Posted by
michael
on from the for-masochists-only dept.
marmoset writes: "Apple has released a new Darwin (the open source foundation of Mac OS X) snapshot. The new version is 1.3.1, which brings the Darwin packages up to the level released on the Mac OS X CD. The big news this time? There are both
PPC and x86 disk images available."
177 comments
READ THIS BEFORE POSTING DUMB QUESTIONS!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Darwin is a BSD-like OS (BSD over Mach). It doesn't include aqua. I repeat: it does not include Aqua, so don't think otherwise.
If you like to play with OSes in development that don't support much hardware, go for it. Otherwise, stick with tried and true (FrreBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Windows, BeOS, NextStep/OpenStep x86 etc)
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
There are an impressive number of confusions in this troll/post.
1. We're talking about the Darwin OS, not the Darwin Streaming Server, so the whole post is completely off topic.
2. The Darwin Streaming Server is a UNIX application (MacOS X, Solaris, etc.) with an NT port. It doesn't run on MacOS (unless someone has ported it since I looked).
3. Windows Media Services isn't free, it's part of Windows 2000 Server, which has substantial per-seat charges ($1,999.00 for unlimited user internet license, per machine). Sure, you could ignore the license terms of the product (i.e. steal it) to save money, but that's not something I'd advocate.
4. Real is only free for trivial applications. If you care about more than a few streams, brace yourself to pay $10K+ for the license. It is the most mature streaming server (kicks the sh*t out of MS or QTS) but costs around 450/stream (depending on volume pricing).
5. You can run QuickTime Streaming Server on BSD and Linux, among other OS's. I don't know what a cheaper alternative would be to a rack of $995 Sun or Linux boxen running QTS. The Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Server Internet Connector English North America Unlimited Clients license alone is $$1,999.00, and Real costs $50 per peak stream, on top of hardware costs. Darwin Streaming Server costs nothing but raw hardware costs (aside from third-party encoding tools), so it's far cheaper than Real or MS.
So, given that the Darwin Streaming Server is open source, unless you really want to give oceans of money to Real or MS, the smartest thing to do is to contribute to the project -- fix what you don't like, and everyone benefits.
Re:Here's the thing--
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3
Every time someone mentions the possibility of OS/2 for x86, everyone says "IBM'S A HARDWARE COMPANY" and this would be the worst thing for them because they rely primarily on hardware sales, etc.
But if they released OS/2 for PCs...
(1) They could STILL sell the ibm hardware. Some people might defect to cheaper hardware, but c'mon, IBM designs hardware like nobody's business, both in terms of form and feature-set, and I love the MCA platform. I'd continue to buy it.
(2) I think there's a company out there that makes a ton of money selling an operating system for x86, though the name escapes me. And they make plenty of $.
So.. ibm releases OS/2 for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
OSI Approved. & Reapproved.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3
Re:Glad you weren't an early Linux user
by
Sabalon
·
· Score: 2
C'mon...like it was that difficult to manually edit the floppy boot sector when you wanted to use something other than the first primary hard drive partition.
These damn kids nowadays with their fancy LILO's:)
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
Defiler
·
· Score: 1
So, what IS his role in the big picture?
You make an interesting point.. What do you propose?
OS/2 is/was actually very user friendly. The object oriented user interface was incredibly powerful for power users, and easy to learn for ordinary users. The first time you started OS/2, you got a nice tutoriel guiding you through files, folders, properties, drag-and-drop, object menus and all the other stuff. None of this "click Start to begin" crap.
-- War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
No, it's not sarcasm, it's here
by
Watts+Martin
·
· Score: 5
I'm stunned nobody else responded to this by pointing to the GNU-Darwin Project homepage. So here it is.
No, this isn't a joke.
Re:No, it's not sarcasm, it's here
by
modman_reborn
·
· Score: 1
this is to a joke. if it weren't darwin would have developed to the point of Linux in a shorter period. just look at the claims that the page makes, everything that linux has.
Nice try, kids. Look here if you want the release info.
-- Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Good answer AIX admin (slight OT)
by
"Zow"
·
· Score: 2
Good answer - I had to check the username to see if it was one of my college roommates (big Mac guys) and got a good chuckel. That was quite an informed answer for a user by the name of AIX admin. ..
BTW Darwin does include the source for an Intel ethernet card. Same source serves both platforms (IOKIt rawks). --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
Re:bad link fixed! (403 forbidden)
by
Tide
·
· Score: 1
neither solaris or os/2 were/are known for their ease-of-use and user friendliness like Apple's OS. If people could have a Mac experience on their x86s, I could easily see them bailing on Windows.
W
-------------------
-- -------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Every time someone mentions the possibility of OS X for x86, everyone says "APPLE'S A HARDWARE COMPANY" and this would be the worst thing for them because they rely primarily on hardware sales, etc.
But if they released OS X for PCs...
(1) They could STILL sell the apple hardware. Some people might defect to cheaper hardware, but c'mon, Apple designs hardware like nobody's business, both in terms of form and feature-set, and I love the PPC platform. I'd continue to buy it.
(2) I think there's a company out there that makes a ton of money selling an operating system for x86, though the name escapes me. And they make plenty of $.
So.. apple releases OS X for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
W
-------------------
-- -------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
1 - They had enough of a problem competing against clone's that paid them into the hundreds of dollars in license fees per machine. Remember that period, when they almost went bankrupt? What happens when they have to compete against $500 PC's? How much will OS X have to cost in order for them to feel comforatable releasing it for x86? $400? $500?
2 - Yes, one company makes good money selling operating systems for PC's. They're also an established monoplist. Kinda hard to compete against them, it was found in court. Look at BeOS, OSX's nearest equivalent on the PC. What other OS's are there for the PC? Do all the linux distro's in the world generate as much profit as apple does selling hardware? probably not...
OS X for intel just isn't a sound strategy, no matter how you try to slant it.
This, like other intelligent comments in this article, has not been modded up.
Doing an x86 oprt is indeed an excellent way to ensure the OS code is kept as hardware independent as possible. It undoes all the lazy things programmers do to get things done on time - they make assumptions and avoid abstractions because it saves time. Once you've ported Darwin to OS X, it can be taken anywhere, which gives Apple real leverage in terms of what chips they intend to use.
That and a few demos of OS X running on PC hardware just to demonstrate its superiority to Other Operating Systems in trade shows and the like. It slices, it dices, it has a BSoD emulator!
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
I can think of another Software company that wouldn't be in a world of hurt today if they didn't have that bloody hardware company soaking up resources up until recently.
But I won't mention Sega's name, lest I offend other Dreamcast fans.
I think it would be in Apple's absolute best interest to open up the Apple design spec, sell off their hardware business, and go into the OS Market.
Try telling that to your average x86 lamer. Apple paid $400 mil for Next that quarter... somehow i don't think that they were in dire need of funds...
not to mention the fact that Apple had five billion dollars in cash and short-term investments at this time. that $150 Million from Microsoft was peanuts. Microsoft got off scott-free from that deal. the biggest thing they gave in that deal was the agreement to provide Office for the Mac, and they make loads of cash off of selling Office to Mac users these days! give me a break.
of course, things are different when you run an illegal monopoly. fuck Microsoft pisses me off.
So.. apple releases OS X for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
That no average user would buy any Apple OS anymore because Microsoft Office would promptly become unavailable for it.
... you don't REALLY think that they'd ship Office for a directly competing OS, do you??
Hell, Microsoft wouldn't even let Apple ship Yellow Box for Windows. The whole OS is *so* not on, if you get my drift.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like the deal Apple got along with their $150 million.
Well, there's a few extra twists. Roughly in order of how Microsoft perceived their importance:
1) Apple agreed not to drag them through the courts for being caught stealing QuickTime source code;
2) Apple had to kill not only Rhapsody/x86 but also Yellow Box for Windows;
3) Apple had to give IE pride of place over Netscape in all system releases etc.
In return, Apple got:
1) Cash, which they really didn't need
2) Committment to deliver a new version of office for 9.x (this is office 2k1) and X.x (coming sometime) which is pretty darn important for ANY new OS to get traction
3) Chairman Bill up on the videowall at MacWorld promising to not kill Apple, really, which was probably the most important part of the whole deal from the analysts' point of view.
Re:Here's the thing--
by
Richard5mith
·
· Score: 1
The problem..... Microsoft.
I truely believe that MS, when they invested all the money in Apple a few years back, got an agreement from them about not competing with MS on the x86 platform. If they did, MS would take away IE and more importantly from Apple's POV - Office.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like the deal Apple got along with their $150 million.
Solaris is already for x86, look it up before posting
Re:Here's the thing--
by
MasterVidBoi
·
· Score: 1
So.. apple releases OS X for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
Unfortunately, It's not so easy for Apple. Microsoft has ~90% market share, and so they get lots and lots of money from selling software only. This doesn't mean Apple can.
If Apple started selling OS X for x86, sales of Apple hardware would dry up quickly. Apple pays for the development of the Mac OS from sales of hardware.
All of a sudden, Apple is selling software alone to 5% of the market. Microsoft is selling software to 90% of the market. Discounting other factors (such as the price of the software, or M$ relying on it's cash reserves to sell at a loss), Microsoft can spend 18x more on developing Windows than Apple can spend on it's OS. As I said, today Apple makes up for that difference through Hardware sales.
If Apple goes the software only route, that kind of inequality in development spending will quickly kill the Mac OS as a viable competitor to Windows. The Software-only strategy can work for Apple, but it needs to have a critical mass of market share first, so it can sell enough copies to keep development in pace with Windows. Needless to say, 5% is not nearly enough.
Unfortunately, if Apple goes software only with that 5%, the market share will increase, but not fast enough to avoid this outcome. This isn't like AMD vs. Intel, where you can throw a handful of AMD machines on your network, and nobody ever really notices a difference. Migrating to the x86 Mac OS would not be such a painless upgrade.
In short, Apple needs to continue to offer compelling hardware, either PPC, or a proprietary can't-be-cloned x86 box, until it gets that critical mass of marketshare that will enable it to compete in the Software-only market.
So.. apple releases OS X for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company.
Sure, but now your average Mac user has to figure out that PPC Mac applications don't run on X86 and vice versa. So we've got MacOS/PPC and MacOS/X86. Maybe some software publishers build their wares as some sort of Fat application, maybe they don't. Then maybe Apple builds emulators into the OS, everything gets cruddy and confusing and the whole world bails and learns Windows 2000.
If Apple did port OS X for X86, and it managed to become even remotely popular, it would move all OS X application development to X86, just like all commercial applications for linux are developed only for X86. This would effectively kill Apple's PowerPC hardware business and force them to make PCs. And if they make PCs then they're competing with all those PC manufacturers big and small who don't spend a dime in R&D and just slap the parts together to build PCs. They couldn't possibly compete.
