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 308785
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: What BSD could have been
by nevali on Tue 8th Apr 2008 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What BSD could have been"
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

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not even funny anymore because almost nobody get to use BSD code as is , they get to use BSD based code. The difference is that the BSD rights and privilege are illegally removed and that the funding and future development goes into making proprietary drivers , software and OS that are cutting in directly with BSD. The BSD are a laughing ridiculous joke as soon as you compare it to it's commercial derivative : SUN , Apple , Microsoft.

Who is disadvantaged you ask again ? the BSD themself , they are removing themself from being competitive and are dependent on others' good will and contributions at all and every level.

How come the BSD can't be on par in the fundings and contribution of code and number of user's vs project that are all 4 decade ( that's 40 years ) yougner if not less then they are themself. Why do they need the Hardware contribution of other OS distributors ? Why don't they have major one themself ?

If the lies your telling where reality and truth , then there would be no need for GNU/Linux at all , there would be no Apple as it would be made obsolete by BSD itself due to it's rate of development and it's quality of code and accepted prevelance in all aspect of computer OS.

No , BSD is inherently and completely wrong , if it where right then the majority of people who created or particpated in it in the past would still be associated with it, proud to say so too , and most people would still work at it as it is most people who have really worked on BSD and are excellent and good at what they do are doing something else.

BSD is chaos , everything goes , the problem with chaos and why it appeals to kids and people like you in theory is it's a good thing if your as blind as you are and only look at the good side witch is what people like you only do and talk about. Once you look at it's bad side it completely negate it's good side.

Sure it's fun to say millions of people use BSD code , the reality is the million use closed derivative and the reality is that it's not really fun to have ZERO support be it from BSD themself , its commercial proprietary derivative or anyone else for BSD.

BSD is fun in theory , in reality most people will work on other OS or at something else. Because there is no real demand for BSD job or any future for it.

Darwin is what BSD could have been , if BSD ad not been inherently and completely wrong.

The proof is in your example you work at building website instead of at building BSD and being paid to do so.

Reply Parent Score: 1

arielb Member since:
2006-11-15

People who support BSD believe in freedom but that means they have to actually compete. You have to fight for freedom; not hide under the skirt of lawyers and the EU. You can't just say you are for competition without accepting the possibility that you might not have what it takes. You are not entitled to victory just because you are open source.

Brendan Eich from mozilla is one of those who gets it. He doesn't want the govt to make people use firefox. He knows that the only way mozilla and other open source software can win is if they are actually better than the closed source alternatives DESPITE all the money Apple and Microsoft can put into their projects. And despite the fact they can use your code.

Open source should win on its merits, not ideology. It can be more secure and more responsive to its users than products based on marketing with style over substance. But you can't just say open source open source....you have to make it work and try to reach out to people.

Edited 2008-04-09 22:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

nevali Member since:
2006-10-12

Moulinneuf seems to be suffering from the delusion that there is “a BSD”, and that there is an active “BSD project”, and those people might or might not feel a particular way about something.

All of the operating systems (which are actively developed) which are considered part of the BSD family are derivatives. None of them are the canonical Berkeley System Distribution, because no such thing is actively maintained.

All of this bluster about whether Darwin is or isn't “a BSD” is mostly tripe. Talking about driver compatibility and binary compatibility is pointless: DFBSD, PC-BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD all have different driver models and run different sets of software. If it was all interchangeable, there wouldn't be any point in any except one of them existing!

Aside from the userland, CMU Mach 2.5, on which NeXTSTEP was based (and so is the ancestor to XNU), cannot be publicly released because it requires a license—which you can't buy any more—to the original (encumbered) BSD UNIX code. It has just as much in the way of BSD lineage as FreeBSD, et al, do. Lots of that code is still part of Darwin today, whilst other parts have been updated to borrow directly from more modern BSD, in the form of FreeBSD.

No , as I said in real Open Source , there is no restricted code or license switching in order to control an addition , you may have different branding/naming and different code added but the code its always developped and available as Open Source.

Any Apple-branded proprietary libraries and drivers are not part of Darwin and thus aren't distributed freely. [/q]

That's where your wrong , they are removed in the Open Source release , there also Apple branded **derivatives** and **derivative** driver , thats why Darwin open source don't do what Darwin Mac OS X can do and don't have the same size and code. [/q]

Look: if they're not part of Darwin in the first place, they haven't been removed. You're complaining that Mac OS X isn't open source. That's fine, but that's not what you're saying you're doing—you're claiming to be talking about Darwin.

And more to the point, what the hell is “Darwin Mac OS X”?

Have you even read any of the links you've been posting?

Given your fondness for Wikipedia, try this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29

(Note the “Source model: free and open source software”, if you're hard of thinking).

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The point is that the success of Mac OS X, or any other derivative, does not equal to success for BSD and Darwin because they're not the same things.

Reply Parent Score: 2