Slashdot Mirror

http://www.macosforge.org/

You don't have to guess. Many of the big ones: http://www.macosforge.org/

MacOS X's core OS is open source. You can download the kernel and recompile it and swap yours in if you want to, and all the standard user space stuff is basically FreeBSD.

Also, it is a certified UNIX 03 operating system, so it is more "UNIX" than Linux, which is what I assume you're comparing it to.

Just to provide a link to make life easy (source is available up to 10.8.4 and includes BSD licensed stuff. Code for the UI level is not provided.):

http://opensource.apple.com/

and some documentation to backup what you are saying:

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology_Overview/SystemTechnology/SystemTechnology.html

With regards to Darwin, there are two related sites:
  - http://darwinbuild.macosforge.org/
  - http://www.puredarwin.org/

"Darwin Streaming Server (DSS) is an open source project intended for developers who need to stream QuickTime and MPEG-4 media on alternative platforms such as Windows, Linux, and Solaris, or those developers who need to extend and/or modify the existing streaming server code to fit their needs."

Cheeky of them calling Windows an "alternative platform, yes; but the fact is that there are too many howtos for setting it up on Linux for anyone who can type "darwin streaming server linux" into a search engine to miss.

Macports is hosted out of http://www.macosforge.org./ But yeah they pay about 10 people to clean up open source distribution and get them working on a BSD style system.

Seems to me a company that publishes source to their kernel is being rather helpful: http://svn.macosforge.org/repository/darwinbuild/trunk/

It would be nice if Apple contributed to Linux.

They do. Their most notable contribution was all the work on the PPC version of gcc which is the reason Linux runs so well on XBox.

Most of their major open source projects do run on Linux today though: http://www.macosforge.org/

OpenCL
Webkit
Bonjour
Clang
libdispatch
....
So wat is the point you are trying to prove ?

Apple is now supporting X11 on Mountain Lion through the open-source XQuartz project:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5293?viewlocale=en_US

http://xquartz.macosforge.org/

It is not as though Mac OS X has a strong developer community or open source ecosystem surrounding it.

Huh? The center of the OSX Open Source development community is Apple itself. http://www.macosforge.org/

Which includes Macports -- thousands of open source applications many maintained by Apple
Webkit which is used in the browsers for about 70% of all users far and away the largest open source engine.

They are very active in LLDM and were very active in GCC. What are you talking about?

Define "exists". Yes, MacOS X does have a UNIX base, comes with full GNU toolchain and pretty much any properly written UNIX program tool should build and run on it. But I really wonder how much effort it takes to find, build and use third party CLI tools. For example ImageMagick, SoX, MKVTools or Mencoder (part of Mplayer package). Most Linux distros provide tools to easily create a package for your program that will seamlessly integrate with the system and a HUGE database of packages ready to install and use. I can imagine that MacOS provides tons of GUI software but I don't believe that Apple would put that much effort into providing CLI tools beyond the bare minimum required for a UNIX system.

Apple advertises macports via the Mac OS Forge which offers a ports collection for OS X, a directly competing project without Apple endorsement would be fink.

They didn't remove X11 support. You get an error message asking you if you want to download X11 from the open source XQuartz project. That page XQuartz are the people who created the X11.app in 10.5-7. They are moving from 2.6.3 to 2.7.0. http://www.macosforge.org/ is where Apple hosts all sorts of Unixy stuff like: MacPorts, MacRuby, WebKit...

They didn't remove X11 support. You get an error message asking you if you want to download X11 from the open source XQuartz project. That page XQuartz are the people who created the X11.app in 10.5-7. They are moving from 2.6.3 to 2.7.0. http://www.macosforge.org/ is where Apple hosts all sorts of Unixy stuff like: MacPorts, MacRuby, WebKit...

"you simply won't be able to run X11 apps on Mac OS X any more"

This is patently false. Apple is no longer supporting X11, but they are recommending that people install an open source X11 for OS X called XQuartz. So, you will be able to run X11 apps in Mountain Lion.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/17/apple-removes-x11-in-os-x-mountain-lion-shifts-support-to-open-source-xquartz/
http://xquartz.macosforge.org/trac/wiki

Oh lookie, what's this? http://xquartz.macosforge.org/trac/wiki

The penalty for being wrong on slashdot is suicide. Get on it.

