Slashdot Mirror

You have a weird definition of 'open source'. By your above link, I see a bunch of bsd/OSS/other open source software bits, most of them just ... glue bits.

Where's the kernel?

The kernel is xnu. It's listed there. They've been releasing the source code for it since the beginning. Here have some source tarballs: https://opensource.apple.com/tarballs/xnu/

With them providing the source code - by choice by the way, since not releasing the source code would not violate the BSD/CMU licenses - is what has made it possible to modify the source and recompile for using AMD CPUs and other supported CPUs with OS X/macOS.

Boot scripts?

You mean launchd?

Firmware? Ability to build the entire OS from scratch?

By this claim (a page with some OSS bits), you'd be able to call Windows "open source" too. It has bash, and lots of other OSS bits now. So?

(NOTE: this isn't a reason to hate Apple, any more than it's a reason to LIKE Apple... you can be open source and evil, and closed source and good)

They've always kept a lot of their OS X UI closed up but running Darwin by itself and launching X11 off it for a UI (similar to Linux or *BSD) has always been an option. I'd say though since Darwin 10/11 (OS X 10.6/10.7) they've been making it harder, closing updated versions of core driver components up. Same goes for some of the other device drivers for networking cards, newer hardware etc. - in the early 10.0-10.5 days they seemed to be more open about it but they haven't been so open with new device support. It doesn't mean it isn't possible which is why devs have written many of their own drivers to support unsupported hardware. PureDarwin is the current project for running a complete OS based on the open source components of macOS and they're currently working with Darwin 16 (macOS 10.12).

You're making a very fair point but it seems most people who like to point this out don't seem to be too knowledgeable about the OS, what Apple still provides the source for, and what you can do with it.

Look kids. Get over the small minded philosophical hangups. Understand that the MacBook OS is a BSD kernel + the GNU OS (tool chain) + Plus the NSstuff that Next brought. That's it. The vast majority of code is already open, because it has been developed by the community over 30 years.

the XNU kernel is an evolved version of the XNU kernel from NextSTEP that uses some BSD components, CMU Mach microkernel components and C++ I/O Kit which replaced NextSTEP's ObjC DriverKit. It's not a "BSD kernel" per say. the toolchain is definitely not GNU at all. LibSystem uses no GNU code at all. It uses the BSD standard library libc, not glibc. clang is the compiler, not gcc as that's something they got rid of many years ago. They do still use some software preinstalled that are under GPL but it's no "toolchain". See Apple’s great GPL purge.

And none of this is a bad thing. It is all perfectly logical, and useful decisions. glibc is horrible bloatware, gcc has a license problem (go read about how it closes off, intentionally, plugins for things like static analysis).

It works, and works well... but I don't like how they have wrapped LLVM/clang in Xcode. I think it's just stupid that POSIX programs don't always work the way you expect or are missing (e.g. umount -> diskutil unmount ) but for the most part, it's UNIX that Works.

A number of important components are completely closed which are needed to boot XNU on its own, like PlatformExpert. So you're not exactly correct in your statement here.

Yes. They think they need something for hardware vendor lock in. They are right about that, given their business model (and no, I don't have a solution to that).

Look kids. Get over the small minded philosophical hangups. Understand that the MacBook OS is a BSD kernel + the GNU OS (tool chain) + Plus the NSstuff that Next brought. That's it. The vast majority of code is already open, because it has been developed by the community over 30 years.

the XNU kernel is an evolved version of the XNU kernel from NextSTEP that uses some BSD components, CMU Mach microkernel components and C++ I/O Kit which replaced NextSTEP's ObjC DriverKit. It's not a "BSD kernel" per say. the toolchain is definitely not GNU at all. LibSystem uses no GNU code at all. It uses the BSD standard library libc, not glibc. clang is the compiler, not gcc as that's something they got rid of many years ago. They do still use some software preinstalled that are under GPL but it's no "toolchain". See Apple’s great GPL purge.

A number of important components are completely closed which are needed to boot XNU on its own, like PlatformExpert. So you're not exactly correct in your statement here.

Forget about the closed GUI frameworks and software - Apple closed up a number of mandatory kernel extensions needed in order for XNU to boot since Darwin 9 (OS X 10.5) - this is one of the main reasons why the PureDarwin project has pretty much halted.

If you want to make an open source version of Darwin then it involves some very extensive reverse engineering. A number of tarballs for the kernel extensions that they still provide are completely outdated and many things have changed since then. The current Darwin version is 16.

The extent of the XNU source code these days is used for adding AMD CPU support for osx86.

No forking in OS X land.

There are some forks, but nobody really uses them due to lacking significant functionality of OS X.

Yes, I develop apps for both platforms. Both OS X and iOS are brand names for an Apple-augmented version of Darwin—a POSIX-compliant UNIX OS. It's the same OS with a different face.

They share so much that they even use the same drawing layer. In Linux terms, that would be sort of like if Android ran X Windows, and it was the same flavor of X Windows as Ubuntu. (In fact OS X and iOS share way, way more than Android and Ubuntu.)

The biggest difference is between OS X and iOS is obvious: the UI. The reason for the difference is also obvious: one of them is touch-based. The UI layers (think window managers) are named AppKit and UIKit, and they share many similarities. Many of the APIs are nearly identical.

About the only thing they don't share is binary compatibility, because iOS is made for ARM as opposed to x86. However, this is not a technical hurdle; Mac and iOS applications are designed to handle multiple architectures. Technically, Apple could allow Mac applications to include an ARM64 binary, or iOS apps to include an x86 binary. Practically, the differences in input devices wouldn't be ideal, so Apple hasn't done it yet.

