Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 26th Feb 2006 14:15 UTC, submitted by subterrific
Mac OS X Apple had their pick of kernels when transitioning from OS 9 to OS X, and they chose to create their own kernel based on Mach 3.0. Was that really the best decision or did Apple make a huge mistake? At the time Linux was gaining support and developing rapidly, while development on Mach had pretty much ended two years earlier. This article makes a case for Apple using the Linux kernel in a future version of the Mac OS.
Thread beginning with comment 99388
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not gonna happen', end!!
by subterrific on Sun 26th Feb 2006 18:23 UTC in reply to "Not gonna happen', end!!"
subterrific
Member since:
2005-07-10

1. Apple could fork Linux and/or provide their own KPI and IOKit on top of Linux. Mac OS X hasn't had a stable driver API yet and it isn't like there are tons of people writing drivers for OS X. Linux has far more drivers.
2. Linux can load closed source modules, see nvidia.
3. I see no difference, people are always going to be able to hack DRM.
4. Again, Apple can modify the kernel and provide closed source modules which prevent people from running it on non-Apple hardware.
5. Apple ships their own version of the Linux kernel with their own changes, how do they not control that? This is the same thing Red Hat, Novell, and Ubuntu do and they're all able to provide support. The only thing Apple wouldn't control anymore is the license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not gonna happen', end!!
by gullevek on Mon 27th Feb 2006 08:50 in reply to "RE: Not gonna happen', end!!"
gullevek Member since:
2005-07-07

1) and where would be the advantage over now? They already have their tree. Maintaining a new tree, new backports, etc.
2) which break on each minor update
3) correct
4) they do that already, no gain from switching
5) again, but for what, they already have their kernel. no gain for them

Reply Parent Score: 1