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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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:"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
Re:"Open Source Foundation"
by
nphinit
·
· Score: 4
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!;)
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: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.
For those who wish not to register with Apple's crazy crazy system:
user: goatsecx
pass: goatsecx
Direct Link to the x86 gzipped image.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
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.
Nice try, kids. Look here if you want the release info.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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'.
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.
But they BOTH use the Mach microkernel.
See history of FSF and GNU (scroll down to 'The GNU Hurd") for a better explanation.
For those who wish not to register with Apple's crazy crazy system:
user: goatsecx
pass: goatsecx
Direct Link to the
x86 gzipped image.
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
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