Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Oct 2007 20:49 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
PC-BSD Jan Stedehouder has used PC-BSD for thirty days to see what living with it is like. On day thirty, he concludes: "Does PC-BSD have the potential to be a serious contender for the open source desktop? I answered that question with a yes, because the potential is there. The solid FreeBSD roots, the very strong and very accessible information, the friendly and mature community and the PBI system provide the foundations for that potential. I don't think it is ready now and I couldn't recommend it yet to someone in the early stages of moving away from Windows to an open source desktop. But I do think that the PC-BSD team has the right target audience in mind and is building an system and a support system that addresses it's needs."
Thread beginning with comment 276503
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?
by meianoite on Sat 6th Oct 2007 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSDs not good desktop?"
Member since:

Of course it's a BSD. It uses the mach kernel with FreeBSD 5 userland stuff. Seems pretty BSD to me.

Repeat after me:

XNU is not Mach. XNU is not Mach. XNU is not Mach.

And isn't FreeBSD's kernel either. But a heavily modified amalgamation of the two? That's better, but don't forget the completely reworked VFS and device driver API, which definitely count towards entitling XNU its standalone life and recognition.

And the FreeBSD 5 sync was done during Panther's development days (10.3), and was evidently updated to more recent codebases since them (again, evidently, when it made sense; plenty of stuff is comprised of API wrappers to functionality built by Apple engineers -- which, in case one didn't notice, Apple has, it's not simply lifting code from the "upstream" FreeBSD CVS; FreeBSD is not XNU's upstream).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: BSDs not good desktop?
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 18:50 in reply to "RE[3]: BSDs not good desktop?"
Oliver Member since:

Mac OS X is based on NextStep and NextStep was based on BSD 4.x. Furthermore MacOS X is based to some extent on NetBSD too.

Reply Parent Score: 2

meianoite Member since:

Mac OS X is based on NextStep and NextStep was based on BSD 4.x. Furthermore MacOS X is based to some extent on NetBSD too.

I'm so not arguing over this.

Look, I'm probably as knowledgeable about Mac OS X as you are (and maybe, just maybe, perhaps, a little more, as I'm a complete sucker for OSs, specially those related to BSDs and BeOS), but don't take my word on anything. Take Amit Singh's word, as he has a lot of experience on everything Mac OS X, is currently employed by Google as Manager of Macintosh Engineering, and published a really decent book on it. If you want to know the technical history of how XNU was formed, here's a free companion document for his book (which I truly recommend):

(BTW, I'm not pointing fingers towards you, but how the hell did my previous comment went from 4 modpoints to 3? Did I offend anyone, went way off-topic (we're still talking about FreeBSD when we discuss its relation to XNU), or advertised my services? This modding system is getting way too childish... Perhaps OSNews should implement a Digg-style modding system, where "diggs" and "burials" are displayed separately?)

Reply Parent Score: 2

Doc Pain Member since:

As a final addition, you may look into FreeBSD's BSD family tree and see where Mac OS X has a relationship to FreeBSD:

Reply Parent Score: 4