Apple has a long history of contributing back as well as starting open source projects.

http://opensource.apple.com/
http://www.macosforge.org/

1) All the bug fixes from Macports / Darwinports.
2) Darwin itself
3) Bonjour / zeroconfig networking
4) Webkit
5) launchd
6) MacRuby

etc..

Yep, Apple sure is hostile to open software.

http://www.macosforge.org/
http://www.webkit.org/ - Oh look! GPL licensed!
http://opensource.apple.com/
http://www.cups.org/

And not contributing anything back to the community. Should Apple fall one day or just discontinue its BSD-based products, all their achievements will be lost.

...with the possible exception of WebKit and clang and LLDB and their contributions to LLVM and their contributions to GCC to handle Objective-C (assuming they've been picked up by GCC) and their contributions to GDB (assuming they've been picked up by GDB) and libdispatch and launchd and other Mac OS Forge projects and any stuff people have picked up from opensource.apple.com.

OpenSource for other projects, but not in the development of any of their products. Not if they could help it anyway.

Let's see...
- Darwin Streaming Server
- mDNSResponder
- ALAC
- Calendar and Contacts Server
- libdispatch / Grand Central Dispatch
- etc.

http://www.macosforge.org/ is where the more generally useful items outside of OSX wind up. FreeBSD picked up the libdispatch items and ran with it.

"Every thing they do is so closed and exclusive. They never extended a hand to the open source community."

I'm sorry, you're terribly confused. Or a troll:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

http://www.webkit.org/

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/12/apple-joins-openjdk-to-open-source-mac-os-x-java-technology/

http://alac.macosforge.org/

Etc.

A.

jobs: you will pry my source code out of my cold dead hand.
god: ok.

satan: both of you forgot about darwin and the stuff other than alac at mac os forge and stuff such as clang and lldb at llvm.org....

Yay, someone managed to guess it (why these things can't be mention on the project page??)
:
svn co https://svn.macosforge.org/repository/alac/trunk

If you have those kind of requirements, then you can probably afford an admin who actually understands the software that he's using. The actual server applications that OS X Server uses are either third-party open source programs or released by Apple on Mac OS Forge. If you're a small business that doesn't have a dedicated IT team, then Mac OS X Server gives you a simple GUI that will handle most common tasks and can be operated by someone moderately computer literate. If you're a large enterprise, then you probably don't need the GUI and you can do better by buying server hardware from a company that specialises in that part of the market and running some other *NIX flavour with the same server programs on it.

OSX's walled garden

OS X is a certified UNIX on which one can install just about any third-party proprietary app (made by, for example, Adobe and Microsoft) as wells as tons of open-source software. Much of the underpinnings of OS X is itself open source.

What precisely do you mean by "walled garden" given these facts? Oh, you were trolling. Never mind, then. Carry on.

Fedora and Debian both provide a core repository and non-core repositories. I'm not familiar with Ubuntu.

The Debian and Fedora repositories are huge.

OpenBSD does the same, and my memory is that freeBSD does, as well. The difference is primarily one of scale. openBSD, for instance intentionally keeps the core repository much smaller than most other distributions, and not just because the team is (intentionally) small.

The base OpenBSD and FreeBSD distributions (without ports) are designed to be an operating system to themselves (usually with all of the source for this core checked into the same repository), similar to what passed for a commercial UNIX system two decades ago. They both happen to provide "ports" systems on top of this. Linux distributions are generally build scripts/SPEC files/whatever used to patch, compile, and package source from upstream in a certain way, and most distributions (RHEL/SLE excluded) seem to have no problem adding lots and lots of packages.

The problem with the Mac, and it's a real problem, is that there is no official repository. Well, wasn't.

Now there is, but it's neither free nor open, as near as I can tell from the outside. (I'm not interested in being on the inside right now, so I'm judging it by the reports.)

The App Store works quite well for end-user facing applications, most of which are written specifically for Mac OS X.

But the app store still doesn't solve the underlying problem of dependency.

The dependency for programs in the App Store is Mac OS X. Generally, the core libraries in Mac OS X are rich enough that applications written for OS X don't need dependencies.

