Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Darwin Runs XFree4
Here's the message from the Darwin Development mailing list:
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Zarzycki
To: darwin-development@public.lists.apple.com
Subject: FYI: Monday's Darwin demos at WWDC
Message-ID:
On Monday, Fred [Sanchez] and I had the pleasure of demonstrating two very interesting Darwin developments.
First, we demonstrated Darwin running on Intel. Now I know that many of you are interested in this development, and I can probably predict many of your questions (where do I get it, how do I install it, where do I get the source, etc). Please exercise patience as we sort out the details. As you might imagine, we're very busy with Apple's WWDC.
Second, we were able to demonstrate X11 (XFree86 4.0 to be exact) running on Darwin's native I/O architecture IOKit. I had a lot of fun doing this port, which was loosely based off of John Carmack's port of XFree86 3.3 to AppKit on MacOS X Server. What I don't think most people realize, is that it only took a few days to do the port. X11 isn't as hard as some of you might think! ;-)
Please exercise patience with the above, we're very busy with WWDC. We'll try and push the necessary information out as soon as I can.
davez
--
Dave Zarzycki
MacOS X & Darwin
Apple Computer, Inc.
As much of a Linux bigot as I am, now a "major" desktop player that conforms to the "major" - binary software developers (such as Adobe, Quark, etc.) will have to begin developing in Unix-like environments. This will mean that a step to PPC or x86 BSD/Linux or gads Solaris is really easy. MacOSX will redesign the ease of use for Unix and as terrifying as it may be to behold -- that is what sells. Because of this there may yet again be cross platform games, and a software store that you walk into and see not only Microsoft this and that but MacOSX games, productivity, and other software Linux games, and BSD games.
;>)
;-)
(I know the games are what we want the most
MacOSX is standing up to the Wintel duelopoly, and saying "screw you - there is a better solution". Apple has been noted for "shaking up the market" before, and if they can pull it of if they suceed then software companies will be forced to develop for a wide diversity of platforms.
Sound like a good reason?
Mac OS X uses a Mach kernel based on the same OSF Mach 3 kernel MkLinux used.
OS X is not like NT, with a server and a workstation version. OS X Server is OpenStep with a poor faux-Mac interface and nonstandard networking administration tools. OS X will replace Server.
Apple originally said that hardware would ship with OS X in January 2000, not December 2001 - where did you get that date?
...can I run the Mac GUI instead of XFree on my Linux box?
Yeah, yeah, free software and all, long live KDE and Gnome, but Mac does GUIs well. If they sold their GUI alone as a windowmanager, I'd snap it up.
Now if you're asking "Why would I want to run Darwin on Intel when there are Linux and the BSD's?" that is a different question. Maybe you are an enthusiast who likes to run a buch of different OS's. Maybe doing so will make it easier to port a Mac app you have source for to *nix systems. (I don't know.) Maybe you just wanna be l33t.
It is not at all improbable that with proper
training one may control parts of one's body that
normally is not under active control. This does
not require any kind of trancendental view of how
the universe works. If you could show me an
advanced meditation master levitating, or
something similarly amazing, then we really would
have some 'proof of the pudding'
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I thought SATAN was a network security tool...
;P
> What? The sound? Video? Motherboard?
> There are better peripherals out there.
> What does that leave that "rocks"? That
> pretty case?
Off the top of my head, here are some of the hardware features you get with a PowerMac that you don't usually find on a typical PC:
- 1 MB cache
- can take up to 2 GB of RAM
- CPU is smaller, takes less power, and doesn't need a fan
- because it runs so cool, the (one) fan in the box is very small and quiet
- two independent FireWire busses (400mbs each)
- two independent USB busses (1.2mbs each)
- wireless networking option for $99 extra
- built-in 10/100 Ethernet
- both VGA and digital video connectors
- booting from any drive attached to your system, even FireWire (hold down the Option key while you boot, and you get a screen that shows an icon for each drive so you can choose one)
- easy-access case exposes the whole mobo with one switch
- built-in (non-Win) modem
- three empty PCI slots (as much as you can get a PC with more slots, often you put a NIC, modem and SCSI/FireWire in there right away, while those are already built-in on the PowerMac)
- nice styling and attention to detail (matching bezel for Zip drive, for example)
- integration with the OS, so that hot plugging, power management and hardware detection are excellent, and the Apple System Profiler utility can give you a very detailed listing of your hardware
- handles
- on/off switch on the keyboard
- high quality keyboard with a USB hub providing two ports for a mouse and a joystick
- extraordinarily crappy mouse, good only as a conversation piece
There's a reason why there are so many happy Mac users: they make good stuff.
