Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 13th Jan 2006 17:55 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives Possibly in fear that hackers will be able to find backdoors in the Intel Darwin version and allow OSX to run on PCs other than Macs, Apple has only posted the sources of Darwin for PPC for the latest version.
Order by: Score:
Pretty misleading news item
by _LH_ on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:03 UTC
_LH_
Member since:
2005-07-20

And this applies only to the new 10.4.4 version. Old versions are available just as before so the description written by Eugenia is pretty misleading.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Pretty misleading news item
by de_wizze on Fri 13th Jan 2006 21:14 UTC in reply to "Pretty misleading news item"
de_wizze Member since:
2005-10-31

But the question is forward looking ... will it be in the future.

Reply Score: 1

Misleading?
by sigzero on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:07 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

How is it misleading? I believe that the Intel version is 10.4.4 and so that is that only version that would be affected by this. Since the subject says "Darwin for Intel" it would have to imply 10.4.4.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Misleading?
by _LH_ on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:14 UTC in reply to "Misleading?"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

Darwin has been available for PC since Darwin 1.3.1 (Os X 10.0). You can checkt at http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ if you don't believe me.

Reply Score: 4

only a speed bump
by JoeBuck on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:15 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

Someone will figure it out; it's just a matter of time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Misleading.
by leech on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:16 UTC
leech
Member since:
2006-01-10

There are other versions that are older that work on the Intel. I was confused by the summary as well. So doesn't this in essence mean they changed the license for it? Can they even take the source code for one specific platform and change the license for it? I could understand if they just distribute the source, but no ISOs... bah, like it matters, someone will more than likely hack the full release anyhow to work on random hardware.

Leech

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Misleading.
by Archite on Sat 14th Jan 2006 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Misleading."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

Basically, the majority of their core code is BSD as well as proprietary. The BSD license does allow for the binary distribution of code with only crediting the author. One of the joys of the truly free BSD license.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Misleading.
by Lazarus on Sat 14th Jan 2006 08:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Misleading."
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"The BSD license does allow for the binary distribution of code with only crediting the author."

And agreeing to not sue the author, and that the notice must remain in place in both source and binary form. If you're gonna bash it, at least get it right ;^)

Edited 2006-01-14 08:22

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Misleading.
by Archite on Mon 16th Jan 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Misleading."
Archite Member since:
2006-01-14

Actually, I'm not bashing it. I'm a BSD user myself and prefer the BSD-license over GPL!

Reply Score: 1

Another Possibility...
by resistor on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:20 UTC
resistor
Member since:
2005-07-06

Isn't it possible that they're not releasing the source until after the first Intel Macs ship? They always wait until a few days after a release has been available to release the code. Maybe they're not considering the Intel version to be "released" until the Intel Macs hit the streets.

I think a little patience is in order.

Reply Score: 5

What?
by bsharitt on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:21 UTC
bsharitt
Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm not seeing on that page any thing that says the source code is platform specific.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What?
by Eugenia on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:27 UTC in reply to "What?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ Check the parenthesis. It says "for PowerPC". These sources are not for Intel. They don't contain the Intel boot code.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: What?
by zizban on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE: What?"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

That doesn't make any sense...it's a BSD type license...they wouldn't have to release the boot code.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: What?
by Eugenia on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What?"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Maybe it was "cheaper" for them to just not release the Intel version that try to pick and choose different parts and not open sourcing them. This process is not an easy one and not a cheap one either. Besides, they played it safe that way.

Reply Score: 5

will
Member since:
2005-06-29

Whoops - neglected to post this on the right thread. Sorry ;)

Edited 2006-01-13 18:23

Reply Score: 1

RE: Another Possibility...
by Anonymous. on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:25 UTC
Anonymous.
Member since:
2005-12-04

then why are the older versions available for x86?

Reply Score: 1

who would want to run MacOSX on a Dell?
by stephanem on Fri 13th Jan 2006 18:33 UTC
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

opendarwin is just lip service to keep the open source zealots at bay. It's worthless and I've yet to see a commercial product or any significant installation of Open Darwin.

Reply Score: 3

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

why bother? BSD/Linux are available. because an OSS project sponsored by a company is not popular does not mean that it is lip service.

Reply Score: 2

stephanem Member since:
2006-01-11

> because an OSS project sponsored by a company is not popular does not mean that it is lip service.


It does amount to lip service - ever heard of people bashing Apple and MacOSX?. No and why not?. Because all Apple has to do is say hey the kernel is open sourced and that basically shuts people up. Now what can real programmers do with Open Darwin - basically squat!.

Reply Score: 2

thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Shut who up, exactly? Mac OS X is a proprietary, non-open source operating system and they don't seem too bothered about it.

Reply Score: 2

eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

ever heard of people bashing Apple and MacOSX?

I realize you're new here, but are you also new to the Internet? Apple's the second-favorite target of malcontents, right after Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Nailed that one, 'Open', would appear to be just another buzz word to be bandied about as it suits Apple. It was pretty obvious when I went looking for a quicktime producer for linux or any other os, I recall the only thing open quicktime on linux seemed to be good for was serving up the mov's made on your mac in an expensive closed app. The open source community would be ahead of the game if it just completely ostracized them.

