Slashdot Mirror
Darwin Team Answers & Develop on Darwin
Lagos writes "In July Darwin developers at Apple had a call for questions. Their answers were posted on Monday and may be found here. There is some discussion of Apple's place within the Open Source community, though most of the questions answered are more technical." Along the same Darwinian lines, this submission came in: Maktoo writes "Maccentral is reporting that SourceForge.net has added PowerMac G4 Servers running MacOS X 10.1 into their Compile Farm. Now any apps you have going on SourceForge, you can test to see if it'll run on OS X! Gotta love that BSD heritage... OS X is already going to benefit greatly from all the apps it can use in the UNIX/Linux space. This just makes life easier for developers to bring even more."
Camp town races....
If you're interested in Darwin, and you live in the S.F bay area, come to the BANG meeting tonight at Apple Town Hall auditorium. The subject is Mac OS X 10.1, and Fred Sanchez will be there.
See http://www.bang.org/ for the details.
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I piss on Mecca. I menstruate on the Koran. I shit on Mohammed.
again, you have forgotten sand niggers. they do go down well with a fruity chardonay, complimented with roasted peppers and a slight dusting of garlic.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
If you interested in getting more OS X information in general, the Collge Park chapter of ACM is having a speaker from Apple today to talk about it. Its from 5-6, in the Classrom Building (yes, that actually is the name of one of our buildings), room 0111
Mod point free since 2001
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
o88888888888.
o8888888888888. P
o888888888888888.
8888888' `888888:
8888888"""""""""""'
88888888o 888888"
888888888b__d888888
88^888888888888888'
-8 _dF""""
`8ouo8"
"^"
Cunning linguists
WHAT'S eating Hillary Clinton? Her behavior during President Bush's address to Congress last week was abominable. At a time when even the most partisan of her Democratic colleagues stood united with the president, New York Sen. Clinton shunned patriotism for petulance. She grimaced. She sighed. She rolled her eyes. She fidgeted like a 5-year-old at an opera.
And when Sen. Clinton mustered enough energy to clap, she acted as if there were razor blades strapped to her palms.
Although network talking heads refrained from comment, outraged Americans across the country spoke out. Teacher Kathie Larkin of Atlanta wrote to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "This is behavior I would not accept from my sixth-graders listening to a speaker, and I expected better of an adult from a state ripped apart by terrorist violence. Hillary needs to grow up."
James Gale of Silver Spring, Md., wrote to The Washington Post: "She at times seemed bored and uninterested, clapping perfunctorily, and at other times she was talking during the speech. I thought her actions were unbecoming a senator at this difficult time."
The Boston Herald, one of the few bold newspapers to take note of Clinton's insolence, editorialized that she "looked like she was sucking on a lemon." And Karen Gauvreau of Clearwater, Fla., wrote to the St. Petersburg Times: "She would have been better off had she stayed home."
Sen. Clinton's staff claims she was weary from traveling. What nerve. All she had to do last week was park her taxpayer-funded backside on a plane seat. Meanwhile, her constituents and volunteers from across the country pulled 13-hour shifts, sifting through rubble, sorting body parts, and collapsing on curbsides from exhaustion and grief.
A few nights' rest didn't seem to cure Sen. Clinton's unsightly condition. During last weekend's prayer memorial at Yankee Stadium, she remained dour and tight-lipped as the tearful crowd of thousands sang the national anthem. Hiding behind sunglasses -- guess she can't control the rolling eyeballs any more than Al Gore can control his heaving sighs -- Sen. Clinton posed for photos with a strange sneer frozen on her stony face.
Let there be no doubt about whose interests come first for Sen. Clinton in times of crisis. While New Yorkers mourned, their junior senator sulked. Then she tried to rip off both President Bush's and Mayor Giuliani's coattails by claiming credit for securing federal disaster aid. The damage-control patrol at The New York Times ate up her narcissistic spin. A Sunday puff piece, which was silent on her churlish performances, extolled her "full transition from a former first lady who happened to hold a Senate seat to true federal legislator."
The paper reported that "Mrs. Clinton has carefully guided the Giuliani administration on how agreements are forged between Congress and the White House" and has "taken on chores like holding the hands of counselors for families, usually out of the way of a camera." Gag. As if Giuliani needed "guiding." As if grief counselors needed help from a woman who just two years ago planted her lips on the cheeks of blood-thirsty Yasser Arafat's wife after she spewed anti-Israel, terrorist propaganda.
Adversity magnifies deep character flaws that no pair of sunglasses can conceal. Hillary Clinton's resentful visage and insouciant behavior this past week reveal that -- like her husband -- she suffers from a fatal inability to put love of country above love of self.