Just curiosity.
Why would I run MacOS X on intel when I can already run Linux or one of the BSDs? All I can think of is "to make porting to MacOS X on Mac easier".
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
For all the blasting of Apple, I find it very cool that they are allowing the core of MacOS X to migrate to other platforms. If and when Apple allows Quartz, Aqua and the other various high level components for MacOS X to migrate, then the Joe Average Windows consumers (not you Linux Boxen Elite) might have an OS worth moving too. For as much as I love Linux for serving files, I really would not feel comfortable moving my Windows based employees to this great platform and expect them to hit the ground running as I have when moving them to a Mac.
Maybe in the future, Linux will hit the Joe Average Masses but I think MacOS X Intel might beat Linus to the punch. 20 Years of UI research at Apple is hard to combat but those Eazel folks might surprise us all.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The christian bible is no different from books
of greek mythology, the Qu'ran, the Bahagavad
Gita, any of the Sutras, the Upanishads,
Dianetics, the Torah, etc.
Old texts full of stories about fanciful notions
that people have managed to form cults around.
Many of them make bizarre factual claims about
angels, centaurs, spirits, avatars, and other
imaginary beings that *surprise* are no longer
around now that we have the ability to disprove
them. In our age of science, we fortunately can
nip religions/cults that make magical claims that
pertain to modern times in the bud. Hundreds of
'psychics', 'magicians', and other mystics have
been shown to be the frauds that they are. Deal
with the facts, and toss aside your outmoded
belief systems, deities, and other such cruft.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
No, I don't see them opening up the Quartz sources, but... with all the talk of the world needing a brand new imaging model to replace/extend X11, wouldn't it be great if Apple published the specs for such an API? (Apple specifically chose PDF for the base because there are no licencing issues, as there were for Display Postscript). If they did, it would leave the door open for developers to write compatible implementations, and perhaps situate Apple as the leading force in a new standard.
Of course, any 'competing' implementations wouldn't actually be competing, because they would run on (likely) different hardware and (certainly) a different OS. Of course, NeXT tried this with OpenStep, didn't they? I've never heard of any other implementations other than GNUStep, and it's still pretty far from prime time. Perhaps Apple would have an easier time since they are higher profile, and many developers see them as 'getting it'.
Neither. X was ported over to Darwin because one console is practically useless to do any coding. Right now Darwin has absolutely no graphical interface whatsoever, so usability was limited.
Now with X up and running, alot more developers may begin to see Darwin as a viable platform for development and porting. That was the goal. To get a fully functional and usable system.
-----
"I will be as a fly on the wall... I shall slip amongst them like a great
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
It was rumored that Apple made a quiet "deal" with M$FT not to port OSX to Intel in exchange for continued Office support on the Mac. Perhaps Apple is really getting ready to become a software company now in light of the DOJ vs M$FT rulings. I don't think they would loose that much in hardware sales if support and drivers for the Mac hardware were kept superior during full rollout of the x86 versions of the OS. If they start making serious money selling an x86 based OS (or GUI, Aqua + quicktime + finder etc.) they could bring the level of support up.
;-)
It would be a big gamble but one with potentially huge payoffs. I can dream can't I
no sig.
I refer you to someone's previous post:
>At this point in time, the only people buying
>Macs are luddite print designers and people with
>a fetish for colored plastic.
Mac sales are actually increasing in 'Luddite' areas such as first time buyer *CUSTOMERS*, the 'normal joes'. You may not think such people deserve a computer, but at least Apple is catering for them with something they want - in a *CUSTOMER* focused appliance with all the traits they will ever need or want.