Sure, they could do what they always do, create innovative hardware but for X86, right? Right! SGI tried to do just that when they first came out with their NT visual workstations, remember the 320? They built things into them that no other NT workstation had. They even hacked USB into NT when it didn't support it. All the hardware reviewers raved about those machines and how cool they were. So what happened? People still bought the cheapest PCs they could buy, 'cause after all it was just an Intel box. They lost tons of money so now they're doing what everyone else does, they take off the shelf components and slap them together...
Besides, how smart is it to spend resources on porting OS X to X86 when even Intel is moving away from it? X86 is not the future, even if AMD succeeds in extending its life expectancy with their 64 bit extentions. All Apple's trying to do is keep their OS hardware independent, it takes much longer to develop a solid OS than to build new hardware.
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
AIXadmin
·
· Score: 2
"I did some testing and playing around with large (hundreds of users) streams set up a few months ago, and Darwin was barely able to break 35 connections. I'm sure part of this is because Darwin was originally written for the Macintosh, and there isnt even a web server platform that runs on the mac! "
Funny, I know Apple has been able to server a 1000 times that using Darwin streaming server. Oh yea, and the Mac OS had a web server right after NCSA was released. It was called MacHTTPD , now known as WebStar. Now there are three or different options, even a commerical Apache port.
Cheers,
Tomas
===========
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
um...+Lucas
·
· Score: 1
I don't think the original poster was talking of Unix variants that run on Power PC chips and Macintoshes... Bur rather webserving applications. Of courrse he's still wrong - there's personal web sharing (a joke, i know), mac HTTPD, WebTen, WebStar, etc... Ton's
WebTen can duke it out with the best of Linux machines, or at least it could a while back, i haven't looked into it recently. WebStars a stable and quite secure platform for serving webpages, since it's run on a Mac with no command line and no remote administration abilities...Sometimes simpler's better.
They'ed have to release thier OS ahead of any available apps... Meaning it would flounder. No one's going to pay their developers to port applcations to an unreleased platform, and Apple would lose out big time by releasing OS X on intel without any apps. Look at how "successful" Be's been - releasing a cool OS with very little app support.
You need to register before you can download. It prompts me for a password. Now if I could only remeber what mine was....
Now if they port the rest of OS X to Intel I'd be interested in getting it. But whats the real difference of getting darwin vs BSD or some other UNIX for intel or Linux?
It might be nice to try Darwin with X and see how stable that would be vs Linux or BSD.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
I purchased it but I didn't register... You must be talking about the Admin Password before it installs. It's just the security features of the OS. Not much different than logging into Linux! Actually... What are you doing running OS X if you haven't gotten it yet? Actually your whole message doesn't make much sense. If you actually had the hardware to run OS X you probably wouldn't be talking about getting an Intel machine. If anything, you would want to run it on an AMD Athlon. Better yet, just wait for the 1Ghz PPC7400 and DDR RAM.
-- It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
Nevermind, I just realised that you are talking about registering to download Darwin... Not install the new OS X update... I'm not sure what I was thinking.
In any case...
All my base are belong to you.
-- It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
compileing projects can be made easy
by
johnjones
·
· Score: 1
hey this is good
when you are doing your dev work you dont want a GUI in the way so you have a machine dedicated to the BUILD !
and that is dawin for the apples you just set up you mozilla tools and do your master builds each night !
thank you apple for our new build machine
DP4 was a nightmare to build on because of the differances in the build between it and darwin
OS/2 wasn't the crown jewel of IBM. You could arguably say that the Mac OS is and always has been the crown jewel of Apple.
If IBM suddenly ditched the server business and decided their future lay with digital camera's, then we'll talk.
Re:not a good comparison
by
Scudsucker
·
· Score: 1
I'd argue that, at least the "always has been" part. Apple became huge just selling Apple ][s.
If you want to pick a nit, you are right, the Mac OS didn't come out until '84.:) But minus the "always" part, I think my point is still valid.
Re:not a good comparison
by
mfnickster
·
· Score: 1
OS/2 wasn't the crown jewel of IBM. You could arguably say that the Mac OS is and always has been the crown jewel of Apple.
I'd argue that, at least the "always has been" part. Apple became huge just selling Apple ][s.
- MFN
-- "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
Is it case insensitive like OS X
by
mab
·
· Score: 1
OS X is case preserving but case insensitive
Re:Is it case insensitive like OS X
by
mab
·
· Score: 1
Which can be a problem if you have a source tree with a Makefile and a makefile
I know its a problem with python and Zope.
But there is a work around for the last two examples
Re:Is it case insensitive like OS X
by
schwanerhill
·
· Score: 1
HFS+ (the Mac default file sytem) is case insensitive but case preserving.
If you format your drive in UFS, OS X is case preserving and case sensitive.
Re:Is it case insensitive like OS X
by
CottonEyedJoe
·
· Score: 1
OSX is only case insensitive if you are using HFS+ paritions. OSX is case sensitive if you are using UFS. The reason for installing OSX on a HFS+ partition is so that it can coexist with "Classic" MacOS on the same partition. Darwin has no need for this and it is perfectly fine to install it on a UFS partition.
Re:"Open Source Foundation"
by
rm+-rf+/etc/*
·
· Score: 2
and that's about it. you can run x-windows on it (which isn't all that easy to do on OS X), or whatever you want
Actually, it's just as easy on OSX, just head over to xfree86.org and download the 4.0.3 binaries and install them just like you would on any other unix system. Then you can go get Xaqua to run X apps in tandem with the OSX window system.
Re:Carbon and Cocoa: open source emulation?
by
rm+-rf+/etc/*
·
· Score: 3
GNUstep is a GNU project to create an open source set of frameworks that conform to the OpenStep (now Cocoa) API. Core foundation is 99% complete currently, and very usable. AppKit has a way to go yet. Basically, at best GNUstep will one day give you source compatability (meaning don't hold your breath for those proprietary closed source mac apps). Currently, it's not there yet for several reasons.
First, AppKit has some work to do on the more advanced controls (like the text model). Second, the GNUstep folks are trying to catch up to a moving target (Cocoa). Third, there's an amazing lack of interest in the GNUstep project so it is not moving all that fast. Finally, Cocoa apps used a completely different makefile format and also store interfaces in nib files which are in a semi-proprietary format. This means to build OSX apps, you'd have to rewrite the makefiles (pretty simple), and either convert the nib's to something your app can use (conversion is very rough, doesn't work well) or rewrite your interface by hand.
So one day I hope things will look better, but right now anything with a complex interface would be a pain to port to GNUstep.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
adolf
·
· Score: 2
[...]THE SOFTWARE IS COOL AND SUPPORTED BY SOMEONE I KNOW WILL BE THERE TOMORROW, versus OS projects that can disappear if the maintainer decides to ditch it. Apple's not going to ditch the core of their OS.
Right. Just like IBM isn't going to ditch OS/2. None of the other huge computer companies (Apple, MSFT, etc) are as bull-headed as IBM when it comes to supporting and maintaining forgotten things, but OS/2 is (by their own admission) quite dead.
Did I mention that it is closed-source, and thus the few nagging bugs which persist will very likely never be fixed at any point in the future?
Or, the Amiga OS (what was it, Workbench?). Commodore is at least six feet under right now, but at one time was seen as having no danger of folding, with one of the most competent desktop operating systems in existance to their name, and killer hardware to match. Much like OS/2, nobody can modify the OS to any genuinely useful extent, and so it has been stale for years.
I suppose it's nice that Darwin sources are available, but if Apple kicks the bucket, all the code in the world won't change the license restrictions into something which allows people the freedom to work independantly on the software and share their improvements with the world. It is therefore no better than the aforementioned worse-case closed-source scenarious.
the point is that Apple, a company that makes money selling Hardware, *could* continue to do so using x86. Apple is not interested in becoming Microsoft - nor would they likely succeed (=> next, BE OS,...).
if, say, motorola continues to suck as it does, and intel/AMD continue to get better all the time, that may just happen.
but back to my argument: if Apple were to switch to x86 _at all_, they would be better off with non-cloneable machines. they probably come up with a better concept than the proprietary ROM, but the point is, it's easily possible to make a proprietary x86 system.
more likely, though, is that apple switches to multiple processors, sort of trying to bridge the MHz gap that way. the MHz gap is hurting apple, and it looks like it will continue to get worse.
How long before GNU/Darwin?
by
jgilbert
·
· Score: 1
How long will it be before Debian makes a GNU/Darwin distribution to go along w/ GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd? This is sarcasm, but wouldn't it be great if Mac OS X shipped w/ all the GNU utilities installed?
Re:How long before GNU/Darwin?
by
q[alex]
·
· Score: 1
well said, thanks for the info. i'll be sure to do some more reading on microkernels.
-- I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
Re:How long before GNU/Darwin?
by
ddstreet
·
· Score: 1
Geez who moderated that FlameBait? That's not FlameBait...?
Re:How long before GNU/Darwin?
by
ddstreet
·
· Score: 1
oops my bad
Re:How long before GNU/Darwin?
by
ddstreet
·
· Score: 4
No, sorry, GNU/Hurd uses the Mach kernel; it would be GNU/Darwin (not GNU/Mach).
'Hurd' refers to the (userspace) device drivers, as does 'Darwin'. Both use the Mach microkernel.
You need to understand the difference between a monolithic kernel and micro-kernel to see the difference between Hurd and Mach (or Darwin and Mach).
A monolithic kernel (like Linux) has all operations and device drivers in-kernel; they all run in kernel mode (ring 0 on x86).
A microkernel (like Mach) only has the basic operations, but doesn't do everything you need. You need userspace 'server processes' which complete the kernel and run in userspace (ring 2 on x86). Thus, you have GNU's Hurd (play on words, it's a 'herd' of server processes) and Apple's Darwin.
Re:How long before GNU/Darwin?
by
modman_reborn
·
· Score: 1
ummm....well actualy it is temporaraly using the mach kernel. when they make a work-alike for the kernel they will replace mach with it.
-- -I thought I told you to shut-up before
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
MochaMan
·
· Score: 1
Ummm... sorry to break it to you, but the OSI found the APSL to be compliant with its open source definition. ESR has also publicly supported the APSL since the beginning.
Glad you weren't an early Linux user
by
MochaMan
·
· Score: 1
You might have said the same thing about Linux in the early '90s.
a better link is <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/dar win/1.3/release.html">http://www.opensource.app le.com/projects/darwin/1. 3/release.html</a>
-- I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
Check out http://www.openpackages.org/ (hope this link prints correctly this time). There's already a project to unify the ports/packages collections across the various BSDs. Note that by ports/packages I mean FreeBSD-style ports and NetBSD-style packages (which are the same things, different names).
-- I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
Re:"Open Source Foundation"
by
q[alex]
·
· Score: 4
From what I've been able to gather from the FAQ and other stuff, you get:
a mach kernel
a bsd subsystem - regularly synched with freebsd (libraries, object interfaces, etc) and netbsd (some user commands)
and that's about it. you can run x-windows on it (which isn't all that easy to do on OS X), or whatever you want.
the directory structure isn't all that important (to me, anyways)... what is important is that you're getting an OS that's binary compatible with Mac OS X (except for the carbon and cocoa toolkits, Apple's GUI frameworks), and also happens to be very close to a FreeBSD reference platform. Pretty damn cool.
