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 308799
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

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


In other words what Apple did was switch to a license away from BSD and add code but made it proprietary in order to restrict and control it's inclusion , they are also trying to suggest that there kernel was open sourced when in fact only some part was released.

You are confusing two completely different things here.


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.

[/q]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.

Just think about it: Linux IS open-source and all, but you can still use proprietary nVidia drivers on it,


Yes , rather its Free Software , but if one use your example it's the same as having the Linuz Kernel under APL with some proprietary adittion by Apple and the Linux kernel GPL by the GNU/Linux community , the difference with BSD is that the GNU/Linux community invested in it's kernel so that it's the proprietary version who is behind or very close , where as the BSD community as not invested in there own kernel to be on par with Apple. Also in real Open Source Red Har and Novell and the other commercial contribute code so that Debian and others can benefit from it too and vice cersa.

[/q]The same applies here: the base system (Darwin) is open-source, there just are proprietary libraries, drivers and applications running on top of it. [/q]

No , they are added to Darwin in Mac OS X , not on top of it. That's where you and your friends are getting confused here , code is removed from Mac OS X Darwin to Open Source Darwin. Also the addition on top of it of the derivative by Apple is also a problem under Real Open Source. Because your supposed to make and contribute Open Source addition.

But the real problem is not Apple or what they do in itself. It's what the BSD let them do and what BSD do not do to be on par with itself aka Apple Mac OS X and Darwin so called Open Source.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Diagram_of_Mac_OS_X_archite...

BSD as nothing as complete or as close as the above , only talking in Darwin.

Hence Darwin is what BSD could have been.

Reply Parent Score: 1