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 308737
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What BSD could have been
by Doc Pain on Tue 8th Apr 2008 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: What BSD could have been"
Doc Pain
Member since:
2006-10-08

Wow, prejudices and unfounded assumptions are fun! :-)

Chuckle ... What are your criteria for failure and success. They are obviously not the same as the BSD developers. Actually, they would reach the exact opposite of your conclusions.


It's just where you set your priorities. In terms of making money, maybe. In terms of serving their users well - that would be my priority - the BSDs are really successful; it's worth mentioning that almost every OS is intended to a special audience, and definitely, the audiences of the BSDs and the audiences of other OSes aren't much the same.

The BSD are not catering the desktop crowd. Their aim is to be excellent servers, and they most certainly are. That is success, it is as simple as that.


To ... erm, cater ... :-) the desktop crowd, there are systems that are based upon BSDs, intending to make the BSD easier to newbies, but without breaking compatibility to the underlying OS. Examples are PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, both based upon FreeBSD, with different grades of compatibility.

That companies are using BSD code is not a failure. It is actually something the developers want.


That's true. The BSDL has often been criticized to be a kind of "rape me license" because it allows things that the GPL or commercial licenses don't. That's nothing bad per se, and, as you mentioned, this is well intended.

I'd like to add that I'm using BSD for server and desktop purposes (productivity, programming, multimedia, video, audio, gaming etc.) nearly exclusively (along with a bit of Solaris and IRIX) for many years now, and I do feel that the BSDs are what they wanted to be - no "what they could have been" - because if they would be something highly different, I'm not sure if I would use them under these circumstances, for example, if the kind of how documentation is done would change into the way that's sadly to be seen with Linux (you can easily imagine other examples where BSD is most successful). Furthermore, since I got my defective iBook working, I develop into a fan of Mac OS X. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 4

TechniCookie Member since:
2005-11-09

To ... erm, cater ... :-) the desktop crowd, there are systems that are based upon BSDs, intending to make the BSD easier to newbies, but without breaking compatibility to the underlying OS. Examples are PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, both based upon FreeBSD, with different grades of compatibility.

That is true but doesn't change the fact that the underlying OS is being designed and developed with servers in mind. Darwin includes many features in the kernel to improve experience for the desktop user.

Additionally, the discussion in this thread has been distinguishing between the DE and the underlying system and in the case of both DesktopBSD and PC-BSD they are as you say yourself both FreeBSD underneath.

Reply Parent Score: 1