Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems When Psystar announced it Rebel EFI package, the company was quickly accused of simply taking open source code, repackaging it, and selling it for USD 50. While selling open source code is not a problem, not making the source code available if the license demands it is. Netkas, famous OSX86 hacker, and a Russian site are now claiming they have found the smoking gun.
Thread beginning with comment 391681
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by boldingd on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

I've never really bought that argument. I don't see why OS X should ever have worse driver availability than Free BSD. (I'm not trolling; seriously!) It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I can already use any nVidia card, and any arbitrary RAM and SATA drive, right? How many on-board networking and sound chipsets are out there that FreeBSD doesn't have a working driver for?

Edit: Hell, for that matter, they could just have some kind of "Apple Compatible!" branding scheme, so that customers would know up-front at-a-glance when they buy a component if it'd work well with OS X. Then, Apple could sell OS X and let you install it on any machine, and you'd be able to pick hardware you'd know would work well - you'd just be limited to the narrow selection of third-party components that get certified. Point being, if Apple won't sell OS X independant of their hardware, I doubt it's because they're deathly afraid of driver problems.

Edited 2009-10-28 23:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:28 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Huh? Why would FreeBSD drivers work in OS X apart, perhaps, from networking drivers? OS X is not FreeBSD though it has borrowed several parts from it such as the networking stack and BSD userland. It doesn't use the FreeBSD kernel however, so unless there's a FreeBSD compatibility layer for all FreeBSD drivers it makes no sense that they would work. They could likely be ported rather easily, but to expect them to just work in OS X is unreasonable.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by boldingd on Wed 28th Oct 2009 23:36 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

They could likely be ported rather easily, but to expect them to just work in OS X is unreasonable.


That's my point. I did not necessarily mean that OS X should be able to load a FreeBSD kernel module, or however they do it, but that drivers from FreeBSD should be pretty easy to adapt, and I highly doubt AAPL would be shy about it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kryogenix on Thu 29th Oct 2009 04:39 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kryogenix Member since:
2008-01-06

I've never really bought that argument. I don't see why OS X should ever have worse driver availability than Free BSD. (I'm not trolling; seriously!) It just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I can already use any nVidia card, and any arbitrary RAM and SATA drive, right? How many on-board networking and sound chipsets are out there that FreeBSD doesn't have a working driver for?


How many times does this have to be explained? OSX is NOT a FreeBSD distro. The userland is from FreeBSD and that was mainly due to the old 4.3BSD-based userland from NeXT being a bit stale in the late 90's.

OS X drivers have nothing in common with FreeBSD drivers. OSX uses IOKit-based drivers.

OSX is a bastardized Mach/BSD/OpenStep hybrid.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by dumdiddydum on Thu 29th Oct 2009 08:19 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
dumdiddydum Member since:
2009-10-29

[OSX is a bastardized Mach/BSD/OpenStep hybrid.


those damn bastardOS

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by big_gie on Thu 29th Oct 2009 14:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
big_gie Member since:
2006-01-04

When I was still using windows, when XP came out, there was something called driver signing where Microsoft would certify certain drivers.

But I have never found any signed driver afterword... So I would guess it was a good idea, but that the work required by microsoft or hardware vendors was just too much. It was not worth it.

Applying this to Apple would probably result in the same thing.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Thu 29th Oct 2009 15:25 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Driver signing is much more important now, especially if you're using 64-bit Windows Vista or later since no driver will install without being signed unless a registry hack is applied. They don't apply this to 32-bit Windows since there are so many more drivers from the XP era that people still use.

Reply Parent Score: 2