-- I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
If it was DR1 or 2, then it was just before Apple dropped x86 support. My hunch is that they stopped development at that time also, or moved it well underground. I'm not certain, but I believe that pre-dated Quartz and Aqua, as well.
Apple's doing their own x86 chipset, so installing their OSX-x86 to an off the shelf PC won't be trivial. The whole thing could be canned if Motorola somehow pulls their head out of their ass.
This is only a rumor, of course.
blessings,
-- "Only in their dreams can men truly be free
'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
With the x86 release of Darwin a complete OS X release for the x86 platform wouldn't be far away
Sadly Darwin is a tiny part of the effort required to bring Mac OS X to x86. Above this sit many layers of software, including Quartz, Carbon, Aqua, Classic, Cocoa, QuickTime, Java... Don't forget, Apple has had a team of up to 500 engineers working on Mac OS X for PPC for the last three years or so. Of that effort, only a tiny subset has been dedicated to bringing up Darwin.
I'd guess that you'd be looking at several hundred man years of effort to get the rest of Mac OS X ported to Intel, particularly if you want it to run on a decent spread of hardware. I wouldn't hold your breath...
You're assuming that higher-level code is all written in PowerPC assembly language. I don't think that is the case. I would expect that most of the OS X code is written in C, C++, or Objective C (the object-oriented dialect of C used on NeXTstep).
Actually, I'm not assuming that Mac OS X is written in PPC assembly language. I worked for Apple as a senior software engineer for four years, up through the Mac OS X beta. I spent a lot of time working on the internals of Mac OS X. Porting an OS written in C/C++ is not a case of recompiling for a new instruction set. It would be a significant amount of work to bring the upper software layers of Mac OS X up on Intel.
The biggest technical challenges would probably be the Classic environment (which has to run PowerPC and 68K machine code), device support for the millions of different PC I/O configurations, and reoptimization of low-level code that takes advantage of AltiVec.
Classic would be a major challenge. Not only the technical issues of running a PowerPC emulator on Intel, but also the usability issue that emulation brings - namely your emulated Classic apps would run very, very slowly on Intel.
But the real reasons you won't see OS X on x86 are business reasons. Apple thinks of themselves as a hardware company -- they weren't willing to tolerate even limited competition from authorized cloners, and so they certainly wouldn't want to have to compete for hardware sales in the x86 world. And Office gives Microsoft a lot of hold over Apple, even if using one monopoly to maintain or extend another is supposed to be against the law.
I agree, the major reasons for not porting Mac OS X to Intel are business-related, not technical. The technical reasons are huge however. To re-iterate what you said, Apple is a company that does around $8 billion a year in revenue. Of this about 95% is from hardware. So the first year that Apple transitions from being a hardware company to being a software company, its revenues drop from $8 billion to $400 million. Its hard to see how any company could justify that kind of decision. Can you imagine how their shareholders would react?
Personally I don't think Microsoft has much hold over Apple. That's just a red herring as far as I can see. Its the revenue drop they couldn't stomach.
Did it ever occur to you that when Bill Gates threw support behind Jobs and Apple and offered to keep makeing Office for MacOS that there was a 'stipulation' that MacOS would never run on x86. What if the monopoly that is Microshaft has pre-empted and basically forbid Apple from even allowing anything more meaningful the basic kernel from being released!
If all of OS X WAS ported to x86 and all you had to do is recompile:
a) would Mac products be compiled for x86?
b) would Any free-lance developers support the closed GUI?
c) Would/Could this become the GUI that unifies the Linux/BSD desktop market?
-- ----
Smokin' another sig.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
Hard_Code
·
· Score: 2
"I can modify and submit changes to the source code for free."
Except, I believe that the Apple license does not give you *ownership* of that code. You can make the changes and submit them, but then they're *theirs* not yours. That is the big difference. I may be wrong here, but that's the last I heard on that license. Nobody says you don't have to like it. More companies allowing people to view their source is great. Just don't bless it as "Open Source" or "Free Software".
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom.
RMS would not like to use the term "Open Source" at all, he uses the term "Free Software". There is a huge difference. RMS created Free Software back in ~1984, several people (ESR, Perens, etc) created Open Source in ~1998.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
ddstreet
·
· Score: 1
Holy crap, there sure are a lot of people who (apparently) don't understand what Open Source is.
For everyone who flamed me, I will say a couple things:
-If the OSI had not started using the term "Open Source" then it would not mean anything more than it did before 1998. Apple would most certainly not be using it today. So, since they are using it because of the OSI's actions, it would be nice if they could even try to get OSI's license approval.
-Code that you can download and look at without paying money is not Open Source. A key ingredient in Open Source software is the ability to modify and distribute the code. There is a massive difference between 'Free Beer' and 'Free Speech'.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
ddstreet
·
· Score: 1
Hmm...
RMS indeed does not care if anything is Open Source. He cares if software is Free Software (not 'GNU/Linux'...that's not a 'movement', license, or method of development...it's a software package...Free Software is a movement, as is Open Source).
It is true (are you trying to say this?) that RMS (and the FSF) does not have anything to do with Open Source or the OSI; I should have made that clear. But RMS's evaluation of the license is informative.
My question to you is this: Why would you want anyone to assume that for a company to be Open Source means that it has to be part of an Open Source Organization such as the Open Source Initiative?
Because the OSI made the term Open Source widely known. Apple would not be using the term if the OSI had not made it widely known in ~1998. So Apple clearly is talking about the OSI's Open Source (or are you saying they are not talking about the OSI's term, they just made up the term now?).
If I followed YOUR ERRENOUS judgement completely bias one could not be a "real" Computer Engineer unless one is registered at the IEEE +_+?
Uhh...no, I'm saying software is not 'Open Source' without being licensed under a OSI-approved license. If you mean that someone is not a 'real Computer Engineer' without a college degree, I agree, and in fact I believe it is illegal to represent yourself as an engineer if you are not one; if it's not illegal it's certainly not right. But the IEEE is not responsible for the term 'Computer Engineer' (or Electrical Engineer). And I am a Electrical Engineer, not Computer. IEEE stands for "The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers"...
Peace fellow slashdoter,
from a peaceful and compassionate slashdoter.
Peace.;-)
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
ddstreet
·
· Score: 1
I am pretty sure that in at least my state (NC) you must be either a registered EE or work for a company that is registered. You can't just work as an EE without being registered (and a prereq. for registration is a 8-hour test).
But I could be wrong. I lost most interest in EE when I got (heavily) into computers, too late to switch majors.
Doh.;-)
Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
ddstreet
·
· Score: 3
Why does everyone simply believe Apple when they say Open Source?!?
They really need to stop erroneously using the words 'Open Source'.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
Espen
·
· Score: 1
In fact RMS gives reasons why it is not acceptable, even their new 'version 1.2' APSL release. In fact RMS fails to explain why 1.2 is unacceptable on the GNU site. The commentary is primarily about the APSL 1.0 which is not relevant to Darwin as released this week.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
ahknight
·
· Score: 2
I can download Dawrin for free. I can install it for free. I can use it for free. I can get the source code for free. I can modify and submit changes to the source code for free.
If you mean you can't take Apple's code and use it elsewhere, you might have a point, but, really, Apple is a company. Get your head out of the FSF's ass long enough to see that that the world cannot exist on free software along. SOMETHING, SOMEWHERE, has to cost money for someone to make money. Free goes no where. We tried it, the VCs poured money into it. None came out and the stockes crashed. Learn from this. If you want to see Darwin 2.0 then it can never be RMS' idea of "free" because Apple would go the way of VA Linux.
Whoop-de-friggin-do that RMS and FSF don't like it. I couldn't care less about their opinions of things. This is free as in beer and cool as hell and by God I'm using the damned thing and the entire whiny "Open Source" (with big capital letters) movement can kiss my furry ass if you dislike the license BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE IS COOL AND SUPPORTED BY SOMEONE I KNOW WILL BE THERE TOMORROW, versus OS projects that can disappear if the maintainer decides to ditch it. Apple's not going to ditch the core of their OS.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
sydb
·
· Score: 1
Free goes no where. We tried it, the VCs poured money into it. None came out and the stockes crashed. Learn from this. If you want to see Darwin 2.0 then it can never be RMS' idea of "free" because Apple would go the way of VA Linux.
Really? Then how come I am using a Free operating system now, and am currently downloading a 55Mb update to it (Debian)?
Just because the corporations don't make money, does not mean that Free Software is a failure.
It's a success because I, like hundreds of thousands of other users are using it successfully and will continue to do so while people like the kernel developers and Debian are around. And because they are in it for something other than money, then there is more chance of them riding the next stock market crash.
-- Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
richie123
·
· Score: 1
That is not the problem, the problem is that you
can't make changes to the source code for your
own or buisness use, without returning all your
changes to apple.
That means you can't write a driver for your
custom hardware, or make inprovememts to the
libraries for use in your custom applications
without returning all code to apple either.
This may not mean much to the average/. user,
but it does mean that making apples license a
OSI approved license whould open the door to
licenses that infringe your right to privacy.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
hyperstation
·
· Score: 1
this is a company who has, since it's inception, sold only proprietary software and hardware, and now they're opening up to new ideas and giving you the software. do you need approval from RMS and the FSF to wipe your ass, too?
--
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
hyperstation
·
· Score: 1
okay, well maybe "has sold mostly solely proprietary software and hardware" would be more appropriate
i wasn't even walking then, but i'm pretty sure you're right about the apple 1 being sold with schematics
--
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
SirDrinksAlot
·
· Score: 1
AFAIK the Deffinition of OpenSource from the beginning has ment the source code was open for examination and modification. Because acouple organizations dont approve of it does not make it any less open source. Apple just wants to keep some control over it and thats just fine with me. If i were to opensource something (which i wouldent, i belive developers work just as hard as anyone else and should be paid for it just like anyone else) it would be under a license verry much resembleing the APSL.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
dachshund
·
· Score: 1
And it would probably be subject to termination or revocation at any time just like the APSL. Kind of a raw deal for anybody who downloaded or contributed to it, isn't it?
Sounds a little like the Microsoft Hailstorm privacy policy: This policy guarantees you absolute privacy. At least until we decide to change it, which we can do at any time.
Re:Darwin isn't Open Source!!!
by
yannek
·
· Score: 1
FYI
RMS does not care if APSL is Open Source or not, he was only reflecting on the fact that it was not a Linux/GPL. He only seems to point out once again the difference between the Open Source mouvement and the GNU/Linux mouvement. The GNU/Linux mouvement has a more philosophical aspect rather than just using the open source method of development. People could debate the pro and the con betwen the GNU/Linux GPL and the fact of just using the Open Source method of development, and I would personally understand both side. It really depend what you are trying to achieve as a individual or as a company. By using the FSF article,
you are clearly confusing people here, and probably not doing too good for the FSF cause. Open Source is just a concept/method of developing a product: it means the source code is open for other people to see and contribute. The rest is policy making and legal stuffs.
