on Wed 4th May 2005 01:11 UTC

Is anyone actually using Darwin without the rest of OS X for Real Work? As far as I can see, on Mac hardware there is no reason not to run the rest of OS X, while on x86 Linux and *BSD and even Solaris seem to be much better supported.

I actually use Darwin void of OS X. The reason is I have a B&W with some cards that don't work under any other OS. I don't want to pay for the newest OS X, I just need the command line stuff. I used to run 10.2 on it, but it was a bit slow. I run my webserver/nfs/dchp off of it without a problem. I would not recommend it to a novice, but if you have unix experience then you'd be fine running it. It's a very stable OS, I've never had a crash, and had uptimes of over 75 days easy. Just like OS X, it just works.

Bottom line: you get the OS X core free without the gui. It's perfect for a server if you have a unix background. I'm glad Apple open sourced it. They also provide the updates if you're comfortable with using the Darwin build scripts.

OSS
by Chris on Wed 4th May 2005 01:14 UTC

There are tons of OSS software for Darwin. DarwinPorts and Fink. DarwinPorts is more in lockstep with a pure Darwin only system while Fink is aimed at OS X users. Either way, you can have tons of OSS sofwtare running on top of darwin: KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker, Mozilla, Gaim, the gnu tools and so on.

Re: Donald Grayson
by meianoite on Wed 4th May 2005 01:37 UTC

Dude, shut the hell up. Once again you fakey Un*x cheerleaders completely fail to follow the History and rely on some irresponsible slashdot-ish comments and hearsay.

NeXTSTEP was initially based upon BSD4.4-net2 (kernel, userland) and later on some FreeBSD 3.2 enhancements.

Apple *did not* take "some" (unnamed, as always) BSD and added sugar coating to it. Jesus!

And check the mailing lists for KHTML for a change. I don't see people complaining. There's great synergy between Apple employees and KDE people.

Speaking as a developer and soon-to-be BD in CS, you just can't expect clean patchsets from a fork all the time. Companies are expected to enhance THEIR products, THEIR versions, not patronize a bunch of whiners who can't take value in collaborating with for-profit software-making business.

I believe you should have utmost respect for Avadis Tevanian, Jordan Hubbard and David Hyatt, just to mention KEY people for Mach, FreeBSD and Mozilla/KHTML (the subjects of this discussion), and guess what, they're all Apple employees.

@Nate
by Jed on Wed 4th May 2005 01:55 UTC

I actually use Darwin void of OS X. The reason is I have a B&W with some cards that don't work under any other OS. I don't want to pay for the newest OS X, I just need the command line stuff. I used to run 10.2 on it, but it was a bit slow. I run my webserver/nfs/dchp off of it without a problem. I would not recommend it to a novice, but if you have unix experience then you'd be fine running it. It's a very stable OS, I've never had a crash, and had uptimes of over 75 days easy. Just like OS X, it just works.

Bottom line: you get the OS X core free without the gui. It's perfect for a server if you have a unix background. I'm glad Apple open sourced it. They also provide the updates if you're comfortable with using the Darwin build scripts.


How would one got about getting a cable internet connection running on Darwin? (For server use?)

Feel free to e-mail me if you ever wanna talk about unixy stuffs :-)

--Jed

RE: meianoite - correction
by molnarcs on Wed 4th May 2005 01:55 UTC

There's great synergy between Apple employees and KDE people.

http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/view/1001?PHPSESSID=a89f5e977fdf4...

This was posted to ./ and consistently misunderstood so: THE GUY IS NOT FLAMING APPLE. He flames dumb users who think that APPLE cooperates with KHTML devs. They do not:

"hat’s the situation KDE is in. We created the khtml-cvs list for Apple, they got CVS accounts for KDE CVS. What did we get? We get periodical code bombs in the form of them releasing WebCore. Many of us wanted to even sign NDA’s with Apple to at least get access to the history of their internal vcs and be able to be merging the changes incrementally, the way they can right now. Nothing came out of it. They do the very, very minimum required by LGPL.

And you know what? That’s their right. They made a conscious decision about not working with KDE developers. All I’m asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is. There’s absolutely nothing great about it. In fact “it” doesn’t exist. Maybe for Apple - at the very least for their marketing people. Clear?"

Re: meianoite
by Donald Grayson on Wed 4th May 2005 02:17 UTC

Dude, learn how to read.

From Apple's Developer website, Darwin Documentation, first friggin paragraph:
Darwin is the open source UNIX-based foundation of Mac OS X. Darwin integrates a number of technologies. Among the most important are the Mach 3.0 microkernel operating-system services, based on 4.4BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution), the high-performance networking facilities, and the support for multiple integrated file systems. Darwin also includes a number of command-line tools. Mac OS X developers can use Darwin to port UNIX/Linux applications and to create kernel extensions.

They are using the Berkely BSD 4.4 Mach kernel with their own alterations. The graphical environment may have come from NeXT but the friggin underlying infrastructure is BSD Unix. Even in your own post you note that NeXT used BSD as it's source.

So how in your world does someone take a kernel from BSD add their own special sauce to it and call it independant development??? Do you work for CherryOS or something?