Apple really let us down when they dropped the ball on this one. They have enough money, they could be supporting all three unofficial distros, so that you aren't as restricted by which package manager you've loaded a package by. And they could be encouraging, with financial encouragement, those guys to learn interoperability.

Apple does support one: MacPorts, which is hosted by Apple at MacOSforge. The packages in these distributions are almost all for developer/UNIX power user use, and serve a completely different purpose than the Mac App Store.

Are you talking about this kernel source? http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/xnu-1504.9.26/ Apple has posted the sources for the 10.6.6 Kernel and directions for building them on MacOSForge.

Apple also continues to add projects to MacOSForge, including the recent addition of a project for DCE/RPC on UNIX systems. http://www.macosforge.org/post/new-project-dcerpc/ There are lots of other fun things there too like the Apple implementation of X.

What makes you think it would cost that much? It's not like Apple is re-developing Apache and all the other open source software they use. They reuse a lot of code written by others where as MS can really only rely on themselves.

That also brings up the question that if the software is subsidised so much then the hardware is much cheaper so if Apple can maintain such high quality hardware then why can't others for the same cost?

Are you under the mistaken impression that the majority of open source software is written by unpaid volunteers on their own free time? Really? Are you that ignorant/naive? Apple makes use of open source projects which they also "contribute" to. Open source software may be offered as free source code but it costs money to develop. Do you enjoy using things like WebOS, Android webkit browsers or Chrome? Without the forking of KHTML into webkit and the continued maintenance of webkit by paid Apple employees, none of those things that I mentioned would exist today. There are a number of open source projects started by Apple from internal code which they decided to open up and a number of other projects which Apple contributes to heavily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd

http://launchd.macosforge.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software)

http://bonjour.macosforge.org/

http://dss.macosforge.org/

http://webkit.org/

I don't know if you are speaking out of ignorance or just deliberately trolling but you do not seem to understand the costs and value of software development. As a software developer with over a decade of development experience of in house software development, I have some idea of how much software development costs but you apparently think that open source writes itself and that people write it for free on their own time. Some smaller projects do work that way but the majority of them are funded directly by companies that make use of them.

What makes you think it would cost that much? It's not like Apple is re-developing Apache and all the other open source software they use. They reuse a lot of code written by others where as MS can really only rely on themselves.

That also brings up the question that if the software is subsidised so much then the hardware is much cheaper so if Apple can maintain such high quality hardware then why can't others for the same cost?

Are you under the mistaken impression that the majority of open source software is written by unpaid volunteers on their own free time? Really? Are you that ignorant/naive? Apple makes use of open source projects which they also "contribute" to. Open source software may be offered as free source code but it costs money to develop. Do you enjoy using things like WebOS, Android webkit browsers or Chrome? Without the forking of KHTML into webkit and the continued maintenance of webkit by paid Apple employees, none of those things that I mentioned would exist today. There are a number of open source projects started by Apple from internal code which they decided to open up and a number of other projects which Apple contributes to heavily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd

http://launchd.macosforge.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software)

http://bonjour.macosforge.org/

http://dss.macosforge.org/

http://webkit.org/

I don't know if you are speaking out of ignorance or just deliberately trolling but you do not seem to understand the costs and value of software development. As a software developer with over a decade of development experience of in house software development, I have some idea of how much software development costs but you apparently think that open source writes itself and that people write it for free on their own time. Some smaller projects do work that way but the majority of them are funded directly by companies that make use of them.

What makes you think it would cost that much? It's not like Apple is re-developing Apache and all the other open source software they use. They reuse a lot of code written by others where as MS can really only rely on themselves.

That also brings up the question that if the software is subsidised so much then the hardware is much cheaper so if Apple can maintain such high quality hardware then why can't others for the same cost?