My question to you is this:
Why would you want anyone to assume that for a company to be Open Source means that it has to be part of an Open Source Organization such as the Open Source Initiative?
If I followed YOUR ERRENOUS
judgement completely bias one could not be a "real" Computer Engineer unless one is registered at the IEEE +_+?
Anyway, Just forget about it and do as I do
just enjoy life. Life is too short to be too judgemental.
Peace fellow slashdoter,
from a peaceful and compassionate slashdoter.
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
NetCurl
·
· Score: 1
Look real close and take note on the max uptime for the flagship Darwin server:.5 days uptime, at best.
That is because with all the internal builds, they are rebooting, adding, testing, rebuilding the kernel, trying new things etc. That may be why the uptime is only counted in the single digit days. Personally, I've had uptimes much longer than 5 days. Right now I'm at 24 and I may reboot with a new kernel soon.
--
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
OSX on Intel is a long way away. As others hav said, there's many other components and issues that will prevent any kind of OSX on Intel machine in the next few years.
OTOH, what Apple could do is release Darwin with the GUI of Mac Classic with Darwin underneath. It woudl make sense, because the timeframe to implement it would ensure that OSX is the default PPC version. You'd not have the Java or Aqua support so you're not endangering your core market.
I'm not sure Apple would bother making any apps beyond server apps, which would doom the thing to obscurity ala Be, but if the open source crowd picked it up and took advantage of a good GUI (and followed the interface guidelines, which I doubt) then Apple could have a "back door" into low end servers.
But this is Apple we're talkign about...
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 2
You basically answered your own question. If you have a low to medium volume server (let's say a military unit alumni association) that really needs to be secure (maybe you got tired of being 0wn3d), then Mac's the place to be.
The % of PPC code v. emulated may have been right at one time but I don't think this is true anymore.
I'm curious -- what fraction of MacOS X does this comprise? Before I go and DL and try it -- if you install it, what sort of system do you get? I see from the Darwin page that it's the BSD/Mach basis for MacOS X. Do you basically get a BSD operating system without the MacOS X interface? Does it have all the changed directory structures/user management/etc (not saying they're bad) of MacOS X?
I'd read it in the release notes, but the "released" link won't let in. Any summary/link would be appreciated.
-Puk
Re:"Open Source Foundation"
by
Omega996
·
· Score: 1
hmmm, i had absolutely no problems installing and running XonX on my powerbook G4 - pretty damned cool.
Carbon and Cocoa: open source emulation?
by
tcyun
·
· Score: 1
I am not an Apple die-hard so I have not been following the development of Darwin. The part of the x86 announcement that is interesting for me is the possibility of a Mac applications getting ported to open/free alternatives to the proprietary Mac UI.
Is this a pipe dream? I know there are probably some hardware issues to resolve (nothing a few programmers and a few long nights can not solve...). The issue in my mind is if there is a desire to get the entire Mac applications running on x86 by using Darwin & an free/open UI interface. (Or is this part of Apple's long term plan?)
Re:Carbon and Cocoa: open source emulation?
by
tcyun
·
· Score: 1
This post titled 'Why OSX on Intel/AMD CANNOT WORK'
is somewhat amusing a I dig down to figure out a bit more regarding OSX on x86 and alternates to Carbon/Cocoa (should the term Aqua be attached to those two?). Funny how things change, it is only from Oct of 2000 also.
Re:Carbon and Cocoa: open source emulation?
by
ryuspeed
·
· Score: 1
I think that an open implementation of the cocoa and carbon apis would allow mac apps on x86. But I hope that apple's long term goal is to release those anyway so that we can all share in MacOS.
Hey, you just found a non harmful use of goatse.cx ^_^
True life example of how Darwin helps Apple
by
e271828
·
· Score: 2
When OS X Final was released, a lot of folks with dual processor Macs reported kernel panics when getting online via dial-up. A Darwin developer (Louis Gerbarg), who is not an Apple employee, tracked down the bug in an open source kernel extension, and fixed it. No big deal in the Linux world, but possibly a first for a commercial OS (again, this was a kernel level bug!)
End result: Lots of happy OS X users (who paid upto $129 a pop to buy the software), without any involvement from Apple! Talk about a win-win...
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
naasking
·
· Score: 1
But, why in God's name would you EVER want to run a webserver on MacOS? It's a single user, single address space, non-protected operating system. Only 50% of it is even native PPC code! The rest is emulated 68k. The only thing it has going for it is the fact that it's very secure(basically because it has no concept of ports, services or anything... everything has to be implemented manually). I've heard of WebTen but I'd be skeptical of any claims to that kind of speed.
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
naasking
·
· Score: 3
and there isnt even a web server platform that runs on the mac!
Really? Then what's this? Oh, and how about this? And then there's this, and this! Don't forget this. And finally, there's this! Now I figure either you meant to say something else, or you just don't know what you're talking about. If it's the former, perhaps you should clarify. If the latter you just lost alot of credibility in my mind.
First - Windows Media Services is a great way to go if you want to continue Microsoft's hegemony on the desktop. Competition is good.
Second - Last I heard, Real was charging $2,000+ for Real Server 8. That may be cheap to you, but it isn't to me.
Third - Darwin was not written for the Macinosh, it was built on BSD and was never intended to be used solely on PowerPC hardware.
Fourth - If you're down on apps that are configured through text files, perhaps you're not really very familiar with this thing called UNIX, which happens to use a text files all over the place for configuration. Ever heard of Apache?
Fifth - Speaking of web server platforms running on the Mac, maybe you've heard of Apache, WebTen, WebStar...
Sixth - "free with the purchase of Windows 2000" says it all.
Re:Why Darwin over FreeBSD
by
Sc00ter
·
· Score: 1
I understand that, but what can you run on it? It's easy to install but somebody that can't install FreeBSD (I find that install to be quite easy) is probably not going to be able to install X from the source, same goes for alot of other programs.
Also, the default install doesn't have a root password, seems that security isn't the highest concern for this OS.
Without Aqua, Carbon and all that other stuff.. Why would you use this over say FreeBSD? Not like you can run OS X apps on it or anything.
Please explain to me why I would get this and what the benifit is of it?
Also, on the PPC side, does it support the G3 Firewire notebooks? And the airport cards? I got Yellow Dog, but I can't get the speakers to turn on.. I havn't hacked around with the Airport card much.>p? --
Of course there WAS no interest...
by
alexhmit01
·
· Score: 2
Until 3 weeks ago, there was no large shipping operating system supporting OpenSTEP like APIs. Well, that started to change on March 24. If a handful of programmers realize the power of the Cocoa environment, we'll see the sucker improving. However, with NeXT basically dead, OpenSTEP marginalized, and then it completely disappearing while Apply worked on OS X, there was no incentive other than porting old NeXTSTEP code.
Now there is.
There needs to be a common API for writing applications for the UNIX workstation market. Within 6 months, the market leader in that space will be Apple.
Either get Trolltech to port QT to Quartz (and then the KDR extentions), or port GTK+ to Quartz, or port Cocoa (via GnuSTEP) to X-Windows.
Either way, Linux/FreeBSD/MacOS X are a natural alliance. The combined desktop marketshare is much more worthwhile to port to than any of them individually.
Alex
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
Omega996
·
· Score: 1
yeah, d00de! win2K rulez!! It's a perfect OS for the P4 - check it out here
whoa. i gasped (loud) when i saw this article. doing a bit of research, i found this page, containing the x86 installation notes. Take a look! it appears that you need a specific intel board.
"emulators such as vmware do not have VESA 2.0 compliant emulated video cards." ...you can't try this out with VMware!! that's how almost all of us were going to play...
Apple's WebServer Sucks for this D'load!
by
ivi
·
· Score: 1
OK, so we register and start downloading Darwin source... unfortunately, our ISP hangsup every 4 hours...
(I suspect that they get kickbacks our phone company; remember local calls cost in Australia, but I digress...)
Now, most -other- web servers allow us (via Opera 5.02) to reconnect later & Resume the transfer...
But does Apples? Of course not! After downloading 44 MB (during the first 4 hour session), we lose it all - and must conclude that we are unable to d'load the target 129 MB file!
Thank you Apple!!! (not)
Now, if anybody has this file mirrored on an FTP site that permits Resumes... do let us know!
Sad to say, from the looks of the registration process needed to start the download in the first place, it would have to be a warez-style site that does the workaround mirroring...
Of course, Apple -might- be persuaded to rethink its web server [config parameters] to preclude the need for such workarounds, but I would be surprised if they did... pleasantly surprised, of course...
Apple, are you listening? So, surprise us!;-)
Re:Wow and look at all the hardware support...
by
ahknight
·
· Score: 2
And at version 1.3 Linux was any better? It wasn't until 2.0+ that anything useful was supported. This is how an OS grows. People seem to forget that Darwin and Mac OS X (10 that is) are BABIES in the world of OSes. They are just getting started with hardware and application support. Give 'em time and they will refine it. You think Windows 95 supported USB at all? It barely supported good video cards. Given time, however, Win 98 SE did a pretty good job at USB and video acceleration.
Give Apple some time and don't judge the first releases like this is the final product.
At any rate, www.opensource.apple.com is running Mac OS X with Apache (of course) according to Netcraft.
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
wfaulk
·
· Score: 1
Okay, first, this post is about Darwin the OS, not it's streaming server project.
Second, regradless of the qulaity of DSS, Real Server (or whatever they call it) is not cheap at all. Check out this comment to a former post.
--
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
wfaulk
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe I misspelled that much and didn't notice....
--
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
Leaked versions are MUCH better
by
Com2Kid
·
· Score: 1
Hehe, I had a friend once who was given a PC laptop by a friend of his who worked at apple, and it was running MacOS!
Very cool, hehe, it was locked down tight though, and the passwords where long forgotten, since it was a very early build (2 or 3 years ago) so he had to reformat over it and ended up installing windows on it instead, ugh.
It does show though that Apple has MacOS running on x86 hardware!
True, but it WAS rare as hell, and it proves that apple is working on maintaining dua(e)l plateform shtuff.
not to mention, the UI was running on the x86, so it shows that they are at least part way there, hehe, even if the other shtuff has changed. . . . alot, even, heh, damn, too late at night, thought process not working, can't link concepts, DAMNIT!
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
wholesomegrits
·
· Score: 1
Say what you want about how great MacOS X and Darwin are, but the guy has something right: it doesn't seem that great.
Check out the following link:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&m od e_w=on&site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensource.apple.com% 2F&submit=Examine
Look real close and take note on the max uptime for the flagship Darwin server:.5 days uptime, at best.
Not impressive.
-- No sig is worth reading.
Darwin Server, not worth it
by
Jelerial
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure why anyone is even still working on the Darwin Streaming server. All that is holy, my god..
