Slashdot Mirror


GNU-Darwin Goes Beta

proclus writes "OSX.1 users can now install the GNU-Darwin base distribution automatically with one command. As Root: "curl http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/one_stop | csh"." This assummes you have curl or wget or something. From there you can install gnome, abiword, gimp or whatever. Looks pretty smooth (although I'm kinda confused how you get back to OSX.1 from there ;)

150 comments

  1. OS X.1 by thetechweenie · · Score: 1

    Has anyone installed this yet? I'ld love to see some screen shots and reviews by actual users.

    --


    Um, this is my sig.
    1. Re:OS X.1 by selderrr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      yup. This just cries for some good oldfashioned goatse. Where are the days... :-(

    2. Re:OS X.1 by alfredo · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here is an old screenshot, several months old that is.
      rootless

      UNIX for the rest of us.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
  2. getting back by jbarket · · Score: 2, Informative

    i think all the information on getting back etc is covered at www.xdarwin.com ... something like ctrl+fnc a i think.

    --

    -----
    jonathan barket
  3. And whats even better, by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    now it is unix!.. :*)

    Sorry, couldn't help it. It has been a long day

    1. Re:And whats even better, by andy_from_nc · · Score: 1

      correction: now its *Not UNIX*. ( (G)nu is (N)ot (U)NIX ).

      I still have to think... If you're replacing everything with GNU stuff, why not just install som distro of Linux-PPC and be done with it? But thats just me.. (this is not anything against the Mac, just my confusion with this, I'd welcome anyone who had a good explanation)

    2. Re:And whats even better, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Few reasons:
      • beause you can access your existing HFS+ volumes
      • because you don't need to repartition your harddrive when installing alongside MacOS
      • because you can access resource forks, type/creator codes and all that stuff
      • because putting a machine to sleep actually works
      and more...
    3. Re:And whats even better, by gvsu_snow_lord · · Score: 0

      "because putting a machine to sleep actually works"

      Umm not ture... I have a 733 QuickSilver... no pci cards or anything like that... under 10.0.4 I was able to sleep just fine. Under 10.1 I can not put my system to sleep... well I can once then when I wake up I have a kernel task that uses up 55% of the cpu and eventually kills all apps from running or launching... I can not ssh into the box and I can not shut it down.

      BTW: Yellow Dog Linux, SuSe, or LinuxPPC does not run on older PCI macs...

  4. gnome over x? by macsox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i am truly at a loss as to why one would install gnome over os x. i understand the issue of an os being open-source, etc., but you can pick up a $99 pentium box to run gnome, if you're that interested in having it.

    (and what's with this 20 seconds before post rule? does everyone on slashdot think really slowly?)

    1. Re:gnome over x? by alfredo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It gives expanded resources. You can run it rootless so XWindows apps run alongside Aqua apps.

      Steve Jobs knew this would happen. Kind of like Field of Dreams, "If you build it, they will come."

      Here is one screenshotWindowmaker and other goodies

      this one is nice too. a lot going on

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    2. Re:gnome over x? by Chakat · · Score: 3, Informative
      Simplicity and variety, my friend. Instead of having to boot to another OS, you just have to fire up gnome. Plus, there are a few apps, such as the kickass Galeon, which don't run under OSX. More programs is always a good thing.

      And the 20 second rule is to try to discourage crapflooders and trolls. Not very effective, but its something most regular users don't come across (I haven't, at least).

      --

      If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.

    3. Re:gnome over x? by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2

      Ok, that's really freaky. It almost makes me want to have a Mac.

      I thought Aqua didn't use X though. How does this actually work? What's the window manager?

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    4. Re:gnome over x? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      A $99 pentium box? Why? If you already have an OSX capable machine, it costs far less to install the GNU-Darwin distribution. The hassles associated with integrating a old, slow machine into a home network are surely not worth it...

      I use a similar ditribution to run GNU-Octave on my machine. It is faster and more convenient for me to run X apps on my iBook than on my old Pentium II linux box.

    5. Re:gnome over x? by vanguard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i am truly at a loss as to why one would install gnome over os x

      I'm surprised nobody else said this; It's let's me run my X apps. As a long time linux user who just switched to OSX I find myself missing gvim, gaim, etc. With X11, I can get these things going again. Now I have the beauty of OSX, the stability of unix (bsd), and the apps of the open source world. I like my apple.

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    6. Re:gnome over x? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Informative

      Aqua doesn't, however, you can download a rootless X server (http://sourceforge.net/projects/xonx/) that lets you run X apps right along with Aqua apps. The same files are also available on http://macosx.forked.net/ in Mac OS X .pkg files, along with other useful stuff OS X doesn't include, such as ncurses. The window manager, by the way, is whatever window manager you decide to install-- it's just XFree86 ported to a darwin kernel with a rootless option. If you're not running OS X, XDarwin (not XonX) will probably work better for you.. It doesn't have the rootless option, but if you don't have Aqua, you don't really need it. Hope this was of help to some people.