As molnarcs already posted a link to the most glaring article I won't repost it, but it boils down to Apple took KHTML, gives back undocumented incomplete and unusable code that can not be merged into KHTML and the KHTML dev's are getting the flak for not adding Apple's changes back in while Apple is reaping publicity for being a good OSS contributer. Yeah, that's synergy all right.

You can call the KHTML guys whiners but when they give CVS access to their project to Apple's developers in the belief that Apple will help to advance their project then get nothing usefull back in return that isn't what I'd call a co-operative partnership.

I give no hope that you'll ever admit that Apple isn't the source of all peace and good that the Job's press corp would like the world to believe so I can only hope that someday Apple with rape and pillage one of your projects.

About GPL and "the minimum"
by Beavis on Wed 4th May 2005 02:28 UTC

Has anyone here ever seen the movie office space? There is a great scene in the movie featuring Jennifer Anniston and Mike Judge (from Beavis and Butthead) that relates to the Apple vs KHTML drama.

Anyway, the scene plays out like this… Jennifer Anniston is being called out by her boss for not having enough “flare” on her work uniform. The minimum number of acceptable pieces of flare was 15, but it was encouraged to wear more than the minimum.

After being called out several times about her flare, Ms. Anniston is quoted as saying this, "If you want me to wear 37 pieces of flare like your pretty boy over there Brian, why don't you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flare?"

The bottom line is this: If you expect Apple to do more than the minimum, you should raise the minimum. You really can’t expect Apple to do more than what they are required, it’s just not a practical business model.

v Thanks for this
by Dr. Penishead on Wed 4th May 2005 02:40 UTC
Re: About GPL and "the minimum"
by Donald Grayson on Wed 4th May 2005 02:41 UTC

The bottom line is this: If you expect Apple to do more than the minimum, you should raise the minimum. You really can’t expect Apple to do more than what they are required, it’s just not a practical business model.

I can't expect a company to do more than the 'minimum'? Isn't Apple's whole corporate image based on how they go above the minimum into 'insanely great'?? Besides, if they are going to hype their Open Source contributions in order to draw more developers then they should actually contribute usefully and certainly more than just 'the minimum'.

Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, all of these and other Open Source companies go way above the minimum. Most fund open source projects and actively contribute. Most go out of their way to make installing and maintaining Linux easier with each version. Their entire business is based on more than the minimum.

No, the companies that consistently only reach for 'the minimum' are the companies that do not succeed.

Why hasn't Darwin taken off?
by Anon on Wed 4th May 2005 02:55 UTC

It's sort of interesting as there is some interesting technology included that is unique to the platform (Launchd for starters) and an x86 port available (although admittedly severely lacking in driver support, but you might have thought someone at least would have found it interesting enough to do a bit of work on this front), yet Darwin it seems is largely ignored by the Unix community.

Apple's fault for not taking the appropriate steps to build a community around it, or just disinterest from developers and users since Linux and *BSD are already better supported, and well, there?

It will interesting to see how OpenSolaris does in terms of community support.

Also, a question for the Darwin followers: has driver support improved much for x86 (I remember I think AMD CPUs weren't supported at all at one point, eek!) and does DarwinPorts work on x86 (I presume it does)?

It would be interesting if someone wrote up a review/overview of Darwin on x86 and their experience using it.

@Donald Grayson - Get real
by Beavis on Wed 4th May 2005 02:55 UTC

1. Apple isn't an open source company.
2. RedHat, SuSe, and Mandrake are.
3. Apple dosen't hype their open source image (at least not NEARLY as much as things that are profitable to them).
4. If you expect Apple to do more than the minimum, you should raise the minimum.

I've worked in the business world for a long time, and I can tell you this: Good luck getting a bunch of corporate suits to go above and beyond the expected minimum "just to be nice".

re: Donald Grayson
by :-) on Wed 4th May 2005 02:56 UTC

The BSDs never had a Mach kernel...

The Mach kernel was a seperate project development that initially began from BSD as well but quickly diverged.

NextStep and, subsequently, Mac OS X kernels are a fusion of Mach and BSD kernels. On top of this sits BSD userland

It is for this very reason that porting some applications from true linux/unix to Mac OS X is very hard.

Read up on XNU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

Spotlight
by Anonymous on Wed 4th May 2005 03:13 UTC

I have a dumb question. If you install Darwin do you get the API that makes Spotlight work? In that ars technica article there as a command line app called xattr that was used to add arbitrary meta data to any file in the system and then search for that data. Does this ability come with Darwin?

Re: Spotlight
by Beavis on Wed 4th May 2005 03:19 UTC

No. Darwin is nostly the GPL software and Kernel.

The source code is at http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4/ and none of it mentions spotlight or arbitrary.

How many is it now?
by Lumbergh on Wed 4th May 2005 03:29 UTC

So how many threads have been hijacked by screaming morons that are crying that Apple isn't hand holding KHTML developers hands?

v Gotta love this comment
by Lumbergh on Wed 4th May 2005 03:33 UTC
OT: flair
by Anonymous on Wed 4th May 2005 03:35 UTC

37 pieces of flair.

Daemon?
by Mike on Wed 4th May 2005 03:38 UTC

Does Darwin use the LAUNCHd daemon? I've been reading about that and it seems like a pretty good idea

Re: Blah blah blah
by C on Wed 4th May 2005 03:45 UTC

*Sigh*

The main reason for Darwin being OSS'd is that developers can do nice things with the kernel, muck about, and eventually gain an ability to make nice things for OS X. There's probably some publicity in it as well.

