Slashdot Mirror

It is not very stable and you would gain no advantages in networking between x86 and Macs by using OpenDarwin, since there is NO gui whatsoever.

Unless dont count xfree86 with inverted colors

Hexley

Some examples to show that Apple isn't "stealing from the OSS community . . ."

1. Darwin
2. OpenDarwin.org - "OpenDarwin.org, jointly founded in April 2002 by Internet Software Consortium, Inc. (ISC) and Apple, is an attempt to take cooperative Darwin development to the next level. Membership in the OpenDarwin project and access to its works are open to everyone. The project is also fully independent, with control over its own web site, project news, bug tracking information and CVS repository, as well as any other services that the community owners may wish to provide. Neither Apple nor ISC take any responsibility for, or exercise any editorial control over, the OpenDarwin project."
3. Rendezvous - see also http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/02/08/29/2310214.s html?tid=107

The OpenDarwin team have Mac OS X double-clickable installers too here: http://www.opendarwin.org/projects/darwinports/en/ x11.php I'm wondering whether or not Apple is merely leveraging their work... Esp. considering Jordan Hubbard is the lead of OpenDarwin.org

Why bother with GNU Darwin and their screwy politics? You'd be much better off installing the base Darwin distro from Apple and then installing Fink or Darwin Ports on top, both of which are active and well-supported on PPC.

The GNU Darwin people are a bunch of whining trolls. And if they leave the ppc platform no one's going to shed a tear. There still is open darwin and Fink.

For some incomprehensible reason they will still support darwin on x86... isn't that also covered by the Apple license, you might ask. Yes and that's why the GNU Darin people are morons. They say:

"hey we have a problem with Apple and the way they do things, so to punish them we are only going to use their software covered under their license on a different platform" ... well, duh.

Umm... you mean, like this?

Gnu darwin packages some GNU software around the APSL licenced darwin OS from Apple. So really the benefits of GNU darwin is helping software mainainers to have their code compile straight out of the box on darwin and thus MacOSX.
OTOH you need to be aware of fink which brings the same kind of software to macosX and thus darwin.
Then you also have darwinports bringing to darwin the same has gnu darwin.
Gnu darwin will now only port x86 making the port "just" a little easier then the PPC one which involves endianess issue and other tricky stuff.
If developers are interested in darwin they should stick with the main developers of the OS (Apple), hence with PPC so interested party should join darwinports instead of Gnu darwin.

They actually do. Hubbard and Fuller from Apple Computer are part of the Darwin Ports project . I'm not sure what Apple's issue with Fink is in principle (I can think of things that could be improved if they had more resources); as it seems to me to be just about perfect for installation of Unix/X11 apps.

I'd might guess that they want to sink up fully to the FreeBSD ports collection, but that would be a guess. So yes Apple does have an official project and for some reason they went this direction rather than supporting / improving / changing fink to fit their needs.

1. Apple's Darwin.
2. GNU Darwin, and
3. OpenDarwin.

Nope. No desktop, apart from XFree86 I'd imagine. Apple are not going to open-source their GUI layer (and quite right too IMHO - god knows how crap it would end up if the bad GUI designers of the current Linux desktops started 'contributing' to the design). Darwin is Apple's FreeBSD/Mach 3.0 hybrid operating system and works on PPC (naturally) and on x86. You can get the source code from Apple's Public Source Site and at OpenDarwin set up by the Internet Software Consortium and Apple.

This is just a bad advert for someone's cobbled together install, and an out-of-date one at that. I doubt it's based on Darwin 6.0.2 (basis of Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar), the Mozilla included is old and so on...

Finally, one big gripe. The operating system is not called GNU-Darwin! Apple will be very pissed off (as will GNU I hope) at this rebranding of the operating system. Sure, there is a GNU-Darwin Ports structure, but the actual OS has nothin to do with GNU. It's under a BSD-style licence from Apple.

Or maybe try OpenDarwin's bugzilla installation.

the opendarwin project is not hosted by apple (would that make sense?) but rather by the internet software consortium. the problems were network bound not hardware bound and thus we may or may not have used an excessive amount of bandwidth shortly after the article was posted on slashdot. the files that were generating a majority of said traffic, have been mirrored elsewhere to alleviate the opendarwin's local resource consumption. oops.

OSX - a closed source operating system

Can you say "open"?

People might like to think that Apple is somehow better than Microsoft

If you work for Microsoft and are trolling /. to promote your dark overlord, please say so.

In the meantime, Apple is better than Microsoft, and not just "somehow". They have better software, better hardware (althought I am using a microsoft mouse with my mac...I love the little wheel), their stuff looks better, works better, is more innovative, etc.

I've been using Macs and PCs since the 80's, I've followed the evolution of both, I'm not some one-side zealot. I'm telling you: The only things Microsoft has over the mac are 1-Popularity (more people use it because more people use it, vicious circle), 2-Cheap ass hardware (you get what you pay for), and better CD management (but the floppy thing is lamer than a one-legged lemur). Oh, and 4-Wheely mice (although they do make mac drivers for 'em, yay!).

if they had Microsoft's monopoly, their behavior would be no better

There are so many things wrong with this sentence, I'm having trouble replying. Ok, lets see...