If the zealots love it too then all the better. Every platform needs zealots. Come on, your statement that all closed source platforms will die sounds more like the words of a Linux zealot than of someone who has an open point of view.
App support has previously been Apple's key weakness. With a multiplatform OS, the range of apps is bound to increase, since the user base is bound to expand beyond those who just upgrade their existing Mac box, even if only slightly at first.
Now the OS will go on any machine, but for some customers will be best on the 'premium' Mac boxes that I assume will be sexier looking and sold/specced with a *CUSTOMER* focus and good support.
So there is no reason why the Mac cannot survive, or thrive. I think in the end it will, because Apple is at last getting the marketing right. Marketing = listening to CUSTOMERS and giving them what they want.
In an area where hardware and software is getting more and more homogenized anyway, that's todays killer app... not Quark Xpress. (I always preferred Pagemaker anyway)
Moof!
Motorola, IBM - cold warriors
Darwin on x86 - Apple's Intel interest
Given that it's the Register for God's sake, we should take the news with a lot of salt. But their analysis seems well-founded, so Apple flirting with the idea of getting Mac OS X running on the x86 architecture doesn't seem too impossible. Getting Darwin to run on x86 is certainly a big step, and who knows - maybe Apple will get go the SGI-way of building highly-customized x86 machines if the IBM-Motorola partnership falls apart.
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
WINE and Loki are in some way comparible to having a good media API? Dude have you played Quake 3 on a Linux box? Why do you need to gain something from Darwin, you haven't contributed to its development in the slightest of ways.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Now that Mac OS 10 can run XFree, calling it "OS X" is no longer misleading. Forgive me if I sound a bit weird, but to me "Mac OS X Server" suggests X11 ported to Mac OS.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Funny, I've always thought just the opposite. Mac hardware rocks, but I just wish they'd get rid of the OS. :)
I've had the opportunity to play with OS X just a little bit, and I was quite impressed. Never got to really *push* it, but it seemed snappy and it was nice to see *NIX on Mac hardware while retaining the ability to run all the old MacOS software.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
the hell can people say Mac/PPC is a dying platform? The G4e is almost ready for production which means >500mhz and two vector units along with some other goodies like a smaller die size and lower power consumption (G4 Powerbooks baby). I think the real reason Mac decided to release Darwin's source was that they were using lots of stuff from the BSD 4.4 kernel and MkLinux, having some parts open while others are closed would be rather stupid. Open code also means a huge number of programmers can get ahold of it and fix problems or us it to write really tight application code that takes full advantage of the kernel's features. If any platform is in danger of dying I think it would be x86. Intel is abandoning it entirely and AMD is extending it up to 64-bits. AMD is sticking with it because they don't yet have the cash to go and make their own architecture (they have the know-how but not the mula unfortunately). Now that storage is on the cheap CISC architecture is just kicking because people are used to it. To make up for efficiency x86 chips need much higher clocks to keep up with high power RISC chips, now people want mucho processing power.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
There was a project to port MacOS to Intel, called "Star Trek" internally if I recall. And from what I remember of it, they had amazing initial success getting the OS up and working, and most of the functionality implemented. "Most" is key here. It was pretty fast (though PowerPC itself had a big performance lead at the time, Apple's supporting architecture was dog-slow), but there were still a good amount of key features not implemented yet at the demo point. Apple's good at getting an OS project most of the way there - it's the last 25% or so that kills them.
Ultimately, Apple decided to stick with PowerPC, and they have since based their hardware on faster stuff that's comparable to the state of the art in PC hardware (100 MHz bus, AGP, ATA-66, etc). So an Intel port for the "classic" MacOS (which is what Star Trek was) wouldn't be relevant and a waste of time and resources. That said, OS X on Intel would be a different story, and if Apple ultimately supported OS X native and Carbonized MacOS (through emulation - a recompile would be a killer) apps on an OS X Intel port, it would probably be a Good Thing. But they need to concentrate on their own platform before they give serious thought to a port. The fact that Darwin (the core of OS X) runs on Intel helps show that it's not too far from their minds.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
If they sold their GUI alone as a windowmanager, I'd snap it up.