OSX/Darwin is based a fair deal on BSD. However, there are also a good amount of things that Apple has done on their own, including all that GUI prettyness.

Apple is not taking time to completely document its code. Not a surprise. Safari code is so convoluted and tied to OS X that it is hard to add the changes to the main KHTML without breaking it. Is this evil? Not really, Apple is just a business that is doing what they need to make money. That's just normal. The company is trying to save a buck wherever they can (they've got heavy competition from Microsoft, Linux, etc), making the code how they need it, and not how KHTML would like. It would take longer, and cost more to document the code, clean it up, and untwist it so that it could be nicely implemented in the main KHTML.

Red Hat, et all, make their living off of open source, developing for it and selling support for it. Most Apple users could care less about being part of the OSS community. Since Apple is doing this their way (Keeping it simple, easy, unified, and "Apple"; as opposed to, like the Linux vendors, using projects from all hundreds of OSS projects in their distros), the community beyond their own customers isn't that huge a concern.

Apple also develops these big upgrades at 1 to 1.5 years apart, and yet have a wimpy market share. I think they're mad.

RE: Daemon?
by Anon on Wed 4th May 2005 04:11 UTC

It's part of Darwin 8.0, yes. After all, Darwin is just Mac OS X without the GUI and applications.

Re: molnarcs
by meianoite on Wed 4th May 2005 04:16 UTC

I saw this, and then asked people to actually browse the mailing list archives.

This guy got fumed, so what? AFAICT he's not the PR of KDE/KHTML.

Re: Donald Grayson
by meianoite on Wed 4th May 2005 04:24 UTC

So now I'm the one supposed to learn to read... What you said is such complete nonsense that it's not even worth quoting. Anyway, people have already pointed you to some interesting readings.

Once again: Avadis Tevanian, THE CREATOR OF THE MACH KERNEL (your current pet peeve, and the one you definitely don't seem to get) AT CMU, is an Apple employee, and before that he was a NeXT employee. So much for "raping your projects".

I'm sorry, but the release notes are embarrassing.
by Unreal on Wed 4th May 2005 04:33 UTC

http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/8.0.1/release-notes-8.0.1.txt

Known Issues
============

PowerPC-based Macintosh computers:

* AirPort wireless cards are detected, but cannot be configured.

x86-based personal computers:

* IDE drives may not work on x86. Try it, if it doesn't work,
it's a known problem.

* Video cards must support VESA 2.0 framebuffer modes on x86.
Try it, if your console looks weird, or doesn't appear, it's a
known problem.

Airport: binary-only drivers. Blame the chipset maker, as this is their fault, exclusively.

IDE: chipset support is limited. If people (as in the community) are interested in making it work, they should work on it. It's that simple. It works on Apple hardware, and that's Apple's focus. Really, what would you expect?

Video: same thing. I'd bet that the video drivers for Mac OS X are binary-only, and this you should blame on nVidia/ATI. and FWIW, if your video card doesn't support VESA 2.0, what in Hades name are you doing with yourself? Go buy yorself some 2nd-hand TNT2 card!

why the bickering
by andrew on Wed 4th May 2005 06:11 UTC

First of all, I thought open source was supposed to be good, but it seems to me that some of the open source community expects more from Apple. While Apple is benefiting from open sourcing their kernel, so is the linux/unix/bsd community. Luanchd is a major improvement over rc, anyday, and while a lot of the open source community will be too stubborn to change their ways, a lot will, and that's just one benefit that Apple brings to the table.

You can't expect Apple to document all their code to make it easy for you to read, you can't expect anyone to document their code. I thought Open source was for freedom. Isn't the way you code your own personal preference, and choice. Plus, they also have competitors that can read the code as well.

Let's be honest here....you expect Apple (since they are a for profit corp) to give so much to the open source community, that linux/unix would rival Apple, and MS better in the desktop arena, but that is just not practical.

Just be embrace what Apple gives to the open source community, and be grateful for it. Let's be real, Microsoft is probably ripping off free code left and right, and not giving anything back.

Air-port express doesn't work in Linux either.

And I do blame apple. Why? Since apple had a choice to go after other chipset(Atheros e.g.) or can give a pressure to broadcom but they don't do it.

They are not interested in open-source at all. I always insisted they suck open-source blood. They are vampires.

Sorry Guys!

v You people are fucking amazing
by Anonymous on Wed 4th May 2005 07:02 UTC
Anonymous (IP: ---.raynersoftware.com)
by Lumbergh on Wed 4th May 2005 08:12 UTC

Did you write a vi plugin for netbeans by chance?

Regarding your comments. You have to understand the mentality of these people. They hate Apple because its proprietary. In their demented world, everything should be open source. They absolutely despise Apple for doing the Unix desktop right in pretty much no time, where Linux has failed. It's further evidence that lots of paid developers with clear goals for the entire platform is superior to their religion and it drives them nuts.

