Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Dec 2010 22:54 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Thread beginning with comment 453206
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.
He's right though. Darwin is not a BSD, although it is partially derived from BSD.
"It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29
backdoc said the following:
OSX is BSD Unix, without X
Which is incorrect. Yes there is BSD code in there but there is also Mach code which makes up XNU kernel. It is understandable the confusion given the lines of demarkation are not always clear at times.
As I've noted prior posts; if you had Linux + something better than Xorg + a desktop focused on usability, consistency and speed you would have a great alternative to Windows and Mac OS X but like so many projects in the past with such goals it ends up never having enough man power and when there is man power it gets bogged down in politics and philosophical wars. Anyone remember the Berlin/Fresco project - a really nice idea in theory but it never made it off the ground. What ever the decision the community must be willing to break with the past just like Apple have done.
Edited 2010-12-12 10:32 UTC




Member since:
2010-03-08
Advice : read the parent post twice.