The more I think about it, the more I realize there's a lot money to be made in that proposition. Imagine Apple selling a proprietary GUI to run on top of Linux. Distributors could pay Apple to have it be part of their distribution. With a little advertising, it could conceivably be the most popular distro ever.
BTW, I'm not saying I would LIKE this situation. I recognize that it would set back the cause of free software. It's just food for thought.
grep -ri 'should work'
Star Trek was the System 7 on x86, but it never made it to anyone outside of Apple really.
In its infancy, MacOS/X was called Rhapsody and was mostly OpenSTEP code with a MacOS flavor and some virtual machine work done. What most people don't remember is that it ran on X86 (And indeed NeXTstep/OpenSTEP run on X86 fine) I know because they sent me a beta of it.
It also sucked compared to the PPC version. In both speed and functionality. It was a project destined for the grave from the beginning which I found very sad when running it. Maybe my hopes are going up a little bit since it seems to still be around a bit.
~GoRK
... is Aqua something that actually runs on X11 ...
Aqua runs on what Apple is calling Quartz. This is based on Adobe's PDF format. So, nope, not X11, and I'm guessing Apple won't be in a big hurry to open Quartz sources anytime soon
Pete C
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
I KNOW this a troll, but I'll bite >>It's time to face it people. The Mac is dying, and it won't be around for much longer. Uhm, No. 14 straight profitable quarters. 14 straight quarters of unit sales and gross margins growing qtr over qtr. The iMac continues to sell well. iBook is a smash hit, as is the G4. >>Up until recently it survived barely through the virtue of a single program - Quark Xpress - and Photoshop and Illustrator and Dreamweaver and Flash and Final Cut and Avid and lots of other stuff. btw, where is your postscript support again? >>but those days are over and the Mac, and Apple with them, are destined to become a thing of the past along with all other closed source architectures. Pretty smart of them to open it up then, isn't it. They now use standard RAM, got rid of the ROM, use PCI bus, standard through and through. On the sw side, they are opening up as much as they can. Guess you have not used any Macs recently. >>Why else would Apple of all companies be turning to open source? It can only mean that they are desparate enough to forego their usual money-grabbing licensing tactics, and that they want the whole "cool" image that has made Linux so popular with the corporate types. Either bitch at them for being closed OR bitch at them for going open. You can not have it both ways. >>They reckon that if they can become popular with the zealots, then they can push the lifespan of their product another five or more years beyond what it otherwise would have been. Actually, they want to be popular with non-zealots. Tehy want the newbies and the casual windows users. We in the Mac camp have our own zealots, and some us are trying to shut them up too. BTW, you sound just liks a linux zealot. Pity. People should ave more of a life than to get attached to a hunk of plastic and silicon. >>After all just look at the Amiga - an outdated computer that would have died completely 10 years ago under normal circumstances, but there is still a hardcore of zealots still trying to convince people (and themselves) that it is still a viable platform. And what is the basis for this comparison. Amigas kicked ass, got mismanaged and thrown around from corp to corp, pillaged for the tech and left for dead. Tho, I guess it is a good thing others like "dead" projects. Remember, Unix was declared dead years ago. Wrongly no doubt. As Twain said, "the rumors of my demise are greatly exaggerated." >>This story shows that the core development team of their new OS realises that the Mac will die - they want to have an x86 version ready so that they will still be able to find work after the Mac inevitably dies. Not with iMacs selling this well. They will release Darwin, because they HAVE TOO. They will release Aqua and Quartz when you pry it out of their cold dead hands. Not that this will happen in your lifetime. Go back under the bridge. Tom Dutton (username = B-B) Too lazy to log in right now.
Darwin: Mach kernel + *BSD + Apple's driver model.
Aqua: PDF-based graphic engine relying on Darwin services, basis for the two main OS X APIs-
Carbon: Macintosh Toolbox APIs that suck less.
