Linked by David Adams on Tue 8th Apr 2008 16:33 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives "I am very happy about the direction in which the Mac OS X GUI is going, although sadly many Mac users aren't interested in (or don't know about) the "lower levels" of the Macintosh Operating System. Have you ever wondered why the Terminal greets you with the words "Welcome to Darwin"? Why do BSD and Mac OS share certain bits of code? Why does Wikipedia describe Mac OS X as a graphical operating system? Today we're going to take a look at the underlying open source technology which powers your fancy Leopard OS - the hidden core set of components, named Darwin."
Permalink for comment 308719
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What BSD could have been
by Moulinneuf on Tue 8th Apr 2008 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: What BSD could have been"
Moulinneuf
Member since:
2005-07-06

Could have been??? more users use BSD (Darwin, FBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD...) on their desktop than any other open source OS.


1) Darwin is not real Open Source or real Free Software. (1) It's not under BSD either (2)
2) Gnu/Linux as far more user's. (3)

A) Apple as 24 million user's , FBSD , NetBSD,OpenBSD don't have 200 000 user's put togheter.

The BSD's are great operating systems, stable, fast and very useful.


That's why Zero server OEM ship it , that's why zero Desktop OEM ship it.


BSD protection clause???????? The BSD license is truly an open license. The BSD license is IMO the best OOL out there.


License give permission , the BSD protection clause give no permission at all.

" Anti-commercial??? again I think your views are AFU."


Only Apple sale and control it.

" Apple is a very commercial entity."


Yes , but I was talking about BSD. Apple is not BSD , BSD based yes , but not BSD licensed.

" The BSD is more commercial friendly then GPLx."


Even Apple is not BSD , so who is left that make a BSD commercial contender that rival and beat only Red hat? NO ONE , Against Novell ? No ONE , etc ...

" They both have their place but I'll stick to BSD licenses.
"

No , otherwise there would be a billion dollar BSD company , and Darwin is not under BSD ...

-----

(1) I know that the OSI and FSF certify them as such.

But on record the OSI and FSF have problem explaining how it's impossible to find the last source , share the source , copy it for personnal use legally and make a copy to a friend or make a derivative to share or sale to other's.

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

License Apple Public Source License

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

Edited 2008-04-08 19:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1