First, there are other streaming servers that do a better job, cost less overall, and are open-source. Microsoft provides Windows Media Services, free with purchase of Windows 2000. Real Media Player is an exceptionally cheap option, and is also released under the BSD license.
I did some testing and playing around with large (hundreds of users) streams set up a few months ago, and Darwin was barely able to break 35 connections. I'm sure part of this is because Darwin was originally written for the Macintosh, and there isnt even a web server platform that runs on the mac! Yes, there are Linux ports, and Windows ports (the windows port only broke 12 connections a second, compared to the 376 for Real and 482 for Windows Media Services) is the shoddiest piece of software I've ever seen. Its configured through a package that just writes to a text file, but instead of being intelligent text, its crap. Crap! The entire product is crap. I wouldn't even use it for streaming stuff from my web camera. God, and they expect someone to USE their product? Before any corporation deploys Darwin, the coders had best fix some of their serious understructure. Sure its free, but if you can shell out 100 bucks for Real, or already have Windows 2000, then its point, click, stream. You dont have to install 300 different add on packages, rebuild your machines, recompile Darwin 13 times with different options, just to specify maximum bandwidth to consume. Its rediculous. Get something better, please
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
jchristopher
·
· Score: 1
there isnt even a web server platform that runs on the mac!
+5, informative? More like a troll. There are plenty of web servers that run on the Mac, you know it, I know it, Slashdot knows it, so stop spreading lies.
Next you'll be telling us "Apple stole the GUI from Xerox blah blah blah"
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
update()
·
· Score: 2
Huh?
One, this story is about the Darwin OS, not the streaming server. Two, on what planet does MacOS not have any web servers?
Yeah, I know it's a troll. I'm just wondering what the idiots moderating you up are thinking. Anyway, when it comes to trolling, Michael has you beat with from the for-masochists-only dept.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
jthill
·
· Score: 1
Mmm. Have you noticed what micro-slush-for-brains is doing for media tools these days? Can you say UCITA? Have you ever heard of it?
In case you haven't, "every cynical prediction you ever heard is coming true" is a fair summary.
-- As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Re:Darwin Server, not worth it
by
KingAzzy
·
· Score: 2
Quicktime beats the crap out of Windows Media and Real codec's many times plus some. Go check out http://www.apple.com/trailers/ and if you've got decent bandwidth, check out the high bandwidth videos. I've never seen WMP or Real equivs to that quality, even at high exposure places like atomfilms.com. Even the low-res clips look great.
Moral: It's an aesthetics thing. Totally different universe from Unix geekdom.;-)
there have been rumors that AMD will start manufacturing G4 processors for Apple soon. If so, this would be great. Not only would it help lessen Apple's reliance on faultering Motorola, but hopefully AMD would be able to produce the chips faster, cheaper, and possibly also at a higher clock rate than Motorola has been able to reliably. Having AMD be a chip producer might help strengthen Apple's reputation as well. While this is still all rumor, it is a nice thought in my opinion. Carry on
Actually, I didnt get that info at macosrumors. Im not a moron. If it was listed on there, then I had no idea. I do not read the site, because as you said, the guy is full of shit
Re:The plot thickens, again
by
toph42
·
· Score: 1
This is not entirely true. Any software written to the Classic API is definately out, of course. Carbon, too.
Here is the plot really thickens: Cocoa apps would run unmodified (with a recompile or a fat binary compile) on a MacOS X release for x86.
There's your software. MacOS X for x86 is not yet viable, true. But once a wide selection of Cocoa software is written, it will automatically work with an x86 release.
This overcomes the chicken-egg scenario that any new OS must face. Nobody wants an OS with no software, and nobody wants to write software for an OS that nobody has. Once Cocoa is fully adopted by the developer community for MacOS X on Apple's hardware, a MacOS X for x86 would have the same software--automatically.
Mac OS X was also updated. Up to 4L13 (10.0.1). This is the official apple sanctioned release version. Check out macnn for tips if you installed an earlier, developer only build (4l5?)
Get it by running apple software update, letting it update your software update application, run it again (to get 10.0.1), reboot, and run it again (to get updated epson printer drivers) if you want.
Have fun...
From Apple:
Update Now: Use the Software Update feature in your System Preferences to get the latest Mac OS X software. Improvements including better support for 3rd party USB devices, Classic compatibility and overall application stability as well as support for the popular open source Secure Shell service. For Japanese users, an update to the Epson printer drivers is also available.
I imagine it would be a headache, but how difficult would it be to bring over the ports collection and the drivers from FreeBSD?
although I can agreed that in this case it would be better to go with the pure BSD installs for a standard system, and use the darwin setup for a mad scientist rig.
OK, Darwin server is free and runs on a renge of
OSs. But what encoders are there for it? I'd be interedted in audio encoders... Are there any for free?
And what players? Apart from the Apple QuickTime, which runs only on Mac and Winsuxx
Re:codecs for Darwin server?
by
anarkhos
·
· Score: 1
No more than Apache auto-generates Flash movies.
Darwin Streaming Server is an rstp server. If you want to stream live media you use this in conjunction with other software like the stuff you use with mbone --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
Microsoft provides Windows Media Services, free with purchase of Windows 2000
Uh - explain this one to me - you purchase Windows 2000, but Windows Media Services that comes with it are "free"? If its part of a product that you purchase, doesn't it, uh, you know, cost money then? If you buy Win2K are some parts of it free while you pay for the others? Which parts are "free"? Which parts do you pay for? How ridiculous. It's like saying, I purchased a car, but I got the steering wheel and the distributor for free.
Re:Wow and look at all the hardware support...
by
LuckyLuke58
·
· Score: 1
Drivers, the eternal OS acceptance problem. Whatever happened to Intel's Universal Driver architecture stuff?
The OpenSource community always bitches and moans about vendors creating proprietary standards. So why hasn't the community produced a serious cross-platform universal driver interface? Sure, it would be a lot of work, and take a lot of thought and design, but imagine the benefits; hardware developers could write their drivers once, and the device could work (with little or not porting efforts) on Windows, BeOS, MacOS, Linux, BSD etc. If the OSS community fails to produce open standards to begin with, what right do they have to complain about proprietary driver standards? Why should it be n times the amount of work for a hardware vendor to support n Operating Systems? Not sure how possible this is, but if it was possible to create a single set of open driver standards for various types of hardware, then write some wrappers from this layer to the Windows driver layer, it could well be possible for a company to use such a standard and get Windows drivers with no extra troubles.
I haven't written many hardware drivers myself, so I probably don't have a very good idea just how difficult it would be to do this. I imagine it would be very difficult, but would be very powerful and useful too.
Re:You could start by looking at IOKit
by
LuckyLuke58
·
· Score: 1
Looks potentially useful, at a glance. Haven't had a detailed look. Would be ideal if it could be used for Linux and Windows drivers too.
Remember OPENSTEP?! --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
You could start by looking at IOKit
by
anarkhos
·
· Score: 1
Darwin's driver architecture is excellent, especially if you want to write one driver for several platforms. Their Intel ethernet card driver is open source and serves both x86 and PPC platforms. --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
Re:You could start by looking at IOKit
by
anarkhos
·
· Score: 1
We got Darwin, why piss around with Linux? --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
Please do not bother porting Qt, GTK, or any of your other horrible X11 APIs to Quartz. First of all these apps will not follow the Aqua HI Guidelines, they will not be mac apps. They will behave exactly like they do now in X11, so just use a rootless X11 server (which XonX is working on).
On the other hand porting an application to Cocoa would have the added benefit of being ported back to GNUStep. Thus OS X and X11 users alike get better apps. --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
There are two problems with this post
by
anarkhos
·
· Score: 1
1) Quartz is no more a GUI than X11, it's a display server.
2) It has been moderated up despite the fact it's a clueless question which anybody viewing the SITE would instantly realize!
Get a clue moderators, whoever you are. --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
Can't make a closed source driver and sell it? WTF?!
Dude, Apple doesn't even have access to ATI's or nVidia's drivers.
The ASPL is crystal clear, you can use their source willy nilly, but if you improve that code you should let everybody reap the rewards! --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
RMS's beef in two lines...
by
anarkhos
·
· Score: 1
ASPL is incompatible with the GPL
waa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
It takes two seconds to register, you don't even have to reply to emails, it's instant! --- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
-- >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent >life
Wow and look at all the hardware support...
by
philask
·
· Score: 2
---COUGH--
IDE:
Only the PIIX4 IDE controllers have been found to work.
Attached devices must be UDMA/33 compatible or better.
Ethernet:
Intel 8255x 10/100 ethernet controllers are supported.
All PCI based Intel 8255x cards tested worked fine, however
the mobile 8255x controllers in laptops are not supported.
Video:
You must have a VESA 2.0 compliant video card. Almost all
modern graphics cards are VESA 2.0 compliant. However, emulators
such as vmware do not have VESA 2.0 compliant emulated video cards.
Successfully tested hardware:
All 440BX motherboards tested have worked with their internal
Re:Wow and look at all the hardware support...
by
Tech187
·
· Score: 1
I ran Slackware with the 1.2.13 kernel for a long time. It was useful and lots of hardware was supported.
I'm not sure what you mean about Linux being junk at Kernel 1.3.
You need to sign up with the Apple Open Source developer thingy. That's why you can't get in. Reg for free and then you get a log in and password. Don't try and make Apple seem to be a bad guy when it comes to supporting x86.
If everyone on here likes to bad mouth Apple and talk about how crummy and dumb their OS is and even their programs, then why is everyone interested in porting OS X and OS X programs over to Linux or Windows???? Explain that one to me.
I guess its ok to take it for granted that everyone has a login and password to Apple's site, especially given the love that is generally shown for that company.
If you install Darwin, you should check out the GNU-Darwin distribution. They are working on a complete distribution of GNU tools and applictions to run on Darwin or Mac OS X.
They currently have XFree86 and lots of X windowmanagers and apps (including the Gimp) running on Darwin.
Give Apple credit. This is a stalwart of proprietary software & hardware doing what's Good for its customers.
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom. Diluting use of the term will only help reel the zealots & fanatics in, another Good thing.
Moderators do your worst.
--
The only certainty is entropy.
User/pass for download
by
majestyk2000
·
· Score: 1
I GUESSED 'heywood' and 'jablowme' and it worked....just passing it on.
Re:At least it doesn't have this bug in it...
by
natefanaro
·
· Score: 1
A. The purpose of Darwin is to provide the core system software for Mac OS X. It is not designed to be an alternative to other excellent BSD options such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Darwin is simply BSD tweaked in ways we think will help Apple deliver the next great version of the Mac OS. We should note, however, that apart from a few architectural differences (such as our use of the Mach kernel), we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD (our BSD reference platform).
Re:bad link fixed! (403 forbidden)
by
BIGJIMSLATE
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the fix. Good job there michael.:p
Re:The Eye of Argon - Chapter 7 1/2
by
ypsi
·
· Score: 1
This (last) part wouldn't get through the lameness filter. Sorry!