In the weeks before the attack, Sen. Clinton was gearing up to drive the anti-GOP bandwagon on her path toward greater power and higher office. She had raised big bucks for fellow Democrats and helped block President Bush's choice to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Beltway buzzed with fresh rumors of a possible presidential bid. "Sen. Clinton is on the rise, moving back into public life, enjoying a bit of the spotlight and savoring the fact that whatever attention she does get is all about her," gushed Time magazine last month.
That all changed when the Twin Towers came crashing down on Sept. 11. "I think we were all victimized by this," Sen. Clinton said last week. An expression of sympathy for others -- or a self-pitying lament? The cold, corrosive look in Hillary Clinton's eyes speaks for itself.
Word has a stupid menu structure. See, there's an "Insert" menu, but you won't find a "Table" option in it. Tables are inserted using the "Insert" option inside the "Table" menu.
I've known and used Word since the DOS days and I never liked it's interface. Not even Aqua can make it look good to my eyes.
Dr Strangelove I suppose!
i thought darwin was the version that would run on the x86 and wasn't being offically supported but done as an opensource project?
I'm ignorant, I admit, but I'd love to know one thing about Mac OS X:
If running OS X, can you use linux/unix software?
~ now you know
Our precious slashdot trolls scream out for vengeance:
1. Kill all Camel Jockeys.
2. Kill all Mohammedans.
3. Kill all Dune Coons.
4. Kill all Rag Heads.
5. Kill all Towelheads.
6. Kill all Arabs.
7. Kill all Camel Rooters.
8. Kill all Osama Bin Laden supporters.
Nuke their countries to hell.
Nuke them again.
Death to Islam.
I piss on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I spit upon Mohammed.
after all those years about MacOS being a "real operating" and saying Windows is "just a GUI" now Apple has a 2-stage OS with Darwin(DOS) and then OSX(Windows) and Microsoft has the solid XP and 2000 that are stand alone OS'
Stephen King, dead at 54.
- Kill all Camel Jockeys.
- Kill all Mohammedans.
- Kill all Dune Coons.
- Kill all Rag Heads.
- Kill all Towel Heads.
- Kill all Arabs.
- Kill all Camel Rooters.
- Kill all Osama Bin Laden supporters.
Nuke their countries to hell.Nuke them again.
Death to Islam.
I piss on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I spit upon Mohammed.
Your a complete idiot and no better than the terrorists.
Many people complain about Linux not being user-friendly enough in the GUI. Whether that is true or not is irrevelant to my question. Near everyone can agree that Apple has the best GUI. We're talking about how easy it is to port *BSD/Linux apps to OS X ... how easy do you think it would be for Apple to port Aqua to *BSD/Linux?
-As beautiful as KDE is, I would drop it in a heartbeat for Aqua.
Nosce te Ipsum
Does Darwin have a kernel panic if you try to boot with a mouse that has more than one button?
and you'll be first against the wall, you fucking arab-loving traitor.
i would like to post the question why open-source developers work on a framework, which is then used by commercial software vendors like adobe, microsoft etc. that don't want in reverse port their applications in reverse to linux?
also it is questionable for me, why applications like moneyplex (internet banking app for linux) have troubles with the GPL of glibc, which they can't link statically and so don't know how to handle in the final version. i mean GPL is good to some extent but it shouldn't stop 3rd party developers of commercial applications from porting their apps to linux.
in the long term linux needs to be a production environment beside programming. in terms of multimedia/animation/sound/image editing linux is far behind the commercial os'es...
I'm sorry if this is seen as flamebait, but isn't anyone else concerned that potentially all apps that run under Linux would migrate their way to another (commercial) OS with marketing power, and a desire to influence it? Couldn't this be a real threat to Linux? What if everything that ran under Linux suddenly started working under Windows? Wouldn't that reduce the marketability of Linux? If I were a corporation considering switching to a different environment, all be it a more stable one, when I only have people on staff who know the current environment, might I not be inclined to stay with the current environment given that the tools from the new one were available within the current one? Immediate costs would be reduced as there's less of a rollout, even if licensing in the long run is more expensive.
I think it's a great testament to Open Source that Apple chose to heavily base their OS on it; Apple decision makers aren't idiots, they know a good thing when they see it. But in the end, it takes a piece of the market owned wholly by *nices and allows a commercial entity to have a share of it.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Long live Jerry Falwell!!!!1!
They should give Darwin Awards to the most hard-working of them.
... i tought this had something to do with the Darwin Awards
Touche! However, "and the less we tie software to a particular platform, the better," so what advantage is there to Linux over other OS's if everything that Linux does can be done by them as well, in a completely identical manner? It's a moral dilemma for me, with out other OS's providing their features to Linux, and Linux providing all their features to other OS's, Linux itself holds no individual advantage.