Are you under the mistaken impression that the majority of open source software is written by unpaid volunteers on their own free time? Really? Are you that ignorant/naive? Apple makes use of open source projects which they also "contribute" to. Open source software may be offered as free source code but it costs money to develop. Do you enjoy using things like WebOS, Android webkit browsers or Chrome? Without the forking of KHTML into webkit and the continued maintenance of webkit by paid Apple employees, none of those things that I mentioned would exist today. There are a number of open source projects started by Apple from internal code which they decided to open up and a number of other projects which Apple contributes to heavily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd

http://launchd.macosforge.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software)

http://bonjour.macosforge.org/

http://dss.macosforge.org/

http://webkit.org/

I don't know if you are speaking out of ignorance or just deliberately trolling but you do not seem to understand the costs and value of software development. As a software developer with over a decade of development experience of in house software development, I have some idea of how much software development costs but you apparently think that open source writes itself and that people write it for free on their own time. Some smaller projects do work that way but the majority of them are funded directly by companies that make use of them.

He's older than you.

OSX has a package manager (apt for fink same as debian and port for MacPorts, same as freebsd)
OSX has a very good X shipped with the OS XQuartz.

XNU is a hybrid kernel. It's part microkernel part monolithic. The big difference is how memory allocation is handled. XNU does use message passing for system calls so that aspect still exists.

As for commercial operating systems, there are several that use microkernel or hybrid kernels besides Mac OS including Windows and QNX.

I can't believe it took 5 comments to get the progression of Mach Microkernel [NeXT] to Mach Hybrid XNU Kernel. Seriously, this place as a technically competent lot has moved on.

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/331902

XNU

Infobox_Software
name = XNU kernel
caption =
developer = Apple Inc.
latest_release_version =
latest_release_date =
operating_system = Darwin & Mac OS X
genre = Kernel
kernel_type = Hybrid
license = Apple Public Source License 2.0
working_state = In production / development
website = http://kernel.macosforge.org/

XNU is the computer operating system kernel that Apple Inc. acquired and developed for use in the Mac OS X operating system and released as free and open source software as part of the Darwin operating system. "XNU" is an acronym for "X is Not Unix" [cite web | year=2005 | url=http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Porting/Conceptual/PortingUnix/glossary/chapter_998_section_1.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002859-DontLinkElementID_38 | title=Porting UNIX/Linux Applications to Mac OS X: Glossary | publisher=Apple Computer | accessdate=2005-12-13]

Originally developed by NeXT for the NEXTSTEP operating system, XNU was a hybrid kernel combining version 2.5 of the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with components from 4.3BSD and an object-oriented API for writing drivers called Driver Kit.

After Apple acquired NeXT, the Mach component was upgraded to 3.0, the BSD components were upgraded with code from the FreeBSD project and the Driver Kit was replaced with a C++ API for writing drivers called I/O Kit.

Kernel design

Like some other modern kernels, XNU is a hybrid, containing features of both monolithic and microkernels, attempting to make the best use of both technologies, such as the message passing capability of microkernels enabling greater modularity and larger portions of the OS to benefit from protected memory, as well as retaining the speed of monolithic kernels for certain critical tasks.

Currently, XNU runs on ARM [ [http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/01/iphone-processor-found-620mhz-arm/ iPhone processor found: 620MHz ARM CPU] (2007-07-01 accessdate|2008-01-06] , x86, x86-64 and PowerPC based processors, both single processor and SMP models.

Mach

The core of the XNU kernel, Mach, was originally conceived as a simple microkernel. As such, it is able to run the core of an operating system as separated processes, which allows a great flexibility (one could run several operating systems in parallel above the Mach core), but this often reduced performance because of time consuming kernel/user mode context switches and overhead stemming from mapping or copying messages between the address spaces of the microkernel and that of the service daemons. With Mac OS X, the designers have attempted to streamline certain tasks and thus BSD functionalities were built into the core with Mach. The result is a combination of Mach and a classical BSD kernel, with some advantages and disadvantages of both.

Mach provides kernel threads, processes, pre-emptive multitasking, message-passing (used in inter-process communication), protected memory, virtual memory management, very soft real-time support, kernel debugging support, and console I/O. The Mach component also allows the OS to host binaries for multiple distinct CPU architectures within a single file (such as x86 and PowerPC) due to its use of the Mach-O binary

If only Apple would finally get around to inventing something cool for OS X to do that. It'd make it so much easier for the developer. Knowing Apple they'd probably make it so that it was really simple. Like a few lines of code.

It'd be even more awesome if they could make it open source so that other operating systems could have a chance to use it.