Re:Push Linux off the Teeter Totter for Steve Jobs
by
Tech187
·
· Score: 1
Gack!
There really still are people out there with the 'whatever, just frag Microsoft while you're doing it, kay?' attitude.
I like to think that we don't need our primary focus to be hatred.
Ok how about some development tools
by
MikeOliverAZ
·
· Score: 1
Last year Borland made some noise about JBuilder being supported on OS-X but of course that was when OS-X was due out in October. Then again this year they showed it at MacWorld and then...nothing. OS-X is out and calls to Borland yield..."negotiating with Apple".
Anybody know any more about JBuilder on Darwing/OS-X?
-- Mike Oliver
Chief Architect
Morningstar Systems Inc.
520.574.1150
Slashdot Mirror
If you like to play with OSes in development that don't support much hardware, go for it. Otherwise, stick with tried and true (FrreBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Windows, BeOS, NextStep/OpenStep x86 etc)
There are an impressive number of confusions in this troll/post.
1. We're talking about the Darwin OS, not the Darwin Streaming Server, so the whole post is completely off topic.
2. The Darwin Streaming Server is a UNIX application (MacOS X, Solaris, etc.) with an NT port. It doesn't run on MacOS (unless someone has ported it since I looked).
3. Windows Media Services isn't free, it's part of Windows 2000 Server, which has substantial per-seat charges ($1,999.00 for unlimited user internet license, per machine). Sure, you could ignore the license terms of the product (i.e. steal it) to save money, but that's not something I'd advocate.
4. Real is only free for trivial applications. If you care about more than a few streams, brace yourself to pay $10K+ for the license. It is the most mature streaming server (kicks the sh*t out of MS or QTS) but costs around 450/stream (depending on volume pricing).
5. You can run QuickTime Streaming Server on BSD and Linux, among other OS's. I don't know what a cheaper alternative would be to a rack of $995 Sun or Linux boxen running QTS. The Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Server Internet Connector English North America Unlimited Clients license alone is $$1,999.00, and Real costs $50 per peak stream, on top of hardware costs. Darwin Streaming Server costs nothing but raw hardware costs (aside from third-party encoding tools), so it's far cheaper than Real or MS.
So, given that the Darwin Streaming Server is open source, unless you really want to give oceans of money to Real or MS, the smartest thing to do is to contribute to the project -- fix what you don't like, and everyone benefits.
Every time someone mentions the possibility of OS/2 for x86, everyone says "IBM'S A HARDWARE COMPANY" and this would be the worst thing for them because they rely primarily on hardware sales, etc.
But if they released OS/2 for PCs...
(1) They could STILL sell the ibm hardware. Some people might defect to cheaper hardware, but c'mon, IBM designs hardware like nobody's business, both in terms of form and feature-set, and I love the MCA platform. I'd continue to buy it.
(2) I think there's a company out there that makes a ton of money selling an operating system for x86, though the name escapes me. And they make plenty of $.
So.. ibm releases OS/2 for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
OSI Press Release
C'mon...like it was that difficult to manually edit the floppy boot sector when you wanted to use something other than the first primary hard drive partition.
:)
These damn kids nowadays with their fancy LILO's
So, what IS his role in the big picture?
You make an interesting point.. What do you propose?
OS/2 is/was actually very user friendly. The object oriented user interface was incredibly powerful for power users, and easy to learn for ordinary users. The first time you started OS/2, you got a nice tutoriel guiding you through files, folders, properties, drag-and-drop, object menus and all the other stuff. None of this "click Start to begin" crap.
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
I'm stunned nobody else responded to this by pointing to the GNU-Darwin Project homepage. So here it is.
No, this isn't a joke.
D'oh! Try backing up to http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/.
It doesn't include a GUI. However,you can install XFree86 4.02. More info is available at Darwinfo.
Try here.
From the release notes, there seems to be no implication of a GUI - am I wrong?
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Nice try, kids. Look here if you want the release info.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Good answer - I had to check the username to see if it was one of my college roommates (big Mac guys) and got a good chuckel. That was quite an informed answer for a user by the name of AIX admin. . .
-"Zow"
That Apple will allow people to build darwin boxes? How well will they support it on the x86? Has anyone tried yet? Please tell me how it is.
Or maybe this one....
. 3/release.html
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1
ok, ok, its the same link, Im just a karma whore.
People think Microsoft is the answer. Microsoft is just the question, "No" is the answer.
neither solaris or os/2 were/are known for their ease-of-use and user friendliness like Apple's OS. If people could have a Mac experience on their x86s, I could easily see them bailing on Windows.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Every time someone mentions the possibility of OS X for x86, everyone says "APPLE'S A HARDWARE COMPANY" and this would be the worst thing for them because they rely primarily on hardware sales, etc.
But if they released OS X for PCs...
(1) They could STILL sell the apple hardware. Some people might defect to cheaper hardware, but c'mon, Apple designs hardware like nobody's business, both in terms of form and feature-set, and I love the PPC platform. I'd continue to buy it.
(2) I think there's a company out there that makes a ton of money selling an operating system for x86, though the name escapes me. And they make plenty of $.
So.. apple releases OS X for x86 and becomes a major software company as WELL as a hardware company. The software side of the company alone has already been proven to be viable as a money-maker, so where's the problem?
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
"I did some testing and playing around with large (hundreds of users) streams set up a few months ago, and Darwin was barely able to break 35 connections. I'm sure part of this is because Darwin was originally written for the Macintosh, and there isnt even a web server platform that runs on the mac! " Funny, I know Apple has been able to server a 1000 times that using Darwin streaming server. Oh yea, and the Mac OS had a web server right after NCSA was released. It was called MacHTTPD , now known as WebStar. Now there are three or different options, even a commerical Apache port.
Cheers,
Tomas
===========
I don't think the original poster was talking of Unix variants that run on Power PC chips and Macintoshes... Bur rather webserving applications. Of courrse he's still wrong - there's personal web sharing (a joke, i know), mac HTTPD, WebTen, WebStar, etc... Ton's
WebTen can duke it out with the best of Linux machines, or at least it could a while back, i haven't looked into it recently. WebStars a stable and quite secure platform for serving webpages, since it's run on a Mac with no command line and no remote administration abilities...Sometimes simpler's better.
With OS 8 - Apple finally managed to untangle the OS from the ROM's in all shipping macs at that time. I don't think they want to go back to that.
They'ed have to release thier OS ahead of any available apps... Meaning it would flounder. No one's going to pay their developers to port applcations to an unreleased platform, and Apple would lose out big time by releasing OS X on intel without any apps. Look at how "successful" Be's been - releasing a cool OS with very little app support.
Now if they port the rest of OS X to Intel I'd be interested in getting it. But whats the real difference of getting darwin vs BSD or some other UNIX for intel or Linux?
It might be nice to try Darwin with X and see how stable that would be vs Linux or BSD.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
hey this is good
when you are doing your dev work you dont want a GUI in the way so you have a machine dedicated to the BUILD !
and that is dawin for the apples you just set up you mozilla tools and do your master builds each night !
thank you apple for our new build machine
DP4 was a nightmare to build on because of the differances in the build between it and darwin
$makeworld -sunsparc -linuxi386 -darwinppc
(-;
regards
john jones
Right. Just like IBM isn't going to ditch OS/2.
OS/2 wasn't the crown jewel of IBM. You could arguably say that the Mac OS is and always has been the crown jewel of Apple.
If IBM suddenly ditched the server business and decided their future lay with digital camera's, then we'll talk.
OS X is case preserving but case insensitive
Well, we always like new toys.
photosMy Photostream
Actually, it's just as easy on OSX, just head over to xfree86.org and download the 4.0.3 binaries and install them just like you would on any other unix system. Then you can go get Xaqua to run X apps in tandem with the OSX window system.
GNUstep is a GNU project to create an open source set of frameworks that conform to the OpenStep (now Cocoa) API. Core foundation is 99% complete currently, and very usable. AppKit has a way to go yet. Basically, at best GNUstep will one day give you source compatability (meaning don't hold your breath for those proprietary closed source mac apps). Currently, it's not there yet for several reasons.
First, AppKit has some work to do on the more advanced controls (like the text model). Second, the GNUstep folks are trying to catch up to a moving target (Cocoa). Third, there's an amazing lack of interest in the GNUstep project so it is not moving all that fast. Finally, Cocoa apps used a completely different makefile format and also store interfaces in nib files which are in a semi-proprietary format. This means to build OSX apps, you'd have to rewrite the makefiles (pretty simple), and either convert the nib's to something your app can use (conversion is very rough, doesn't work well) or rewrite your interface by hand.
So one day I hope things will look better, but right now anything with a complex interface would be a pain to port to GNUstep.
Right. Just like IBM isn't going to ditch OS/2. None of the other huge computer companies (Apple, MSFT, etc) are as bull-headed as IBM when it comes to supporting and maintaining forgotten things, but OS/2 is (by their own admission) quite dead.
Did I mention that it is closed-source, and thus the few nagging bugs which persist will very likely never be fixed at any point in the future?
Or, the Amiga OS (what was it, Workbench?). Commodore is at least six feet under right now, but at one time was seen as having no danger of folding, with one of the most competent desktop operating systems in existance to their name, and killer hardware to match. Much like OS/2, nobody can modify the OS to any genuinely useful extent, and so it has been stale for years.
I suppose it's nice that Darwin sources are available, but if Apple kicks the bucket, all the code in the world won't change the license restrictions into something which allows people the freedom to work independantly on the software and share their improvements with the world. It is therefore no better than the aforementioned worse-case closed-source scenarious.
Kid-proof tablet..
Does it come with Quartz for the GUI?
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
I have a Darwin 1.2 machine that has been up for over 70 days now ;-)
http://www.opensource.org/press_releases/osi-clari fies-APSL.html
it's quite possible for Apple to run on x86 _without_ running on your cheapo PC box. just add proprietary ROM...
why? to continue to make their money with [cool] hardware while at the same time taking advantage of cheap and fast x86 processors.
so, yes, it may run on x86. but, no, that doesn't mean you can just install it on your Dell.
nik
How long will it be before Debian makes a GNU/Darwin distribution to go along w/ GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd? This is sarcasm, but wouldn't it be great if Mac OS X shipped w/ all the GNU utilities installed?
Ummm... sorry to break it to you, but the OSI found the APSL to be compliant with its open source definition. ESR has also publicly supported the APSL since the beginning.
You might have said the same thing about Linux in the early '90s.
a better link is <a href="http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/dar win/1.3/release.html">http://www.opensource.app le.com/projects/darwin/1. 3/release.html</a>
I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
Check out http://www.openpackages.org/ (hope this link prints correctly this time). There's already a project to unify the ports/packages collections across the various BSDs. Note that by ports/packages I mean FreeBSD-style ports and NetBSD-style packages (which are the same things, different names).