Safari
by jmjjg on Wed 4th May 2005 09:10 UTC

While this release seems interesting, it makes me wonder a lot. Here's my problem: I'm a web developer, and I want to try my sites under most browsers.
Now:
1°) Safari only runs on OS X
2°) I only have access to x86 machines
3°) Darwin will run on x86
4°) Darwin doesn't have all the GUI stuff OS X has
5°) it seems I could make KDE/GNOME work on Darwin
My question is: could Safari work under Darwin with KDE/GNOME ? Or is there any other way for an x86 machine to run Safari ?
Thanks for any useful answer.

Re Jed @ Adelphia (@ Nate)
by CdBadger on Wed 4th May 2005 09:34 UTC

How would one got about getting a cable internet connection running on Darwin? (For server use?)

I'm neither a Unix guy per se nor a server expert but that shouldn't be too difficult

You'd need a cable modem with an ethernet socket (most if not all of them have this, a Moto Surfboard or Terayon Terajet would be fine)

Connect your modem to a NAT router (a consumer Linksys BEFSR41, Netgear RP614 or D-Link 704 would be fine)

Connect your Darwin server to the router by ethernet and using the Darwin networking tools give its ethernet port a fixed IP relative to the router. Configure Apache to know the external IP address/domain name (use Dyndns or no-ip.net to get a domain, the router can act as a client if you pick a compatible one)

Now log into the router and set up port-forwarding (virtual server) rules to forward ports 80 and 8080 to your server (for web traffic - other ports include 21/22 for FTP if needed)

Then anyone clicking on a link to your IP or domain name would be served a page from apache

apache's easy to configure using its text config file "httpd" - the file is self-explanatory. I strongly recommend you keep apache patched, read the security guide and lock it down properly though. Web servers can be hazardous to your system health.

RE:Safari RE:blabla
by Michael on Wed 4th May 2005 09:48 UTC

If it runs on Konqueror it will run the same(or better) on Safari. If that's all you have, just test with Konqueror. Because of the API's(and processer) there is no way to run it on x86 unless you use pearpc to install OSX and veeery slowly emulate it.

Why does everyone have a problem with what apple is doing? As an avid linux user for quite some time I get sick of seeing this over and over again. It's like a bunch of kids yelling because things aren't fair. Life isn't fair, people do what they can to survive. That's all apple is doing, and while they aren't doing enough for YOU, tell me what have you done? They gave us the core of there OS, and a very nice one I might add too. They didn't have to.. That is how BSD works, and NExT is property of apple. It's just business and Apple IS a global Corp, they just have a happy face to hide behind. That's how they got where they are today. Think about it.

Larger persepective
by drd on Wed 4th May 2005 10:23 UTC

Is it me or has the osnews been hijacked by a bunch of os-want-a-bee's that every time a mac/linux/win post comes out the posts end up being dominated by snot nosed brats that have no experience in os development? I seem to remember a time when 'discussions' happened on osnews. Am I just forgetting the bad stuff and remembering the 'good old days'? Am I one of the few developers left holding onto to this site in hopes of some actual intellegent discourse? Someone help.

Apple is completely proprietary
by r_a_trip on Wed 4th May 2005 10:42 UTC

Apple is not an Open Source player. They are proprietary to the bone-marrow. That is OK. It is their show and if they can pull it off to make their FOSS projects unusable to the point that they can be considered proprietary, than that is quite a feat.

Darwin, although Open Source, is inconsequential to the FOSS world at large. The license Apple chose for this project makes it a niche player. Only developers interested in OSX benefit, because the APSL (Apple Public Source License) is only compatible with the APSL. That is also a reason that Darwin is not a major poster child in the FOSS world. Both the BSD's and GNU/Linux cannot cross-pollinate with Darwin. (Before anyone shouts "You only want to rip off Apple", cross-pollination works both ways).

KHTML. Too bad that Apple doesn't see the benefit of a shared codebase. Now they have to maintain their own branch completely. If Apple had chosen to cooperate with the KHTML devs, they could have implemented the best features of both development teams in their respective versions. The KHTML developers should issue a public statement on the affairs of KHTML and Webcore collaboration and get the word out that Apple KHTML has nothing to do with KDE KHTML anymore.

For all the Apple afficionado's, Apple may have given code to the community, but it is questionable if it is of mutual benefit. FOSS thrives on equal cooperation and it seems that Apple is not a believer in the FOSS way of thinking. They may change in the future (it's possible, many other companies did), but for now Apple is planted firmly on my proprietary vendors list.

RE: Larger perspective
by Lumbergh on Wed 4th May 2005 11:02 UTC

Drd, it happened a long time ago. Now it's all about FSF zealots lashing out because they have to be reminded that the world doesn't revolve around them

I wonder, why you talk about KDE/GNOME, but not about X11
by Jupe on Wed 4th May 2005 11:13 UTC

You talk about using KDE/Gnome instead of Aqua for Darwin.

But Darwin haven't a graphical mode (the equivalent to X11).
So you need at first an graphical mode for Darwin to run KDE/Gnome.

And so I wonder, why you talk about using KDE/Gnome for Darwin, because Aqua isn't included. But that you don't talk to use X11, DirectFB, Y-Windows, Micro-Windows, The Nano-X Window System, Fresco or something else.

@ Lumbergh
by drd on Wed 4th May 2005 11:17 UTC

It is not just FSF zealots. Fanboys are oozing from all the crevices. Perhaps if someone would spend a little more time writing code and less time telling everyone else they sucked, we'd have better platforms all around.