[[citation needed]]

If only Apple would finally get around to inventing something cool for OS X to do that. It'd make it so much easier for the developer. Knowing Apple they'd probably make it so that it was really simple. Like a few lines of code.

It'd be even more awesome if they could make it open source so that other operating systems could have a chance to use it.

[[citation needed]]

If only Apple would finally get around to inventing something cool for OS X to do that. It'd make it so much easier for the developer. Knowing Apple they'd probably make it so that it was really simple. Like a few lines of code.

It'd be even more awesome if they could make it open source so that other operating systems could have a chance to use it.

One can dream, right?

If only Apple would finally get around to inventing something cool for OS X to do that. It'd make it so much easier for the developer. Knowing Apple they'd probably make it so that it was really simple. Like a few lines of code.

It'd be even more awesome if they could make it open source so that other operating systems could have a chance to use it.

One can dream, right?

So, if you're actually working with 'some of the finest minds', why don't you tell us what they're working on that's better than GCD? Your one example seems to indicate that the software needs to manage the threads - like they did for the last 10 years - rather than letting the OS take care of all the applications threads on an as needed basis like GCD does.

And why do you mention that Apple wouldn't make it cross-platform? Do you think Microsoft will?
At least Apple made GCD opensource. I *know* Microsoft won't do that.

http://libdispatch.macosforge.org/

That doesn't sound like the sort of thing Apple would do.

No, cuz it's not like Apple has a long track record of inventing or perfecting whole concepts and standards and then releasing them to the public.

Oh, wait...

That doesn't sound like the sort of thing Apple would do.

No, cuz it's not like Apple has a long track record of inventing or perfecting whole concepts and standards and then releasing them to the public.

Oh, wait...

how to set up ipfw in leopard:

see here and here:

http://www.netmojo.ca/2007/10/31/fixing-leopards-firewall/

http://securosis.com/blog/help-build-the-best-ipfw-firewall-rules-sets-ever

or use the GUI tool wateroof to configure the firewall.

add the rules decribed here:
http://www.macgeekery.com/hacks/software/traffic_shaping_in_mac_os_x

then turn it on at boot like this:

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2008-May/010337.html

and then turn off the application firewall in system preferences.

Yeah. Dang Apple for preventing GrandCentral use anywhere else. Imagine how cool it would be if another OS were to pick up the technology and Implement it.

Blast Apple and all their closed source stuff.

That's not what he's talking about. OS X is a BSD-based system and as such, can run almost any Unix program, including X11. Apple has been including XQuartz (X + a bunch of libraries + hooks so it works nicely with the rest of OS X) since Leopard.
http://xquartz.macosforge.org/

Nicely? I never thought it worked that nicely... Though maybe they've improved things since 10.4 "Cheetara"...

If you can take risk of re-compiling every X related app/library in case you give up in future, try the semi official/unofficial at http://xquartz.macosforge.org/ , it is newer than the Apple bundles. Install anything with the help of Fink/Macports like Konqueror from KDE 3 and see the amazing GUI speed, scroll speed, widget drawing speed.

I don't understand, as an OS X user, why a modern x.org on a good, supported hardware should be surprising to give better results. Also remember the insane things x.org has to do on OS X like using Aqua layer.

WebKit, Grand Central, Darwin Streaming Server, LaunchD (some Linux please pick this up...), Bonjour (Yes ZeroConf, but I think they're the first to make it popular), Even XQuartz so that OSS stuff that uses X11 can run under OS X looking like OS X. They even have a cute little website with the word 'forge' in it: http://macosforge.org/

  Hell they even have Darwin, the base of OS X. Lets see Microsoft release an OSS version of XP minus some GUI bits.

Yes, Apple is protective of quite a bit of stuff. But they're released a ton more OSS that I've found than MS.

I know ZFS was released under CDDL, which is open source, but not compatible with the GPL or LGPL.

Firstly, it's not incompatible with the LGPL; the CDDL is a per-file license and the LGPL is a per-module license, so you can mix the two, as long as you don't do so in the same file. The incompatibility with other licenses is a well-known problem of the GPL. The GPLv2, for example, is incompatible with the Apache license, but I don't hear anything like as many complaints about Apache as I do about Solaris when it comes to licensing.