But make no mistake; it's the same OS, and they could ship truly Universal apps tomorrow. In fact, there's currently a rumor circulating that Apple wants to consolidate slightly, and produce MacBook Air notebooks running ARM. Given the performance of the 5s, they may be on to something.

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/

*eyeroll* FUD troll is FUDdy. Also...how's that LLVM/Clang/WebKit/CUPS you're using?

Breaking the law by building a Hackintosh? Who cares?

If I have bought a copy of OSX I can do pretty much as I please with it isn't that the principle of first sale? If I haven't bought it I am just as guilty as that fella over there with his pirate copies of Office & Photoshop.

My point exactly. But I bet you don't get that.

The problem with building a Hackingtosh is it is a fragile system, as soon as you want to use a piece of software that requires a later version of any part Osx you are liable to break it. It is also a roll of the dice as to the existence of working drivers for the hardware it's applied to.

Sounds like you're talking about Linux.

Oh, and that's another reason why building a "hack" isn't a good idea: Surprise! The company which didn't support your hardware is going to CONTINUE not supporting your hardware. [Rollseyes]

It is easier to load a version of Linux and not have your values called into question. Isn't OSX built on top of open sourced code anyway? It looks like Darwin is still struggling to survive. http://www.puredarwin.org/welcome/about#TOC-Frequently-asked-questions

There is a FORK of Darwin that remains Open Source; but ever since 10.5 (Leopard), IIRC, Apple has not released the source for Darwin. I submit that, for whatever reason, the actual turning point was when Apple decided to do the Intel switch.

Breaking the law by building a Hackintosh? Who cares?

If I have bought a copy of OSX I can do pretty much as I please with it isn't that the principle of first sale?
If I haven't bought it I am just as guilty as that fella over there with his pirate copies of Office & Photoshop.

The problem with building a Hackingtosh is it is a fragile system, as soon as you want to use a piece of software that requires a later version of any part Osx you are liable to break it. It is also a roll of the dice as to the existence of working drivers for the hardware it's applied to.

It is easier to load a version of Linux and not have your values called into question.
Isn't OSX built on top of open sourced code anyway? It looks like Darwin is still struggling to survive.
http://www.puredarwin.org/welcome/about#TOC-Frequently-asked-questions

BSD is still open source. You can download any of several flavours here. If you want to download Apple's version, it's here (and elsewhere).

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

http://www.puredarwin.org/

Admittedly little used and no recent releases, but there are/have been Darwin OS releases apart from Apple.

IMHO, if you're curious, give it a shot. I personally much prefer FreeBSD as a server operating system. I don't run a Linux/BSD desktop, but if I did, I would probably use Linux.

http://www.puredarwin.org/

The Darwin kernel is, the userland isn't.

You mean the xnu kernel? Look at the open source page http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1064/ and you'll find more than enough userspace software to show that you're wrong. Also, http://www.puredarwin.org/

Eh?

I thought I'd made my point obvious enough, but clearly not.

Not only are Apple taking F/OSS, they're contributing back to the community - Webkit is the most well-known example, but there are plenty of others. There's nothing stopping you - or anyone - building their own OS on the Darwin core, and indeed at least one project which does just this exists:

http://www.puredarwin.org/

You'll wind up with an OS which is essentially Mac OS X under the hood, it just won't have the shiny UI. (Whether or not there is any point in OS X without the shiny UI is another issue altogether).

As I said, they don't open everything. Nor do Novell (ZenWorks isn't available in a F/OSS version, AFAIK) or IBM (DB/2 was still a proprietary product the last time I checked) yet you don't see people on /. decrying them because they haven't released every line of source as F/OSS.

I can only think of two counter-arguments to this:

1. You don't think this is enough. Everything should be open. Well, if the developers of projects from which Apple have taken code wanted every last bit to be and remain open, they'd have licensed it under the GPL. If you're a developer on such a project, the risk of someone taking your work, packaging it prettily and selling it was always there and you should have accepted that before you started. If you're not, what on Earth does it have to do with you?

2. You're a troll.

Say what? Everything that makes me think UNIX is totally moddable on a my Mac's OSX install if I so choose.
I just click Terminal.app, run sudo -s, and off I go.

Here's some source code too : http://www.puredarwin.org/

As for the GUI, yeah, that's closed source. But then again GUIs aren't the Unix way so that doesn't matter.

Right, because Apple has such a bad track record with this kind of stuff.

How again is Apple more "evil" than Microsoft?

Almost all the the comments here about what Apple will or won't do are complete uninformed bullshit. None of us has a clue what Apple will or won't do with ARM.

Perhaps this is a defensive move to keep Google or someone else from acquiring ARM and shutting Apple out? That's just as valid a hypothesis as any here...

Apple isn't doing an after-sale tie-in. You don't *have* to ever upgrade your computer.

What they're doing is saying that when you buy a software upgrade, here are the terms and conditions. If they offer the upgrade and they also offer a different SKU as a bare install disk, then they shouldn't be allowed to say what hardware you can run it on, but that's a different story. In psystars' case, they were acting as retailers, not end-users. I don't think apple cares if the end user makes themselves a hackintosh, but they don't want competition in the hardware segment.

Is what they're doing anti-competitive? Yes. That's why they're using trademark and copyright law, not saying "this is illegal because we control the hardware." Or they're exporting the Steve Jobs RDF. At this point, who gives a crap?

After all, if you don't want Windows, you can get linux, you can get bsd, you can get menuet, and a bunch of other freely available operating systems. You want OSX? Then help someone make a works-alike port of Cocoa and Carbon and Aqua and IOKit - or go play around with this, or any one of a number of things.