Re: larger perspective
by bleyz on Wed 4th May 2005 12:02 UTC

Is it me or has the osnews been hijacked by a bunch of os-want-a-bee's that every time a mac/linux/win post comes out the posts end up being dominated by snot nosed brats that have no experience in os development?

It isn't just you.

Still regarding Darwin, this is preposterous. If Apple just took FreeBSD and slapped a DE in it, tell me, shouldn't Darwin be synonymous with FreeBSD?

The BSD kernel and FreeBSD userland are but components of Darwin.

Incidentally, the FSF considers (Gnu-)Darwin, along with Debian, to be two of the most free OSes by its book. Regarding the low esteem RMS is held in by most of the trolls here, it's doubtful that they're FSF trolls. They're probably the kind that lurk in ./ but only dare blabbering here.

@Lumbergh, @drd
by Vesselin Peev on Wed 4th May 2005 12:11 UTC

OSNews has deteriorated in the couple of years I've been following it. Same for many other forums on the net. Similarly to what you said already, the world would be a much better place if we didn't criticise each other so much.

The movie "Office Space" is a great one, very highly recommended. To understand it fully, one has to have worked in the corporate world for a while (I have, and found the movie reflects the reality very closely).

@Lumbergh -- the bad boss in the movie is called Lumbergh, but since there was a second Lumbergh in the movie, too, and he was probably a good guy, I hope you are the latter ;) Cheers ;)

Some clarifications of position
by Donald Grayson on Wed 4th May 2005 12:40 UTC

I would like to clarify my position on Apple and OSS. First, while I feel that Apple is totally within their rights to obfuscate the code that they have developed as well as code they accquired from OSS projects, I think that Apple should not make public statements that imply they are beneficial contributors to Open Source projects if that is the case. That's all, simple as can be.

Second, to meianoite, employing someone who works on another project does not make that project yours. OSX is a fork of BSD, there is nothing wrong with that and I don't understand your rabid need to defend it as solely being from Apple. My gripe is mainly that Apple's press corp implies enthusiastic cooperation with Open Source developers in order to encourage them to develop on their platform.

Third, to drd, software projects seem to develop a passion in people that they feel a necessity to defend. I agree that defence is far too often turned into attacks which is sad but I don't see it changing soon. As for the changing nature of discourse on the internet, well, the flamewar has a long history on the net so I'm not really sure that things are any different today than yesterday.

Fourth, to Michael, Konqueror and Safari are not interchangable. The changes in the Safari fork have altered the way that it renders compared to Konqueror. So, if you want to test your website out in Safari, buy an Apple computer.

Fifth, many developers do not have the money to buy multiple computer platforms and Apple's decision to not participate actively with the KHTML team serves to marginalize Safari as a browser. Why sweat to ensure your web project renders properly in a browser that only has a 4% market share?

Re: Donald Grayson
by Zetsurin on Wed 4th May 2005 12:49 UTC

You are implying that Apple deliverately obfuscated their code. Have you coded in a corporate environment before? Coding style and quality I have seen everywhere I have worked in my 12year career, without exception, due to deadlines and other expectations. Do you think the developers would deliberately obfuscate and uncomment their OWN code? That's some conspiracy thing you have going there, too bad it's obviously fantasy material. Their code is specific to their platform, they won't put #if _OSX_ around their code because it's overkill for them, etc etc etc. They will put calls into their code to get it working on their OS. That will generally be difficult to use for platform independence but it's just a fact of life.

Browser Marginalisation
by Zetsurin on Wed 4th May 2005 12:53 UTC

Isn't it something like this... IE engine 85%, Gecko engine 10%, Mac based 4%, "other" < 1%? I'm pretty sure on most site statistics that anything using the KHTML engine is rounded down to zero statistics wise, isn't it? Not really a big market to alienate yourself from *ducks*

RE: Some clarifications of position
by Ian on Wed 4th May 2005 13:49 UTC

Second, to meianoite, employing someone who works on another project does not make that project yours. OSX is a fork of BSD, there is nothing wrong with that and I don't understand your rabid need to defend it as solely being from Apple. My gripe is mainly that Apple's press corp implies enthusiastic cooperation with Open Source developers in order to encourage them to develop on their platform.

What's BSD? FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD? BSD is just a family name, something tying all the forked BSD projects back to 4.4BSD which itself was derived from earlier BSDs which were forks of AT&T's UNIX(although BSD code was merged back into UNIX).

But, OSX isn't a fork of BSD. There's no such single entity called BSD. OSX uses freely available BSD derived code(FreeBSD specifically) in it's kernel and userland. The BSD bits in OSX or Darwin can't be removed and used as an operating system.

Read this, it might clear a few things up. Cheers!

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch.html

RE: again
by molnarcs on Wed 4th May 2005 14:11 UTC

KHTML developers are not "whining" - they criticize those who maintain the myth that Apple is playing nice with open source devs. They don't. And it is a dumb choice on their (apple's part).