ZFS has been ported to FreeBSD, and the version in FreeBSD 8 is quite stable. It has been mostly ported to OS X (you can download the kernel modules from macosforge). There is a port to NetBSD underway too. It is only Linux that is unable to adopt it due to licensing (OpenBSD could support it via a kernel module, but won't incorporate it into the main tree because they require everything to be BSD/MIT/ISC licensed if it's in the kernel).

I'm sorry that you find it difficult to refactor trivial code. I'm sure that's not a comfortable skillset imbalance to have, but if you practice refactoring you can improve. The trick is to resist the impulse that feels easier to you: if you feel like throwing away and re-writing, refactor instead. Hang in there; keep the faith. Meanwhile, elsewhere on the internet, actual programmers are busy porting the code and handling the issues in stride. Before long their efforts will eclipse the importance of your "Meh" for all eternity.

Don't forget a great technology which everything under OS X (including iPhone) rely on is offered free on very same site with a very liberal license and not adopted by anything except FreeBSD. That is launchd , which created nothing rather than ''meh, xinetd'' in open source community.

It is there, http://launchd.macosforge.org/ , Apache 2.0 license.

I'd say crippled is too strong of a word here. Form the libdispatch project main page, linked in the blurb above:

While kernel support provides many performance optimizations on Mac OS X, it is not strictly required for portability to other platforms.

Apple are really struggling with ZFS, with it being announced as a feature in early betas of both Leopard (10.5) and Snow Leopard (10.6), as well as being there in a very limited form in Tiger (10.4)

It's also available on 10.5/6 with some limitations. It's not marketed because it's not quite feature-complete, but it works in OS X and on FreeBSD. There's almost no chance of Apple adopting btrfs in the OS X kernel though, because the GPL is incompatible with the license of a number of other components.

ZFS is not in OS X Server 10.5, and was silently dropped from the advertised feature list of 10.6 after the WWDC

See http://zfs.macosforge.org/ notably the downloads section.

Admittedly zfs-119 is a bit old, but it's there on offer from Apple (macosforge is their site, check the registration).

The macosx-server mailing list has recent traffic on it about zfs. The traffic is somewhat low in SNR but includes a few comments from people who are actually using zfs natively on their Mac OS X Server systems, as well as some who use their Mac OS X Server boxes to do fileserver front ending of zfs exported other POSIX systems.

Generally the consensus is that the higher order Mac-specific systems (Spotlight, Time Machine, some aspects of Finder, etc.) and zfs do not get along in an intuitive way, and zfs is not suitable for a boot partition, but that it otherwise works fine.

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-June/thread.html is the canonical location for wild speculation about the vanishing of zfs from Apple marketing materials, and is also a good place to meet people actually using zfs in Macintoys.

zfs send is an amazingly neat idea, but, to quote zfs(1) (on a standard Mac OS X Server 10.5.7 installation):

The format of the stream is evolving. No backwards compatibility is
guaranteed. You may not be able to receive your streams on future ver-
sions of ZFS.

ZFS is not in OS X Server 10.5, and was silently dropped from the advertised feature list of 10.6 after the WWDC

See http://zfs.macosforge.org/ notably the downloads section.

Admittedly zfs-119 is a bit old, but it's there on offer from Apple (macosforge is their site, check the registration).

The macosx-server mailing list has recent traffic on it about zfs. The traffic is somewhat low in SNR but includes a few comments from people who are actually using zfs natively on their Mac OS X Server systems, as well as some who use their Mac OS X Server boxes to do fileserver front ending of zfs exported other POSIX systems.

Generally the consensus is that the higher order Mac-specific systems (Spotlight, Time Machine, some aspects of Finder, etc.) and zfs do not get along in an intuitive way, and zfs is not suitable for a boot partition, but that it otherwise works fine.

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-June/thread.html is the canonical location for wild speculation about the vanishing of zfs from Apple marketing materials, and is also a good place to meet people actually using zfs in Macintoys.

zfs send is an amazingly neat idea, but, to quote zfs(1) (on a standard Mac OS X Server 10.5.7 installation):

The format of the stream is evolving. No backwards compatibility is
guaranteed. You may not be able to receive your streams on future ver-
sions of ZFS.