I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
From what I've been able to gather from the FAQ and other stuff, you get:
a mach kernel
a bsd subsystem - regularly synched with freebsd (libraries, object interfaces, etc) and netbsd (some user commands)
and that's about it. you can run x-windows on it (which isn't all that easy to do on OS X), or whatever you want.
the directory structure isn't all that important (to me, anyways)... what is important is that you're getting an OS that's binary compatible with Mac OS X (except for the carbon and cocoa toolkits, Apple's GUI frameworks), and also happens to be very close to a FreeBSD reference platform. Pretty damn cool.
I am the king... of No Pants! www.penny-arcade.com
If it was DR1 or 2, then it was just before Apple dropped x86 support. My hunch is that they stopped development at that time also, or moved it well underground. I'm not certain, but I believe that pre-dated Quartz and Aqua, as well.
X on X
>this is a company who has, since it's inception, sold only proprietary software and hardware
Perhaps you are forgetting that when you bought an Apple computer in the 70s, the schematics came with it.
...or so I've read, I wasn't even alive;)
It's a bare-bones BSD-like OS. If you want XFree and goodies like that, you need to download them yourself.
Ok, so why use Darwin at all?
1.) It's *painless* to install on a Mac. Absolutely painless.
2.) It's small and lean.
3.) An Apple-branded opensource BSD variant? Count me in!
Umm, it would probably take a bit of patching, and some other diddling around in other obscure text files to get FreeBSD ports working on Darwin.
_ po rts/
Kind like, oh:
http://elisa.utopianet.net/~rlucia/devel/darwin
With the x86 release of Darwin a complete OS X release for the x86 platform wouldn't be far away.
Now it will mostly be a marketing decision if Apple would like to take on Microsoft on the PC platform.
I'm not sure it will happen unless M$ licenses OS X from Apple.
//Pingo
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
"I can modify and submit changes to the source code for free."
Except, I believe that the Apple license does not give you *ownership* of that code. You can make the changes and submit them, but then they're *theirs* not yours. That is the big difference. I may be wrong here, but that's the last I heard on that license. Nobody says you don't have to like it. More companies allowing people to view their source is great. Just don't bless it as "Open Source" or "Free Software".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom.
RMS would not like to use the term "Open Source" at all, he uses the term "Free Software". There is a huge difference. RMS created Free Software back in ~1984, several people (ESR, Perens, etc) created Open Source in ~1998.
Holy crap, there sure are a lot of people who (apparently) don't understand what Open Source is.
For everyone who flamed me, I will say a couple things:
-If the OSI had not started using the term "Open Source" then it would not mean anything more than it did before 1998. Apple would most certainly not be using it today. So, since they are using it because of the OSI's actions, it would be nice if they could even try to get OSI's license approval.
-Code that you can download and look at without paying money is not Open Source. A key ingredient in Open Source software is the ability to modify and distribute the code. There is a massive difference between 'Free Beer' and 'Free Speech'.
Hmm... RMS indeed does not care if anything is Open Source. He cares if software is Free Software (not 'GNU/Linux'...that's not a 'movement', license, or method of development...it's a software package...Free Software is a movement, as is Open Source).
;-)
It is true (are you trying to say this?) that RMS (and the FSF) does not have anything to do with Open Source or the OSI; I should have made that clear. But RMS's evaluation of the license is informative.
My question to you is this:
Why would you want anyone to assume that for a company to be Open Source means that it has to be part of an Open Source Organization such as the Open Source Initiative?
Because the OSI made the term Open Source widely known. Apple would not be using the term if the OSI had not made it widely known in ~1998. So Apple clearly is talking about the OSI's Open Source (or are you saying they are not talking about the OSI's term, they just made up the term now?).
If I followed YOUR ERRENOUS judgement completely bias one could not be a "real" Computer Engineer unless one is registered at the IEEE +_+?
Uhh...no, I'm saying software is not 'Open Source' without being licensed under a OSI-approved license. If you mean that someone is not a 'real Computer Engineer' without a college degree, I agree, and in fact I believe it is illegal to represent yourself as an engineer if you are not one; if it's not illegal it's certainly not right. But the IEEE is not responsible for the term 'Computer Engineer' (or Electrical Engineer). And I am a Electrical Engineer, not Computer. IEEE stands for "The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers"...
Peace fellow slashdoter,
from a peaceful and compassionate slashdoter.
Peace.
I am pretty sure that in at least my state (NC) you must be either a registered EE or work for a company that is registered. You can't just work as an EE without being registered (and a prereq. for registration is a 8-hour test).
;-)
But I could be wrong. I lost most interest in EE when I got (heavily) into computers, too late to switch majors.
Doh.
Why does everyone simply believe Apple when they say Open Source?!?
The Apple Public Source License is not approved by the Open Source Initiative nor the Free Software Foundation. In fact RMS gives reasons why it is not acceptable, even their new 'version 1.2' APSL release.
They really need to stop erroneously using the words 'Open Source'.
Look real close and take note on the max uptime for the flagship Darwin server: .5 days uptime, at best.
That is because with all the internal builds, they are rebooting, adding, testing, rebuilding the kernel, trying new things etc. That may be why the uptime is only counted in the single digit days. Personally, I've had uptimes much longer than 5 days. Right now I'm at 24 and I may reboot with a new kernel soon.
It's only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything...
OSX on Intel is a long way away. As others hav said, there's many other components and issues that will prevent any kind of OSX on Intel machine in the next few years.
OTOH, what Apple could do is release Darwin with the GUI of Mac Classic with Darwin underneath. It woudl make sense, because the timeframe to implement it would ensure that OSX is the default PPC version. You'd not have the Java or Aqua support so you're not endangering your core market.
I'm not sure Apple would bother making any apps beyond server apps, which would doom the thing to obscurity ala Be, but if the open source crowd picked it up and took advantage of a good GUI (and followed the interface guidelines, which I doubt) then Apple could have a "back door" into low end servers.
But this is Apple we're talkign about...
You basically answered your own question. If you have a low to medium volume server (let's say a military unit alumni association) that really needs to be secure (maybe you got tired of being 0wn3d), then Mac's the place to be.
The % of PPC code v. emulated may have been right at one time but I don't think this is true anymore.
I'm curious -- what fraction of MacOS X does this comprise? Before I go and DL and try it -- if you install it, what sort of system do you get? I see from the Darwin page that it's the BSD/Mach basis for MacOS X. Do you basically get a BSD operating system without the MacOS X interface? Does it have all the changed directory structures/user management/etc (not saying they're bad) of MacOS X?
I'd read it in the release notes, but the "released" link won't let in. Any summary/link would be appreciated.
-Puk
I am not an Apple die-hard so I have not been following the development of Darwin. The part of the x86 announcement that is interesting for me is the possibility of a Mac applications getting ported to open/free alternatives to the proprietary Mac UI.
Is this a pipe dream? I know there are probably some hardware issues to resolve (nothing a few programmers and a few long nights can not solve...). The issue in my mind is if there is a desire to get the entire Mac applications running on x86 by using Darwin & an free/open UI interface. (Or is this part of Apple's long term plan?)
For those who wish not to register with Apple's crazy crazy system:
user: goatsecx
pass: goatsecx
Direct Link to the
x86 gzipped image.
End result: Lots of happy OS X users (who paid upto $129 a pop to buy the software), without any involvement from Apple! Talk about a win-win...
But, why in God's name would you EVER want to run a webserver on MacOS? It's a single user, single address space, non-protected operating system. Only 50% of it is even native PPC code! The rest is emulated 68k. The only thing it has going for it is the fact that it's very secure(basically because it has no concept of ports, services or anything... everything has to be implemented manually). I've heard of WebTen but I'd be skeptical of any claims to that kind of speed.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Mac OS 9.0 has no more than 60% native code. In any case, a large portion of the OS is still emulated.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
and there isnt even a web server platform that runs on the mac!
Really? Then what's this? Oh, and how about this? And then there's this, and this! Don't forget this. And finally, there's this! Now I figure either you meant to say something else, or you just don't know what you're talking about. If it's the former, perhaps you should clarify. If the latter you just lost alot of credibility in my mind.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Second - Last I heard, Real was charging $2,000+ for Real Server 8. That may be cheap to you, but it isn't to me.
Third - Darwin was not written for the Macinosh, it was built on BSD and was never intended to be used solely on PowerPC hardware.
Fourth - If you're down on apps that are configured through text files, perhaps you're not really very familiar with this thing called UNIX, which happens to use a text files all over the place for configuration. Ever heard of Apache?
Fifth - Speaking of web server platforms running on the Mac, maybe you've heard of Apache, WebTen, WebStar...
Sixth - "free with the purchase of Windows 2000" says it all.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Also, the default install doesn't have a root password, seems that security isn't the highest concern for this OS.
--
Free Mac Mini
Please explain to me why I would get this and what the benifit is of it?
Also, on the PPC side, does it support the G3 Firewire notebooks? And the airport cards? I got Yellow Dog, but I can't get the speakers to turn on.. I havn't hacked around with the Airport card much.>p?
--
Free Mac Mini
Until 3 weeks ago, there was no large shipping operating system supporting OpenSTEP like APIs. Well, that started to change on March 24. If a handful of programmers realize the power of the Cocoa environment, we'll see the sucker improving. However, with NeXT basically dead, OpenSTEP marginalized, and then it completely disappearing while Apply worked on OS X, there was no incentive other than porting old NeXTSTEP code.
Now there is.
There needs to be a common API for writing applications for the UNIX workstation market. Within 6 months, the market leader in that space will be Apple.
Either get Trolltech to port QT to Quartz (and then the KDR extentions), or port GTK+ to Quartz, or port Cocoa (via GnuSTEP) to X-Windows.
Either way, Linux/FreeBSD/MacOS X are a natural alliance. The combined desktop marketshare is much more worthwhile to port to than any of them individually.
Alex
yeah, d00de! win2K rulez!! It's a perfect OS for the P4 - check it out here
whoa. i gasped (loud) when i saw this article. doing a bit of research, i found this page, containing the x86 installation notes. Take a look! it appears that you need a specific intel board.
"emulators such as vmware do not have VESA 2.0 compliant emulated video cards."
...you can't try this out with VMware!! that's how almost all of us were going to play...
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
(I suspect that they get kickbacks our phone company; remember local calls cost in Australia, but I digress...)
Now, most -other- web servers allow us (via Opera 5.02) to reconnect later & Resume the transfer...
But does Apples? Of course not! After downloading 44 MB (during the first 4 hour session), we lose it all - and must conclude that we are unable to d'load the target 129 MB file!
Thank you Apple!!! (not)
Now, if anybody has this file mirrored on an FTP site that permits Resumes... do let us know!
Sad to say, from the looks of the registration process needed to start the download in the first place, it would have to be a warez-style site that does the workaround mirroring...
Of course, Apple -might- be persuaded to rethink its web server [config parameters] to preclude the need for such workarounds, but I would be surprised if they did... pleasantly surprised, of course...