You don't have to be a zealot to approve of many things Apple does. They make an excellent OS, a great apps, good hardware, etc. In the past they made some mistakes as well. The key to success is to recognize when someone makes a mistake. Zealotry (descibing KHTML devs as whiners because they dare to criticize APPLE) - is counterproductive. Why is Apple's choice bad? It is quite simple. While I cannot really see the benefit of of not cooperating, I can easily describe the benefits of cooperation:

Apple and KHTML devs have different sets of priorities. As a result, it is not only difficult to merge back changes because apple does not give enough information (which is really nothing - they have their changelogs, and giving them to khtml devs takes nothing). A significant problem is that Apple's code is not up to KDE's standards. Apple priority is to have a feature working by a certain deadline, meanwhile KHTML devs put equal emphasis on code quality and optimizations. Now if they cooperated from the beginning with KDE developers, than everyone Apple devs/users, KDE devs/users would have gained, because Apple could have integrated KHTML's code-cleanup work and KHTML devs might have integrated Apple's features work. Apple missed this opportunity, they made a bad choice. So you might go ahead and call KHTML devs whiners - or come up with excuses for Apple's behaviour. But if you really like APPLE, think for a moment: isn't it better for Apple (and for its userbase) if mistakes are recognized, so they can learn not to make them again? Or are you (this is a generic you - we have seen opinions from various users that suggests such thinking) such a zealot that you think everything APPLE does is perfect?

I'm not sure that the situation can be solved now that the two codebases diverged that much. But it is worth a try - and KHTML developer's criticism should be supported, especially by APPLE fans - begin cooperating now, so and perhaps in a few years you won't have this kind of situation - quote from a core KHTML developer:

" Actually the biggest problem right now is that Apple are not keeping up with code-cleanup. We constantly try to develop more elegant easier to maintain code, where as Apple wants the right features - right now.
Safari is basically still KHTML from KDE 3.1 with a ton of bug fixes and features. Many of the features takes time to port because they do not live up to our coding standards."

@Donald Grayson
by Matt on Wed 4th May 2005 14:13 UTC

Donald, for the last frickin' time man, OS X is _not_ a fork of BSD...

Did you even go to the wikipedia entry for XNU that a previous poster mentioned?

Here is a great breakdown of the OS X architecture:
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch.html

Re: Browser Marginalisation
by Donald Grayson on Wed 4th May 2005 14:22 UTC

Apple's current market share is at 4%. Since Safari only works on Apple computers then that is the highest number they can achieve. Since many people use Firefox or IE on Mac, I'm sure the webstats are much lower, although webstats are flaky to begin with and really should be averaged from as many websites as possible.

Numbers for non-OS X Unix and Unix-like operating systems vary from 6%-8% and browser use depends on DE choice (KDE/Gnome/etc.) and user agent settings. However, the potential userbase is larger than Safari can claim.

So yes, in my estimation Safari would be better served by closer ties to KHTML as it is more likely that a user/developer will have access to Konqueror than Safari.

As for the code, obfuscation was a bad choice of language on my part, as it implies a deliberate act to make their code useless. Perhaps I should have used indifference. Simply giving the KHTML devs CVS access would help a great deal in their attempts to reintegrate Safari code back into KHTML.

RE: Re: Browser Marginalisation
by Matt on Wed 4th May 2005 14:32 UTC

Apple's current market share is at 4%.

Of what market? Desktop systems, workstations, web servers, etc?

You do make a valid point though; Safari and Konquerer users are a minority in the web-browsing world, it certainly would make things easier for web developers if they both used the same KHTML base.

@Matt
by Donald Grayson on Wed 4th May 2005 14:33 UTC

From Kernelthread:

Darwin 7.0.x (corresponding to Mac OS X 10.3.x) consists of over 250 packages. Many of these are Apple packages (including the Mac OS X kernel and various drivers), while the others originate from *BSD, GNU, etc.

Early versions of Mach had monolithic kernels, with much of BSD's code in the kernel. Mach 3.0 was the first microkernel implementation.

XNU's Mach component is based on Mach 3.0, although it's not used as a microkernel. The BSD subsystem is part of the kernel and so are various other subsystems that are typically implemented as user-space servers in microkernel systems.

XNU's BSD component uses FreeBSD as the primary reference codebase (although some code might be traced to other BSDs). Darwin 7.x (Mac OS X 10.3.x) uses FreeBSD 5.x. As mentioned before, BSD runs not as an external (or user-level) server, but is part of the kernel itself.

The kernel uses FreeBSD code, many of the subsystems are taken from BSD and GNU sources. It's not a fork then what is it cause it didn't walk out of an Apple or NeXT clean room either.

Re: @Donald Grayson
by Anonymous on Wed 4th May 2005 14:39 UTC

Its called a "Chimera"

I actually installed it just now..
by Bas on Wed 4th May 2005 15:50 UTC

I just installed this new OpenDarwin on a firewire drive attached to my G5. It's my first experience with OpenDarwin and it sure feels a lot different from the FreeBSD and Linux that I'm accustomed to. It also seems faster than Debian which is on the internal HDD, but that should figure since OpenDarwin was made for this particular hardware.

Anyhow, I'm testing this software because I need a heavy duty web server that will be integrated into an all-Mac LAN. Since this runs off a HFS+ filesystem, it should be easy to use Apple's OSX tools for backups and imaging.

