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."
Thread beginning with comment 308705
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What BSD could have been
by krreagan on Tue 8th Apr 2008 19:06 UTC in reply to "What BSD could have been"
krreagan
Member since:
2008-04-08

Darwin is a constant reminder of what BSD should and could have been had they put the effort , time , ressource and consideration in it that Apple did.

It show the failure of BSD as a protection clause and that it also show that Open Source alone don't work.

Its anti-commercial as only one entity profit from it and do control it.

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

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

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

Anti-commercial??? again I think your views are AFU. Apple is a very commercial entity. The BSD is more commercial friendly then GPLx. They both have their place but I'll stick to BSD licenses.

TBM

Edited 2008-04-08 19:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

I think he's saying that the noncommercially produced freebsd, netbsd and openbsd combined are not as successful as the noncommercial but GPL linux or the commercially produced macosx.

Now firefox has proven to be quite successful. Firefox in turn has increased demand for non GPL (or at least, only LGPL) code such as cairo graphics. When looking for a new memory allocator for firefox 3, they couldn't consider Hoard (www.hoard.org) since it was GPL.

Reply Parent Score: 1

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

nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

I'm not sure why I'm replying to a Moulinneuf comment, but, for the benefit of everybody else reading these comments:

1a. Darwin most definitely is “real” Open Source according to the OSD (which, given that you capitalised Open Source, is obviously what you're referring to).

1b. Darwin, under the terms of the APSL 2, is released under a Free Software license (see http://lists.apple.com/archives/Publicsource-announce/2003/Aug/msg0...). It's not GPL-compatible, but GNU don't believe that detracts from software being classified as Free, and they most definitely know better than you or I, given they defined the term in the first place.

1c. Neither the OSI nor the FSF have any problem explaining how to find the source, share the source, copy it for personal use or make copies for a friend, make derivative work or sell it to other people because the license expressly permits those things. Are you perhaps thinking of the original APSL 1.0 or minorly-revised APSL 1.1?

2a. The source is available from http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

2b. Just because a version of Mac OS X has been released doesn't imply that a version of Darwin has been as well—the two are distinct products on slightly different release cycles.

3. Server OEMs may not ship FreeBSD, but plenty of hosting providers run FreeBSD. If you counted operating system usage by OEM sales, Linux wouldn't even register on most people's scales as existing, which is clearly a flawed methodology.

4. The BSD license was intended to be corporation-friendly. If any of the NetBSD, FreeBSD, or OpenBSD projects wanted to steer things differently, they could have done: they could have released their respective operating systems under the GPL if they wanted to (note that Linux and glibc, as well as numerous other pieces of GPL and LGPL code include snippets of BSD-licensed code, thanks to the non-advertising-clause BSD license being broadly compatible with many different licenses).

5. The very fact that Apple was able to release the commercial Mac OS X including portions of FreeBSD, NetBSD and CMU Mach (all of which are BSD-licensed) cements firmly the notion that the BSDs are more “commercial-friendly” (as touted). By definition, it can't possibly mean the reverse. The only thing that Apple's licensing of Darwin under the APSL indicates is that Apple didn't want to be quite as “commercial-friendly” with Darwin as the other BSD projects.

6a. Apple is “BSD”, because the operating systems they ship (the only operating systems they ship, and the operating systems people often buy their products for) are all demonstrably BSD-based, even if much of it is no longer licensed under the terms of the 3- or 4-clause BSD licenses. The code still has BSD lineage. Great big chunks of it.

6b. Apple is, by definition, a billion dollar BSD company.

Reply Parent Score: 9

TechniCookie Member since:
2005-11-09

It would seem you are basing your arguments on the assumption that Darwin is not BSD. That is correct, however, neither are the other so called BSDs. BSD is a UNIX that ended distribution in 1995. The contemporary so called BSDs are all BSD derived, and them being licensed under the BSD license doesn't make them any more the BSD UNIX. This fact undermines your arguments as they are based on a false assumption.

Reply Parent Score: 3

segedunum 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.

I've always chuckled at the way many BSD advocates try and portray the disadvantage of the BSD license in producing code and software that is used to provide others like Apple with a free ride to produce totally different and incompatible systems. "Oh well" the BSD people say. "It makes us the most used desktop system around!"

Keep thinking the above if it gives you some pleasure, and some comfort.

Reply Parent Score: 4

nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

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

I've always chuckled at the way many BSD advocates try and portray the disadvantage of the BSD license in producing code and software that is used to provide others like Apple with a free ride to produce totally different and incompatible systems. "Oh well" the BSD people say. "It makes us the most used desktop system around!"

Keep thinking the above if it gives you some pleasure, and some comfort.
"

Surely that depends on what your aims are?

If your aim is to write code and know that millions of people use it because your license is so liberal, and you get satisfaction from knowing that (evidently lots of people do, after all), then who's been disadvantaged?

If your aim is to write code with the intention that nobody can fork it in a way which prevents others from doing the same thing (as per the GPL and similar licenses), then obviously the BSD situation isn't going to be amenable to you.

Neither is inherently right or wrong, it's just that different people value different things.

(As an example: I build websites for clients for a living; I know that thousands of people use my code every day, and to me that's what makes the job worth doing; they don't even know that I'm responsible for it (unless something goes wrong and I have to talk to them!). Other folk don't really get anything from that scenario, and would much rather, say, build a site for themselves, and enjoy the fact that people know who built and runs it).

Reply Parent Score: 6