Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Dec 2008 11:58 UTC, submitted by probono
Most of you will know that the underlying core set of components of Mac OS X and the iPhone operating system are released under the Apple Public Source License, an FSF-approved open source license. Few of you, however, will have actually used Darwin in any other form than Mac OS X or the iPhone OS. Despite numerous projects attempting so, Darwin has never gained any significant traction apart from Apple's own interest. The PureDarwin project tries to rise from the ashes of the OpenDarwin project, and has just released a Christmas developer preview.
Thread beginning with comment 341563
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 26th Dec 2008 18:02
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Member since:2005-06-29
When all you can tell about a microkernel is that it is NT-like, I would refrain from questioning other people's technical knowledge.
Exept... XNU isn't a microkernel.
It's a hybrid kernel - a loaded term among Linux enthusiasts, but a valid term, nonetheless. Linux, the BSDs, and Solaris all use monolithic kernels, meaning there certainly is a difference between the two. If you don't know the differences between micro, monolithic, and hybrid kernels, then feel free to Google around.
In any case, Linux, BSDs, and OpenSolaris... all use different kernels, threading approaches, and heck even io subsystems. Simply saying that "it is different" doesn't quite answer the question of what makes Darwin interesting. Don't you think?
From the top of my head, these first two came to my mind. If you think that employing a totally different kernel type, as well as a radically different device driver kit unlike any of the others mentioned in this thread doesn't justify calling Darwin unique... Well, then you might as well call Linux, Solaris, BSD, Windows NT, Mac OS X, AmigaOS, etc. etc. the same.
Me thinks people are simply too lazy to study the more technical differences, instead focussing on the stuff they can grasp, which rarely - if ever - goes any further than the colour scheme and 3D effects used.
Edited 2008-12-26 18:03 UTC
RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Fri 26th Dec 2008 18:24
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
Member since:2005-07-24
Exept... XNU isn't a microkernel. It's a hybrid kernel...
Yeah, I think most of us here know that.
a loaded term among Linux enthusiasts,
Nice put-down.
If you don't know the differences between micro, monolithic, and hybrid kernels, then feel free to Google around.
Feel free to patronize your readers any time you want. :-) Most of your readers are familiar with the different concepts involved. Butters did a pretty good job of calling your understanding into question a while back, IIRC.
Sure, OpenDarwin, PureDarwin, whatever it's called this time around, is different. But what are the advantages of the open source parts of OS X? Anything of special value was proprietized by Apple, and the dregs were left. Mach-based kernel? OK. So it's slower. (And Mach certainly worked well enough for HURD, right?) But what actual *benefits* are reaped from that trade-off? You don't point to any.
Another question I have is this. From reading the link about the demise of the original OpenDarwin, and the associated OSNews comments, it looks like there were very good reasons for that project to have crumbled. What are these new guys doing differently in order to avoid the plight of the original?
Me thinks people are simply too lazy to study the more technical differences, instead focussing on the stuff they can grasp, which rarely - if ever - goes any further than the colour scheme and 3D effects used.
I just quoted that bit to highlight the fact that your fangs are showing.
Edited 2008-12-26 18:27 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-10
When all you can tell about a microkernel is that it is NT-like, I would refrain from questioning other people's technical knowledge.
In any case, Linux, BSDs, and OpenSolaris... all use different kernels, threading approaches, and heck even io subsystems. Simply saying that "it is different" doesn't quite answer the question of what makes Darwin interesting. Don't you think?