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 308783
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: What BSD could have been
by nevali on Tue 8th Apr 2008 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What BSD could have been"
nevali
Member since:
2006-10-12


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.


Go and read up on “compatible licenses”. Just because a project is open source doesn't mean its license is magically compatible with every other open source project ever created. The Linux kernel includes GPL-licensed portions of FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD: those modifications can't be fed back into the BSDs they came from, because doing so would taint the license; the same applies here: to port the code back would cause chunks of the source BSD operating system to be licensed under the APSL, which the BSD folk don't want!

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


HOW would they? Since when are ATI's drivers open source? Since when do the other BSDs use Aqua (which, incidentally, isn't available as part of Darwin)? And since when do the other BSDs use Darwin's IOKit driver model?

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


Again, read up on “compatible licensing”. Also look up the driver model of Darwin, which is fundamentally different to that of any of the other BSDs.

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.


Those applications don't even work on Darwin, let alone another operating system entirely!

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 !


I don't need to explain it. You're talking largely about Mac OS X, which nobody ever claimed was open source. This entire article concerns Darwin, which is an Open Source, Free Software, operating system which contains a subset (go and look that up, as you're clearly unsure what it means) of Mac OS X's capabilities and technologies.

Seriously, what on earth are you smoking, and can I get some?

Reply Parent Score: 4

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Quoting myself : "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 !"

I am not discussing license compatibility.

HOW would they?


Same code is compatible with itself , ever heard of Firefox and GNU/Linux distribution , etc ... , I guess not.

Since when are ATI's drivers open source?


Talking compatibility with Darwin ... Rather if it was Real Open Source the same code would be inside the other BSD kernel.

Since when do the other BSDs use Aqua


They don't , and they could if they had the same code as in Darwin ...

"which, incidentally, isn't available as part of Darwin)? And since when do the other BSDs use Darwin's IOKit driver model?"


But yet your claiming it's Open Source ... Your rather proving my Apple NOT CONTRIBUTING to other BSD point ...

"Again, read up on �€�compatible licensing�€�"


Again , I don't need to read compatible licensing , because I am not talking about license. It's a rather moot point too because the BSD protection clause as no known License incompatibility. But since the code is not real Open Source it's not availaible for inclusion in other BSD.

"look up the driver model of Darwin, which is fundamentally different to that of any of the other BSDs."


That's my point , why is something said Open Source fundamentally different from the code that it originate from ?

"Those applications don't even work on Darwin,"


http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/...

- Microsoft Office 2008 for MAc
- Adobe photoshop element 6

"I don't need to explain it"


Yet I see another reply from you ... Wrote it first this time , one can hope ...

"You're talking largely about Mac OS X"


No , about Darwin witch you claim is entirely availaible and Open Source ...

"which nobody ever claimed was open source"


BSD is Open Source , you claimed Mac OS X was BSD , only you still believed in your nonsense ...

" This entire article concerns Darwin"


Yes.

"which is an Open Source, Free Software"


No , but certified as such by both OSI under OSD and by the FSF under the free Software guidelines.

"operating system"


Hell no !!!

"which contains a subset (go and look that up, as you're clearly unsure what it means) of Mac OS X's capabilities and technologies."


No , but you clearly failed Open Source development 101.

Because under your redefined Open Source definition ,

Darwin ( open Source ) and Darwin ( in Mac OS X ) are two different product , where as if it had been real Open Source both would be the same source code under different branding/name.

"Seriously,"


There is nothing serious about you.

what on earth are you smoking,


I don't smoke anything , nor do I take medication or any drugs of any kind and my sanity is getting checked weekly due to my job.

and can I get some?


Yes , stop taking drugs , reality and concept get easier and simplier to understand. It's called common sense and having some sense.

In real Open Source ( witch is a development method ) there is no closed code or license switching needed or approved , the source is always available , people share the source amongst themself to improve the source. There is no other product , derivative or original.

Novell will share it with Red Hat , who will share it with Debian , who will share it with Novell. Thats why it's called real Open Source.

Debian will share it with BSD , Debian will share it with BEOS , or with Windows or Mac OS X , because it's Open Source.

Apache will run on any OS and share it's code.

Firefox will run on any OS and share it's code.

Yet Darwin don't even share it's source code with the code it originated from or is the same as the one in Mac OS X.

BSD is itself a darwin awards ...

Edited 2008-04-09 00:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Talking compatibility with Darwin ... Rather if it was Real Open Source the same code would be inside the other BSD kernel.

The ati drivers used in OSX depend on proprietary additions which aren't available without explicit permission from Apple.

They don't , and they could if they had the same code as in Darwin ...

You are confusing two completely different things here. Any Apple-branded proprietary libraries and drivers are not part of Darwin and thus aren't distributed freely. Just think about it: Linux IS open-source and all, but you can still use proprietary nVidia drivers on it, and proprietary software on it, and Linux STILL is open-source. The same applies here: the base system (Darwin) is open-source, there just are proprietary libraries, drivers and applications running on top of it.

Reply Parent Score: 3