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 308779
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

1a. Lost cause to try and explain to you what **Real** means. You clearly show that you know only what someone else told you.

1b. Your actually agreeing with me when I said Darwin is not under the BSD but BSD based ...

1c. Actually that's where your wrong , but then that subject and discussion you where not part of until now and still are not asked to be consulted on.

2a. No , some source is availaible but it's incomplete.

2b. Just because your redefining everything , that don't mean reality and I have to agree with you , work on real Open Source project for a change and you have acess to Source code at all time. There is no original , derivative or other project in open source.

You know Real Free Software and Real open Source is not defined against GNU and the GPL nor by the FSF and OSI , it's pathetic to read people such as yourself who are ALWAYS comparing it to the GPL.

Case and point the GPL is not used by Darwin or Apple.

3. Two wrong as usual. GNU/Linux OEM sale register and due to your twisted comment I know you get it that I was talking about Both Service and OEM box witch are in decline for BSD.

4. Corporation friendly means : it create corporation , that use it and that contribute back to BSD. That is what mostly lacking in BSD ...

Also it's a trow away clause as in don't sue me , it's not even a license , License give written permission.

5. Apple is not BSD , BSD based yes , releasing , promoting fostering cooperating fully with BSD , NO.

Proprietary EULA

There NOT using BSD for there commercial Licensing ...

6a No , BSD based.

6b There not using BSD as is or contributing to any BSD projects be it financially , in code or development.


look , if Darwin was Open Source and BSD the other BSD would work perfectly on Apple hardware due to similar hardware support as they would be using the same code , they don't.

Also they would support ATI to the same degree that Mac OS X does as they would use the same code , they don't.

And a very long list of hardware that Mac OS X and Darwin support that other BSD simply don't.

But that's not all , Office and Adobe and other Apple Mac OS X software would also be supported natively on BSD as they would share the exact same code , they dont.

How do you explain that ? Not asking you at all , I know : You don't , you turn around it and redefine thing to fit your bushit !

Reply Parent Score: -1