Many people HATE microsoft, while many people are just in love with apple. Why is that? Because of Microsoft's behaviour. The very behaviour that led them to a monopoly position. So if Apple had the same attribute as Microsoft (a lousy attitude and a monopoly), people's attitude to Apple would be the same as it is towards Microsoft. Big fat DUH.

Your FUD bothers me.

Uhhhhh....everybody has access to the CVS repository. Look here

No, Mac OS X's UFS implementation does not yet have softupdates. It's not a top-priority for them either, since most of their users use HFS+. It's been presented as a good OpenDarwin project by Apple engineers on multiple occasions though.

It's been said already before, but I'll chime in and say it again:

Apple is very, very protective (and rightfully so) of their GUI. Hell, they do the bulk of the high-level human interface research for the industry. They need to be.

Apple, as of MacOS 10.2, "broke" the way that some applications/hacks got their hooks into the interface, particuarly the menu bar. And they changed the human interface guidelines to match.

Guess what? Those applications (including the absolutely indispensable ASM) were again functioning a week or two later.

I agree with Apple's rationale. Hacks ~= an unstable system, and clutter via icons on the menu bar == bad.

I also know that here, in the real world, dammit, I want my application menu back. And ASM gives that to me.

Do you guys REALLY think that Apple is going to build a *nix/BSD based OS and then lock users out of the *nix layer? How clueless is that? They're working with Linux/BSD developers to bring MORE unix software our way, cleaner.

As far as customization, you want themes for OS X 10.2? Old-school windowshading? A more useful Apple Menu? Low-level control of CoreGraphics and Interface Plists? Interface sounds?

What was the issue again?

If you're still not happy install whatever window manager you prefer. It'll work under X11. Although at that point, why are you using a Mac in the first place?

..has recently been released, this is the massively updated layer beneath OS X 10.2 (aka jaguar aka jagwire). At the moment only the PPC binary installer is available, the x86 version is apparently on it's way, until then there's always the older 1.4.1 x86 version. IMHO it's good that Apple are keeping both the source and binary Darwin distribs up to date. A Whole bunch of the engineers at apple are heavily committed to open-sourcing (and not just those you'd expect like Jordan Hubbard). Using the Darwin Core and something like Fink or DarwinPorts you can end up with a nice and 'free' OS with Xfree86, KDE et al.

The quickest way to determine if this is a live product would be to start the port using opendarwin.org and see what happens. If you start to get odd or wierd static from Apple, you probably tripped across a secret Apple project and you'll know. If not, then you might just turn it into a live product anyway.

It would certainly be smart both for IBM and Apple to support this as a first step to Mac OS X on RS/6000. Apple could use the increase in its upper end and it would help IBM push some more boxes.

Because in the past, anyone who wanted to work on Darwin had to supply his patches to Apple, the ISC (Internet Software Consortium) and Apple together founded OpenDarwin.org to improve the way Darwin can develop as a stand-alone OS. The reason is that it's now a lot easier to get commit access. Apple engineers still work together with the general public to guide the project and interesting patches will be merged in Apple's Darwin distribution as well (and yes, reversely, Apple's changes are also merged in the OpenDarwin tree).

Jonas

Ask and ye shall something or otherzzzz..........

How the hell is Mac OS X a rip-off of NeXTStep? It is NeXTStep. Apple did buy NeXT after all, and I'd argue that Apple has since become NeXT.

Now, as far as BSD goes, yes Apple did use very large portions of it. Have you actually read the BSD license before, because I'd love for you to explain where Apple are violating it. Infact, with the Darwin Project, Apple are going far beyond what they are bound to provide.

As as for KJS, well, "All Apple changes will be contributed back to the mainline version". Once again, that don't actually need to do this, but they are anyway.

Both of these are totally within Apple's rights. If you'd like to argue this, I'd love to hear what you have to say.

Apple have used open-source software in completely legitimate ways, and have gone out of their way to contribute their enhancements back.

1. Open Darwin's Thread UFS vs HFS+
2. Brigging UFS up to date
3. Meta Data in Mac Filesystems

1. Open Darwin's Thread UFS vs HFS+
2. Brigging UFS up to date
3. Meta Data in Mac Filesystems

1. Open Darwin's Thread UFS vs HFS+
2. Brigging UFS up to date
3. Meta Data in Mac Filesystems

This response is dead on. The original asker needs a file server that speaks multiple protocols. Once you have a server, it is much easier to create the necessary ssh or ssl tunnels that you need for total security.

Trying to maintain coherency of data via replication across multiple machines is begging for trouble -- this is a hard problem that to my knowledge has not been solved in a clean, cheap way.

If you want to use NetInfo for Mac OS X, create a new port from the Open Darwin sources. There's a port of an old NetInfo server module for Linux floating around, but it's not what I'd call up to date.

A better choice would be to use OpenLDAP, as Mac OS X is designed to pull directory service info from an LDAP data source. Windows systems can also pull from a LDAP, as can Linux and *BSD and Solaris and so on.

--Paul

Alright, I remember my password now :) To clarify: I am both on the Fink and the KDE-Darwin project. I can't get to KDE-Darwin CVS right now because my SSH keys are messed up at OpenDarwin.

It is...

I believe slashdot will need a new icon image for Open Darwin's Hexley