Apple, are you listening? So, surprise us! ;-)
And at version 1.3 Linux was any better? It wasn't until 2.0+ that anything useful was supported. This is how an OS grows. People seem to forget that Darwin and Mac OS X (10 that is) are BABIES in the world of OSes. They are just getting started with hardware and application support. Give 'em time and they will refine it. You think Windows 95 supported USB at all? It barely supported good video cards. Given time, however, Win 98 SE did a pretty good job at USB and video acceleration.
Give Apple some time and don't judge the first releases like this is the final product.
Doesn't look Slashdotted to me. Works fine.
At any rate, www.opensource.apple.com is running Mac OS X with Apache (of course) according to Netcraft.
Second, regradless of the qulaity of DSS, Real Server (or whatever they call it) is not cheap at all. Check out this comment to a former post.
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
I can't believe I misspelled that much and didn't notice....
Fuck 'im up, Tim! His views are invalid! -Pirate Corp$
Hehe, I had a friend once who was given a PC laptop by a friend of his who worked at apple, and it was running MacOS!
Very cool, hehe, it was locked down tight though, and the passwords where long forgotten, since it was a very early build (2 or 3 years ago) so he had to reformat over it and ended up installing windows on it instead, ugh.
It does show though that Apple has MacOS running on x86 hardware!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
True, but it WAS rare as hell, and it proves that apple is working on maintaining dua(e)l plateform shtuff.
not to mention, the UI was running on the x86, so it shows that they are at least part way there, hehe, even if the other shtuff has changed. . . . alot, even, heh, damn, too late at night, thought process not working, can't link concepts, DAMNIT!
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Say what you want about how great MacOS X and Darwin are, but the guy has something right: it doesn't seem that great.
m od e_w=on&site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opensource.apple.com% 2F&submit=Examine
.5 days uptime, at best.
Check out the following link:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&
Look real close and take note on the max uptime for the flagship Darwin server:
Not impressive.
No sig is worth reading.
First, there are other streaming servers that do a better job, cost less overall, and are open-source. Microsoft provides Windows Media Services, free with purchase of Windows 2000. Real Media Player is an exceptionally cheap option, and is also released under the BSD license.
I did some testing and playing around with large (hundreds of users) streams set up a few months ago, and Darwin was barely able to break 35 connections. I'm sure part of this is because Darwin was originally written for the Macintosh, and there isnt even a web server platform that runs on the mac! Yes, there are Linux ports, and Windows ports (the windows port only broke 12 connections a second, compared to the 376 for Real and 482 for Windows Media Services) is the shoddiest piece of software I've ever seen. Its configured through a package that just writes to a text file, but instead of being intelligent text, its crap. Crap! The entire product is crap. I wouldn't even use it for streaming stuff from my web camera. God, and they expect someone to USE their product? Before any corporation deploys Darwin, the coders had best fix some of their serious understructure. Sure its free, but if you can shell out 100 bucks for Real, or already have Windows 2000, then its point, click, stream. You dont have to install 300 different add on packages, rebuild your machines, recompile Darwin 13 times with different options, just to specify maximum bandwidth to consume. Its rediculous. Get something better, please
there have been rumors that AMD will start manufacturing G4 processors for Apple soon. If so, this would be great. Not only would it help lessen Apple's reliance on faultering Motorola, but hopefully AMD would be able to produce the chips faster, cheaper, and possibly also at a higher clock rate than Motorola has been able to reliably. Having AMD be a chip producer might help strengthen Apple's reputation as well. While this is still all rumor, it is a nice thought in my opinion.
Carry on
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
Here is the plot really thickens: Cocoa apps would run unmodified (with a recompile or a fat binary compile) on a MacOS X release for x86.
There's your software. MacOS X for x86 is not yet viable, true. But once a wide selection of Cocoa software is written, it will automatically work with an x86 release.
This overcomes the chicken-egg scenario that any new OS must face. Nobody wants an OS with no software, and nobody wants to write software for an OS that nobody has. Once Cocoa is fully adopted by the developer community for MacOS X on Apple's hardware, a MacOS X for x86 would have the same software--automatically.
An egg for the chicken, if you will.
I hope they're not trying to impress us with osx server - it looks like they're slashdotted...
Mac OS X was also updated. Up to 4L13 (10.0.1). This is the official apple sanctioned release version. Check out macnn for tips if you installed an earlier, developer only build (4l5?)
Get it by running apple software update, letting it update your software update application, run it again (to get 10.0.1), reboot, and run it again (to get updated epson printer drivers) if you want.
Have fun...
From Apple:
Update Now: Use the Software Update feature in your System Preferences to get the latest Mac OS X software. Improvements including better support for 3rd party USB devices, Classic compatibility and overall application stability as well as support for the popular open source Secure Shell service. For Japanese users, an update to the Epson printer drivers is also available.
-ETF EOM
although I can agreed that in this case it would be better to go with the pure BSD installs for a standard system, and use the darwin setup for a mad scientist rig.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
--
OK, Darwin server is free and runs on a renge of OSs. But what encoders are there for it? I'd be interedted in audio encoders... Are there any for free? And what players? Apart from the Apple QuickTime, which runs only on Mac and Winsuxx
shut up bitch
--
Microsoft provides Windows Media Services, free with purchase of Windows 2000
Uh - explain this one to me - you purchase Windows 2000, but Windows Media Services that comes with it are "free"? If its part of a product that you purchase, doesn't it, uh, you know, cost money then? If you buy Win2K are some parts of it free while you pay for the others? Which parts are "free"? Which parts do you pay for? How ridiculous. It's like saying, I purchased a car, but I got the steering wheel and the distributor for free.
Drivers, the eternal OS acceptance problem. Whatever happened to Intel's Universal Driver architecture stuff?
The OpenSource community always bitches and moans about vendors creating proprietary standards. So why hasn't the community produced a serious cross-platform universal driver interface? Sure, it would be a lot of work, and take a lot of thought and design, but imagine the benefits; hardware developers could write their drivers once, and the device could work (with little or not porting efforts) on Windows, BeOS, MacOS, Linux, BSD etc. If the OSS community fails to produce open standards to begin with, what right do they have to complain about proprietary driver standards? Why should it be n times the amount of work for a hardware vendor to support n Operating Systems? Not sure how possible this is, but if it was possible to create a single set of open driver standards for various types of hardware, then write some wrappers from this layer to the Windows driver layer, it could well be possible for a company to use such a standard and get Windows drivers with no extra troubles.
I haven't written many hardware drivers myself, so I probably don't have a very good idea just how difficult it would be to do this. I imagine it would be very difficult, but would be very powerful and useful too.
Looks potentially useful, at a glance. Haven't had a detailed look. Would be ideal if it could be used for Linux and Windows drivers too.
Remember OPENSTEP?!
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Darwin's driver architecture is excellent, especially if you want to write one driver for several platforms. Their Intel ethernet card driver is open source and serves both x86 and PPC platforms.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Please do not bother porting Qt, GTK, or any of your other horrible X11 APIs to Quartz. First of all these apps will not follow the Aqua HI Guidelines, they will not be mac apps. They will behave exactly like they do now in X11, so just use a rootless X11 server (which XonX is working on).
On the other hand porting an application to Cocoa would have the added benefit of being ported back to GNUStep. Thus OS X and X11 users alike get better apps.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
1) Quartz is no more a GUI than X11, it's a display server.
2) It has been moderated up despite the fact it's a clueless question which anybody viewing the SITE would instantly realize!
Get a clue moderators, whoever you are.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Can't make a closed source driver and sell it? WTF?!
Dude, Apple doesn't even have access to ATI's or nVidia's drivers.
The ASPL is crystal clear, you can use their source willy nilly, but if you improve that code you should let everybody reap the rewards!
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
ASPL is incompatible with the GPL
waa waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
In fact Apple's Objective-C runtime (part of Darwin) has SPARC assembly so it'll run nice and fast.
A relic of the OpenStep days.
Also has HPPA, 68k, x86 and PPC
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
I remember when it took AGES for apple to post an OpenTransport update when the ping of death and other DOS attacks were all the rage.
Now with Darwin I can track the problem down myself.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
That was Rhapsody DR1 or DR2 which eventually became MacOS X Server.
Not the same kernel or driver architecture Darwin/OS X uses.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
xnu that is. Mach3 and BSD in one executable, an IPC call is a simple function call.
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Apple wants you to READ THE LICENSE!
It takes two seconds to register, you don't even have to reply to emails, it's instant!
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
---COUGH-- IDE: Only the PIIX4 IDE controllers have been found to work. Attached devices must be UDMA/33 compatible or better. Ethernet: Intel 8255x 10/100 ethernet controllers are supported. All PCI based Intel 8255x cards tested worked fine, however the mobile 8255x controllers in laptops are not supported. Video: You must have a VESA 2.0 compliant video card. Almost all modern graphics cards are VESA 2.0 compliant. However, emulators such as vmware do not have VESA 2.0 compliant emulated video cards. Successfully tested hardware: All 440BX motherboards tested have worked with their internal
You need to sign up with the Apple Open Source developer thingy. That's why you can't get in. Reg for free and then you get a log in and password. Don't try and make Apple seem to be a bad guy when it comes to supporting x86.
If everyone on here likes to bad mouth Apple and talk about how crummy and dumb their OS is and even their programs, then why is everyone interested in porting OS X and OS X programs over to Linux or Windows???? Explain that one to me.
I guess its ok to take it for granted that everyone has a login and password to Apple's site, especially given the love that is generally shown for that company.
My other sig is extremely clever...
Just have to say very clever post, even if it is just pretty gross!
My other sig is extremely clever...
They currently have XFree86 and lots of X windowmanagers and apps (including the Gimp) running on Darwin.
Somewhere in the heavens... they are waiting.
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom. Diluting use of the term will only help reel the zealots & fanatics in, another Good thing.
Moderators do your worst.
The only certainty is entropy.
I GUESSED 'heywood' and 'jablowme' and it worked....just passing it on.
Uh, that link doesn't work.
does anyone know if someone is working on porting OSX for sparc
From the FAQ:
Q. Where does Darwin fit into the BSD family?
A. The purpose of Darwin is to provide the core system software for Mac OS X. It is not designed to be an alternative to other excellent BSD options such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Darwin is simply BSD tweaked in ways we think will help Apple deliver the next great version of the Mac OS. We should note, however, that apart from a few architectural differences (such as our use of the Mach kernel), we try to keep Darwin as compatible as possible with FreeBSD (our BSD reference platform).
Thanks for the fix. Good job there michael. :p
This (last) part wouldn't get through the lameness filter. Sorry!
Gack!
There really still are people out there with the 'whatever, just frag Microsoft while you're doing it, kay?' attitude.
I like to think that we don't need our primary focus to be hatred.
Last year Borland made some noise about JBuilder being supported on OS-X but of course that was when OS-X was due out in October. Then again this year they showed it at MacWorld and then...nothing. OS-X is out and calls to Borland yield..."negotiating with Apple". Anybody know any more about JBuilder on Darwing/OS-X?
Mike Oliver Chief Architect Morningstar Systems Inc. 520.574.1150