Of course, I'm getting bogged down in thinking of Linux as a distribution, not a kernel. Linux is a kernel; it's a core OS. The software that was developed FOR Linux, while significantly adding to its marketability, does not COMPRISE Linux. That might be considered a weakness of relying entirely on the Open Source movement (which I wholeheartedly believe in), in that any advantage that you hold, your competitors can very easily absorb... embrace and extend... frightening.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Everyone knows how important a mouse is to a CLI only operating system. Duh!
saru mo ki kara ochiru
Is it me, or Slashdot didn't care to mention there WAS a call for questions for Darwin team back in July? I know a guy who submitted this as a news item here on the /. at least 4 times (in 2 weeks) in July, but I have never seen any of them got through.
This is really more of a rant than flame bait, but I'm going to throw this in here just to see who bytes.
Speaking as a Mac user who uses Linux at my job, why should I bother with OS X? IMHO Linux is much more flexible and seems to me to have more of a future in business than Apple or OS X ever will. I was very exited when Apple bought NeXT, but after waiting 5 years, OS X 1.0 just left me cold. Why should I spend time learning about OS X when I could be honing my Linux skills?
Where would we be if Wheel had hid her round rock in a cave instead of showing everyone how it rolls?
If I was a foreman at a construction company, I wouldn't force the bricklayers to use hammers just because the carpenters are really productive with them. A computer is a tool. Use whichever one is right for the job.
Alot of my job revolves around web development. For me, OS X is perfect because I have Apache, PHP, Perl, MySQL, Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, and vi all on the same machine. I tried to use Linux, but alot of my time was spent dual-booting.
You probably do other things, so another machine might be better suited for what you do. Whatever. Better or worse is all relative to what you want to accomplish.
From the FAQ:
/dev/random, a system-level entropy provider. Adding a decent /dev/random would be a Good Thing.
/dev/random is not in the latest Darwin binary release, it is now in the kernel sources available in the Darwin CVS repository. It took us a bit of time to release it because we wanted to be sure of its quality. Check it out and enjoy!
/dev/random now, and I can chuck away the entropy daemon I've been using?
Q: Porting Unix software to Mac OS X, one thing that is often sorely missed (especially in cryptographic tools) is
A: Although
So does this mean that OS 10.1 has a
Anyone (early 10.1 users) know the answer?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
wasn't M$ used to have Internet Exploder and Office working for Macs? What if the migrate it to OS X and after OS X being Unix-like one day we might see Office running on Liux Desktops (without wine and such).
OK, that's just a hypotetical thought and I'm not up-to-date concerning M$-software on Macs but I feel FEAR...
-- just a geek - trying to change the world
Although I've been able to compile lots of UNIX apps to OSX like ircII, lynx, MySQL, Xfree86, etc.. I wasn't able to get GtkRadiant compiled for X.. anyone got this working? If so, it would be the first set of quality Quake3 map/skin editing tools accessible to Mac users (finally) ... however I couldn't get past "make"-ing setupdb..
Those who laugh at you for you having a Mac.. are the people who constantly call you to fix their PC.
I'm afraid that I don't see your point. Apple is now just another commercial unix vendor, much like Sun or IBM. The only difference is that they're targeting the desktop market instead of servers. How does this threaten the open source community, or specifically, BSD?
Are BSD coders going to drop everything and start hacking on Darwin? Not likely. Darwin is pretty nifty, but projects like OpenBSD have different goals. People might lose interest in Linux PPC, but that will only happen if Apple puts out a superior (and free) product.
Besides which, Apple's been a pretty good neighbor. They've given a lot back to FreeBSD and GCC, and that says a lot. The traditional way of squashing a technology is "embrace and extend", but that requires your extensions to be closed-source. Darwin is totally open, and the contributions to GCC and FreeBSD are anything but closed.
Your rant seems more born from fear than reason. Why are you scared of OS X? It's a full-featured unix that my mom can use. Why is that threatening?
This
Well said, valid point, this deserves mod up!
I didn't intend to imply that Apple will necessarily backstab the BSD developers, let alone plan to for the future. As I said in another post on this thread, BSD is clearly adding a lot to OS-X, and they would be foolish to intentionally squash it. Looks like I might have unintentionally forged a mini holy war here. My original intent was to basically say "Watch out for embrace and extend"
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
DAMN 4000 dollar computers
It seems like every other Apple article posted to Slashdot draws comments from people who want Apple to give away their crown jewels, and have some kind of wacky idea as to why that would be a good idea for Apple.