Cocoa: {NeXT|NEXT|Next|Open|OPEN}{Step|STEP} 6.0
(5.0 was Rhapsody, aka "Mac OS X Server 1.0")
Mac OS X Consumer 1.0: Distro of all of the above plus a basic application/utility suite, all prettified up to pass the grandma test (note how S. Jobs was crowing yesterday about the 28% of Apple sales that are to people buying their first computer). It is currently unknown what access to the BSD command line will be available -- in DP3 Terminal.app was only installed for the administrator by default, haven't installed DP4 just quite yet.
Mac OS X Server 2.0: Presumably will be Consumer 1 plus BSD applications and services, many probably with Cocoa GUIs on top. This is the one for geeks, not Consumer, which those who whine about no CLI in Consumer are stupid for forgetting.
-- Michael
1. Yes, some invariably CS Sophomore will pop up saying *they* thought of whatever, in this case XML-based forms for providing a uniform interface to the various config files years ago and mebbe they even have a few lines of code somewhere - well it didn't really happen then and Apple has now made it so. That alone is "A Good Thing".
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
This url has source. If you haven't already you'll have to register for a password with Apple.
How about this... say Apple is making a play for the server market (go ahead, say it!). Let's suppose an IS administrator is sold on the Apple OS X server platform but... he has a server room full of x86 legacy hardware. Ripping out all of those machines and replacing them with new Mac hardware, while great for Apple, would put the cost of moving over to the Mac platform out of reach.
Along comes Darwin, which for many server-level tasks looks like OS X. The Apple folks can sell the IS folks on upgrading their exisitng x86 hardware to Darwin, making it interoperate with the new OS X servers, and down the line the customer will very likely replace the x86 hardware with more capable and more compatible Macs.
</wildassguess>
If you were running the company it would have been shut down by now...instead of rising out of it's ashes like it did and do such a 180 degree turn around.
Apple is doing better today than it EVER did. They have total focus on what they're doing and so far they've done no wrong with Jobs at the helm again.
Killing off the clones was the best thing they could have done, as all the little clone companies out there were just stealing business away from Apple itself, instead of helping them.
They're also out there leading the pack again instead of trying to play catch up. You may think the iMac and the iBook are simply gimmics...if that's the case then why are they such a resounding sucess? You can hem and haw all you want but the facts speak for themselves: the iMac is a sucess! Love it or hate it, it's still a sucess! Say it's just eye candy or that it not having a floppy drive all you want: it's STILL a sucess!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I use PC's at home and at work, but am really more of a UNIX person in my heart (using Linux at home and work where and when I can).
But, I would argue strongly that Apple still offers a better quality and easier to use product (at the consumer level) than just about anything in the PC world.
For example, you can't beat the dead simplicity of the iMac with almost no cabling to fiddle with and a design that makes it semi-portable for dragging about the house. If you want to drag the thing out to your porch for a few hours, it's not too hard with the iMac and a pain in the rear if you have a PC (yes, I know you could use a laptop - but that's a lot of money for such a luxury).
In the G4, they have a very nice machine that is also really easy to expand - why can't PC's be that well laid out and simple to open!
I agree with another poster that it's really the software that's holding them back - OS X sounds like a great system, and I think I'll look into trying out the beta at home when it comes out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can recall a story from long ago and far away that once upon a time apple had an earlier version of one of their OS recompiled and running on and intel platform.
they dropped the project because it ran a bit faster than their own official Apple hardware, and they didn't want to shoot themselves in the hardware department.
so this raises the question of what is the current performance compared between hardware platforms, and is this even relevant anymore.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Who says that a story posted on Slashdot has to have something to do with the furthering of Linux? Darwin looks pretty cool as an OS in its on right and has zilch to do with Linux. If anything, it's helping BSD gain wider acceptance. It's Darwin's spotlight, not Linux's.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It doesn't matter if it is or not, because Darwin isn't really supposed to be an OS in it's own right. Some people (namely Carmack) had an affinity for OSX and decided to contribute to its base OS. Aside from that, Darwin has some cool features, namely the kits.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Here it is in full, as they took it from the Mercury News
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"