From the looks of it (have only been using it for a few minutes), OpenDarwin gives me a lot of control for a much better price than OSX Server. I don't need no resource hogging GUI such as Aqua on a server anyway so OD's existence seems more than valid to me.

still at it i see
by andrew on Wed 4th May 2005 16:02 UTC

I am not an Apple zealot, but, I guess some people posting have no idea what the purpose of a for profit corp is all about. Apple doesn't clean up their code, wow....what a crisis. Come on, if that is not whining, then what is. Or is it just that the KHTML people like to have control, and want to tell Apple how to code, how much to spend, what to give back, how to give it back, how much to sell the OS for, etc, etc...be real. They gave out the code, with all the new features in it. Just look at it, try to make sense of it, add those features if desired, but don't complain because you don't like to look at ugly code.

If you want to classify OSX s fork of FreeBSD, then you need to call it a fork of MACH also. And whatever Darwin is, it's free to you to take the technology from.

And, to the whiners of the fanboy universe, I just have this to say. If your way is so much better, then why is Apple's "fork" of BSD/MACH/UNIX so much better than your precious work? Even with their ugly, unreadable code.

X11
by Anonymous on Wed 4th May 2005 16:24 UTC

Darwin comes with it's own implementation of X11 - and it rules.

Re: @Donald Grayson et al
by BIl on Wed 4th May 2005 16:54 UTC

Ok first off, BSD!=FreeBSD
Once upon a time (the 70's and 80's) there was an os called BSD, a unix varient that had evolved from the original AT&T unix. Over time several companies took that BSD codebase and used it as starting points for their own OSs (SunOS and NeXTStep being the most famous ones both in the early 80's) and developed them in their own directions. Development of the BSD project ceased with 4.4BSD, and free software projects appeared to carry on its legacy (leading to FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD).

Therefore there is no BSD project and certainly no BSD hackers that Apple is ripping code off from. To claim darwin is a fork of FreeBSD is wrong. They might both be regarded as forks of the original BSD, but descendants is probably a better word, BSD was a common ancestor to them both but they have both evolved in different ways over time.

Apple generally keep darwin in sync with FreeBSD espeacially the userland tools (why reinvent ls?), but it isn't FreeBSD (FreeBSD doesn't even have a PPC port). I know some of the command line utilities on Tiger have been changed to improve HFS+ filesystem support so maybe they've drifted apart a bit recently, they're certainly not talking about FreeBSD quite as much as they were when Panther was released. The key phrase here really is "in sync" not "copied", or "forked", or "locked together".

If all development of FreeBSD ceased tommorrow we could still expect OSX 10.5 in 18 months time and it would still have darwin 9.0 as its kernel.

@meianoite
by Rayiner Hashem on Wed 4th May 2005 17:11 UTC

Um, exactly what are does your reply to Donald Grayson consist of? Do you doubt that Darwin is largely Mach 3.0 + 4.4BSD-Lite2? If so, download the damn sourcecode for both and read it. At NeXT, there were changes in the VM, and at Apple there were changes to the filesystem and networking code, but most files are still quite recognizably 4.4BSD-Lite2.

@Lumbergh
by Rayiner Hashem on Wed 4th May 2005 17:13 UTC

You really need to stop using your gut and start using your head. What's a more likely reason for the KHTML developers to be pissed? That they're having an ideological conflict with Apple, or that everybody claims that Apple is doing this great thing for KHTML when they're not? You have morons claiming "Apple has this great synergy with KDE developers", when it's just not true. That's where the anger is directed, not at the fact that OS X is proprietory.

RE: Donald Grayson
by Ian on Wed 4th May 2005 17:32 UTC

The kernel uses FreeBSD code, many of the subsystems are taken from BSD and GNU sources. It's not a fork then what is it cause it didn't walk out of an Apple or NeXT clean room either.

The issue might be what I consider a fork, and what you consider a fork. They use FreeBSD in their kernel and other parts of the operating system. They didn't take an existing FreeBSD version in full and change it like Dragonfly did. OSX is a convergance of technology, not a fork of any specific one(short of maybe xFree).

Saying OSX is a fork of BSD(again, which one?) is like saying windows xp is a fork of DOS because there's a 16 bit subsystem in xp which allows you to use some older DOS programs and utilities.

@Lumbergh
by Teravius on Wed 4th May 2005 18:03 UTC

We hear this same crap from you everytime. Almost anything Open Source you have a problem with, especially Linux in any form, even though you claim to be a Gentoo user. And from you we get a healthy diatribe against Stallman regularly as well as against Slashdot. Does it ever occur to you even for a moment that you are just as big a whiner and a fanboy and a troll as all these people that constantly berate? That you are in fact no different from them in any way, shape or form? Or how about the fact that you never answer tough questions like this, rather you just go on raving about this fanatic or that one?

@Bas
by P on Wed 4th May 2005 18:48 UTC

I was just wondering, with all of your incredible insight, how exactly having a GUI sitting at a login prompt, or having a terminal open is a "resource" hog. I want real examples of what is going on, when the machine is sitting there doing nothing that is going to bring the web server to it's knees?

Not only that, what on earth are you going to be running on your DSL local lan, that any amount of resources being taken up is going to effect?

Please enlighten us.

@Rayiner
by Lumbergh on Wed 4th May 2005 19:57 UTC

It has nothing to do with people claiming some "synergy" between the KHTML and Apple. It has to do with every Apple thread now being hijacked by a bunch of morons crying that Apple isn't playing nice with KHTML developers.

You need to start using your head if you don't see it.