Reply Score: 1

DevL Member since:
2005-07-06

"Now what can real programmers do with Open Darwin - basically squat!."

Uhm...how about just about anything you can do with any other UNIX-clone out there? Just because the userbase is small, the product isnšt worthless or useless.

Reply Score: 2

Jumping the gun
by arooaroo on Fri 13th Jan 2006 19:36 UTC
arooaroo
Member since:
2005-07-06

I feel this story is slightly premature. It's not based on a (un)official statement or anything.

In the past there are x86 versions. Their faq - http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/faq.html - says:

Q. I heard that Darwin runs on Intel processor-based PCs. Is that true?
A. Yes, and we're partnering with the Darwin developer community to enhance support for this platform.


Surely we ought to wait-and-see before jumping to conclusions.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Jumping the gun
by Eugenia on Fri 13th Jan 2006 19:38 UTC in reply to "Jumping the gun"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

That FAQ is old. There is a good chance that it's out of date and Apple has taken a different decision since then.

Or, we indeed jumping the gun. Time will tell. Apple won't.

Reply Score: 5

by Lazarus on Fri 13th Jan 2006 19:55 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

I'm sure that the full source for the base system will be available in the near future, but like Eugenia said, "Time will tell."

It'd be a shame were it not to be released, but realistically, how many people are going to lose sleep over it?

Reply Score: 2

Hackness...
by eosp on Fri 13th Jan 2006 20:18 UTC
eosp
Member since:
2005-07-07

How much did the boot code change? If you really wanted to, you could theoretically use the PPC kernel, but with the Intel boot code from an older version.

Reply Score: 1

changes
by isawdrones on Fri 13th Jan 2006 20:41 UTC
isawdrones
Member since:
2005-10-25

he sources for Darwin 8.4, which correspond to Mac OS X 10.4.4 (for PowerPC), are available for download. [Jan 10 2006]

Perhaps they made some significant changes recently due to the EFI implementation, etc and the releases are not longer equivalent. At least the wording above makes it appear that way.

Everybody needs to relax. The machines arent even shipping yet.

Reply Score: 1

gah!!
by helf on Fri 13th Jan 2006 21:33 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

what the hell is with all the rampant guessing that goes on online. its stupid! not to mention annoying.

Reply Score: 2

Wait in line!
by mattboy99 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 22:09 UTC
mattboy99
Member since:
2005-07-06

I assume the EFI bootloader code was rushed since developer transition kits were BIOS based. So the last minute additions of EFI probably require some sort of internal approval process before opening up. Instead of delaying the 10.4.4 updates in general, they probably decided to just release the current PPC versions as they have in the past.

They cannot keep EFI boot loading out of darwin because that effectively kills the darwin project once PPC machines become obsolete.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wait in line!
by Alex Forster on Sat 14th Jan 2006 22:31 UTC in reply to "Wait in line!"
Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

"that effectively kills the darwin project once PPC machines become obsolete."

Exactly. Of course they're going to post the Intel source. If they don't, they kill Darwin. Remember, eventually there will be no PowerPC.

Reply Score: 1

Silly worries
by foljs on Fri 13th Jan 2006 23:44 UTC
foljs
Member since:
2006-01-09

That FAQ is old. There is a good chance that it's out of date and Apple has taken a different decision since then.

Or, we indeed jumping the gun. Time will tell. Apple won't.


What sentimentalism!!!

Apple will post the update a little later.

That's all.

Mark my words.

No reason not to, unhacability-through-obscurity is bogus.

Reply Score: 1

no subject
by makc on Sat 14th Jan 2006 11:42 UTC
makc
Member since:
2006-01-11

that's the point... "they, they, they". it's their own work, done with their money, under their licence.
probably they will release it soon, and anyway afaik they don't get that much help from outside apple. if community developers whined, they migth have a point.
not me, so i don't ;)

Reply Score: 1

Ohhh cripes, here we go again
by pecisk on Sun 15th Jan 2006 22:51 UTC
pecisk
Member since:
2005-10-20

I am tired to hear this hype about bla bla bla, we will get OS X on standard PC, bla bla bla...

I'm working with OS X and Apple products every single day, ok? And I can assure you that without Apple support OS X on standard boxes are worthless. And not only that - After three-four months you there will be posts all over the place "my OS X86 leaks memory!", "it is 500lb gorilla!", etc. OS X is _heavy_, period. And their apps leaks memory like a hell. Sure, OS X has nice parts - visual design, functionality is VERY well thought out. But I personally feel that lot of other sides of operational system are left out in the cold. For example, OS X Tiger Server has Server Admin - cool app, first with good way to edit Apache, Postfix, Bind, etc. configuration. However, it eats memory like a desert and can bring CPU of your server to its knees. Yeah, sure, my pick is that they waited for going over to Intel so they can debug and optimize it then on it.

OS X is nice, but it has it's own share of problems. Personally I would pick my Gentoo installation with GNOME over it any day. Still, for artists it is OS for them without any doubt.

post scriptum - Expose will make you to hit F9/F10 regurarly on your another Windows/Linux station, be warned ;)

Reply Score: 1