Open source is really cool and all that jazz, but there are times when a company's best interests are served by keeping some code proprietary. You don't see Veritas giving away their volume manager, and you won't any time soon, either. Same deal with Apple.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I fail to see how this is flamebait, he clearly states that he's not making any assumptions about the plans or intentions of Apple, but he's simply stating that we should keep our eyes open, and raising a potentially legitimate concern. Someone mod this back up.
> [W]hat advantage is there to Linux over
> other OS's if everything that Linux does can
> be done by them as well, in a completely
> identical manner?
Now you're getting it! Open source is the graveyard of revenue-producing intellectual property -- when an idea is sufficiently well-understood and unencumbered by patents, it is implemented in open-source and thus commoditized.
Apple understands that unix's base functionality is no longer a source of proprietary advantage. That's why they weren't afraid to open their kernel and BSD userland source. But their graphics and user interface software contain real innovation and valuable proprietary ideas.
Open source software can provide considerable value to the world by providing a baseline. Part of the idea of BSD-licensed software is that no new implementation has any excuse for being worse than the BSD-licensed implementation, because they can use the BSD-licensed implementation with basically no strings attached.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I use a DP G4 at work ($4000.00).. but at home I've been happy with my 400mhz G3 iMac for about 2 years now ($1100.00). It runs OS X like a champ. If you want to play games though, better stick to your x86 machines...
Why should I spend a couple of thousand dollars (at least) for the hardware and software to run OSX just to see if I like it better than the OS I use now (Linux) which works perfectly fine for me?
Why don't you switch to BeOS? It's probably better than both Linux and OSX. Go ahead, do it and see if it's better.
With MacOSX, you get unix with a mac interface. With all the other unix desktop environments, you get unix with a windows interface. While much talk is made in the linux community about "yes, we've got skins for apple this and mac that" the widget layouts, keyboard shortcuts, and other thingies about GNOME/KDE are all Windows carbon copies. If you don't like anything that resembles a windows interface, linux may not be right for you. On the other hand, there's nothing preventing you from going into the GNOME/KDE sources and "deredmonifying" stuff.
I had a wee look around the darwin site, and in particular their bug tracking area. I must say it's pretty feeble -- immediately the thought sprung to mind that they should be using bugzilla. Anyone know whey they appear to be growing their own rather than using an already extremely capable system like bugzilla?
The advantage of Linux is not the apps, it's the OS itself. Windows is unstable, expensive, buggy, and insecure compared to Linux. Anyone using Linux has chosen it for specific reasons that do not apply the Microsoft operating systems.
The real threat is the other direction. If Windows apps ran on other platforms wouldn't that reduce the marketability of Windows?
Another great resource for X11 support (and debian install apps) is
http://fink.sourceforge.net/
The problem, to most open source advocates, is not that your new applications aren't (beer) free - we all like to see developers well compensated for their efforts - but rather that they aren't (speech) free. You will never see the source code, and the community will never have the benefit of the work of those developers... at some point in the not-so-distant future, you will no longer even be able to "purchase" any license for that software you're using; you'll have to lease it instead. Both Microsoft and Adobe have expressed interest in this new-and-improved revenue model - which they will undoubtedly market (consumer inconvenience aside) as merely their best response to "software piracy".
Of course you are (speech) free to use the software that you prefer. But I hope you consider the political benefits of (speech) free software to be a point in its favor - above and beyond any price differential.
-Renard
What is this junk about Macs costing $4000??
You can buy G3 Mac Desktops for less than $1000.
You can buy G3 Mac laptops for $1200 and up.
You can buy G4 Mac Desktops for $1200 and up.
You can buy G4 Mac laptops for $2200 and up.
Sure you can spend $4000 for a Mac if you want to, but it is definitely not required. You can also spend $4000 for a PC if you want to.
The old argument that Mac hardware is too expensive is OLD.
So any app that's written to Qt (and there's a lot of them out there for Linux) should require just a recompile and work perfectly fine under Quartz/Aqua.
The top-of-the-line stock desktop machine doesn't even cost $4000:
$3,499.00
Dual 800MHz PowerPC G4
256K L2 & 2MB L3 per processor
256MB SDRAM memory
80GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX w/TwinView
Gigabit Ethernet
56K internal modem
But this is some pretty serious hardware. The TwinView thing is a video card with two ports on it. The SuperDrive is a DVD/DVD-R/CD-RW drive.
iMacs start at $999. Towers start at $1699. Apple averages ~30% gross margins because it has a software, hardware and a platform to develop and maintain. Much of the software is outright free, and all Mac users also get free email and 20MB web space/nework storage -- all without ads.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
2001-09-25 10:16:08 Ask the Darwin Team.... (developers,apple) (rejected)
wtf. I love that, maybe I should email contributions to someone else and they'll put them in?
a man, a plan, a canal, panama