@Lumbergh
by andrew on Wed 4th May 2005 20:38 UTC

I see it, I know what you are talking about. Apple has benefited the Open Source community, whether as much as people want, or not, they still have helped open source. The benefits that they brought, whether you see them as minor or major, is better than nothing at all. Why can't people see that. STUBBORN, PIG HEADED, i can keep describing the reasons why they can't see it. Maybe Apple should pull all their open sources and tell the open source community to screw off, since the open source community seems to be ungrateful anyways.

But, Apple won't. I think their main reason to open source the kernel was to get x86 support, so they can release OSX on x86 computers in the future. Hell, I support that, anything that would keep me from having to use windows at all. I use a lot of linux distro's and FreeBSD, but unfortunately, I am still stuck with windows for cetain things.

PearPC just doesn't cut it for my Apple usage, and I am too poor to be able to get an Apple at the present time.

@andrew
by Beavis on Wed 4th May 2005 23:01 UTC

since the open source community seems to be ungrateful anyways.

No only a group of few babies that spend all day blogging give the OSS community an ungreatful appearance.

I think their main reason to open source the kernel was to get x86 support, so they can release OSX on x86 computers in the future.

You must be on drugs. Apple is commited to PowerPC and IBM.

I am too poor to be able to get an Apple at the present time.

The eMac is only $799 or $749 with a student discount. The iBook is only $999 or $899 with a student discount. Despite being on the low end of Apple's hardware profile, these are great machines that can keep up with my 3GHz Dell laptop that was $1900.

great machines, i agree
by andrew on Thu 5th May 2005 00:39 UTC

No, I am not on drugs, and I still believe that Apple might try to enter the x86 market. I know they are commited to the Power PC arch, but still, it would be smart business to get into x86 before or around longhorn comes out.

And sorry to blast the whole Open Source community, I know that most developers aren't as ungrateful as some. But the whining is pretty annoying, defiently with the wacky expectations some people have toward Apple.

no x86
by Werner on Thu 5th May 2005 11:24 UTC

It simply makes no sense for apple to move to x86. Their whole concept is based around being different, and from the hardware side having a PowerPC is the only thing which still makes them different than the average asian cloner which dumps its boxes over Dell into the western market.

Steve Jobs tried to enter the x86 market with NeXTStep and failed miserably, so why should Apple even bother to go x86 and being crushed in between Linux and Windows, IBM has a good PowerPC lineup, which Apple has yet to use, which means Apple can move the high end stuff to a Power5 derivate (g6) in the forseeable future and later it can move into a power5->cell based system (g7) afterwards with sort of unlimited expandability in the grid area. The main problem apple now has that it needs a low power version of the g5 (which is based upon a power4 design) real soon now, the notebook market still is hot and apple has a problem on their hands, while it has a good lineup of machines which all lack processing power and a good name.

@werner
by andrew on Thu 5th May 2005 13:17 UTC

Umm, I wouldn't say that the mac laptop market lacks power. Last time I checked, a 1.8 G4 is roughly equal to a 3 gig x86 processor.

They also tried it with Rhapsody also...and NeXT was so ugly, and ghetto, of course it flopped. How many years ago did they try with NeXT?

Apple has a better name now, with more available software. Getting their feet into the x86 market, and owning the PPC market would generate more revenue for them. Isn't that what a business is about, making money, not just being different?

@ Vesselin Peev
by Smartpatrol on Thu 5th May 2005 16:45 UTC

OSNews has deteriorated in the couple of years I've been following it. Same for many other forums on the net. Similarly to what you said already, the world would be a much better place if we didn't criticise each other so much.

sob Why can't we all just get along! /sob

Come on! the posters here are calling bullshit on the bullshit! Alot of the F/OSS posters here post factless information and FUD about F/OSS. Very few of them have any practical experience working in large IT environments. They spout the F/OSS party line becasue it feels right or its in fashion. This only hurts F/OSS in the long run becasue and reenforces the common perception that F/OSS users advocates are scuffy haired neo-communists or nerdy geek boys that have never kissed a girl.

I agree
by andrew on Thu 5th May 2005 18:38 UTC

I agree totally with that last post. There are plenty of great people working on open source projects, but it only takes the few KHTML types to ruin the image of OSS. Let's be honest, there are many reasons people create open source apps, from education, to wanting the freedom to make what they want, to creating alternative product, all the way down to just coding stuff to try and get a job. Some open source is commercially backed, some open source is stuck being open source due to componets being GPL'ed.

I am willing to bet that a lot of people who complain that companies like Apple for not doing enough, come from societies where a corporation making a profit isn't as important as it is in America. Apple will code their products in a way that will allow them to make the most profit. They could care less about it's readablity to the open source community. Maybe they figure that if they can read it, then so should any other expierenced programmer.

The point a lot of people try to get across, is that Apple is for profit entity. The main goal of the company is to make money...nothing more, nothing less. Sure, they have other goals that fall underneath their main, but those goals are designed to bring in profit.

I am not an anti KDE project, pro Apple poster here, but I do know when people are out of line, and the KHTML folk that complain about Apple are. One post earlier (I'm too lazy to go and find it), stated that it would be best for Apple to do things KHTML's way. That's funny, considering the KHTML people aren't responsible for livelyhood of Apple employee's and shareholders.