    7. Re:gnome over x? by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2

      Does that mean that the X applications run on a plane "above" Aqua? So an X window can't be beneath an Aqua window?

      I guess what I'm missing is how these two environment's interact. How, for example, does an event (mouse-click, keypress, etc.) get to the right environment? If I give focus to an Aqua window, does the X window lose focus?

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    8. Re:gnome over x? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are using a normal X11 window manager, all the X11 windows are basically on one plane (above or below Aqua windows). So if you raise one X11 window, you raise them all above the Aqua windows, and if you raise one Aqua window, you send all the X11 windows to the back of the stacking order. This is a little clunky, but not too bad.

      The OS X / Aqua window manager uses the click-to-focus policy for Aqua windows and the click also raises the Aqua window. The X11 window manager can have a different focus policy, but you always have to click to change the focus between an X11 app and an Aqua app. It's easiest just to set the X11 WM to use the same focus/raise policy as the OS X / Aqua WM.

      All of the above applies to a normal X11 WM. You can also use OroborOSX, which is both an X11 WM and a Carbon app. This means it can provide better interoperability with Aqua windows. For instance, it makes it possible for X11 and Aqua windows to be interleaved in the stacking order, titlebar button mouseovers work for unfocused X11 windows, and it provides a dock icon with a menu for doing some X11 window management tasks.

    9. Re:gnome over x? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like combining the mona lisa with the mapplethrope urine cross, to my way of thinking.

      It should be obvious which one is the mona lisa.

  5. OK Taco... by dhovis · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Curl comes installed by default in MacOS X 10.1. Wget was the default in MacOS X 10.0

    Sheesh. Why do you think they said it would only take one command?

    --

    --
    The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

    1. Re:OK Taco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah Taco maybe you should try to learn more about the subject before you comment on stuff u got no idea about.

      try to buy a Mac or if you don't want to, ask ppl who got a Mac.. all in all, be better informed.

    2. Re:OK Taco... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not only for OSX users, it's also for Darwin users. Some have curl/wget, some haven't. Or something like that, I forget.

    3. Re:OK Taco... by pheber · · Score: 1

      I heard that wget was swapped with curl in mac osx 10.1 because of licensing issues..

  6. What's so special about this distribution? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use fink myself. It's sort of a clone of apt-get for OSX. I have octave, gimp, latex, and a host of other applications on my machine. What's the advantage of this "distribution"?

    1. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by proclus · · Score: 1
      GNU-Darwin is like the Fink, except with ten times more software, and pkg_install/ports instead of apt_get. Use what you like, what you familiar with, what is comfortable, whatever ;-}.


      Regards,
      proclus

    2. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by pfistech · · Score: 1
      GNU-Darwin is like the Fink, except with ten times more software

      ...at a fraction of the quality. As anyone can see from the shell script mentioned in the story, that applies to both the packages and the scripts that keep the distribution together. Some really funny excerpts:

      ln -s /usr/bin/install /usr/bin/install-info
      ln -s /usr/bin/install /usr/local/bin/install-info

      ln -s /usr/X11R6/bin/enlightenment /bin

      ln -s /usr/X11R6/lib/libfreetype.7.0.dylib /usr/X11R6/lib/libfreetype.6.dylib

      Then there's other fun stuff like replacing /usr/bin/tar the most dangerous way, or the script version number in the comment: 0.0.1a2 (untested)

      I really don't know if I should laugh or cry about this...

      --
      -chrisp

      "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."

    3. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by proclus · · Score: 1
      Bad day?


      None of the above has anything to do with the quality of the distro.


      Regards,
      proclus

    4. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's beta. in case you hadn't heard, that means that the authors realize that there is room for improvement.

      If you want a finished product, go to the store and buy it in a box.

      Also, fuck off.

    5. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by pfistech · · Score: 2, Informative
      Bad day?

      Not at all. I'm just horrified by the scripts that you ask people to execute as root. I'm also defending Fink in the comparison you make. Saying that GNU-Darwin and Fink are the same and the only difference is the number of available packages misses some important differences, and one of them is testing and quality.

      None of the above has anything to do with the quality of the distro.

      Quite to the contrary, they have very much to say:

      • install-info and install are on completely different playgrounds. install is an enhanced version of cp/mv with special features for installing executables in their final destination. install-info is used to maintain the 'dir' file of a documentation collection in Info format. There are actually at least two incompatible versions of install-info out there, and the install command is far from a useful substitute. /bin/true would be a far better (i.e. less dangerous) "do nothing" replacement. Anyway, this tells me that a) GNU-Darwin doesn't maintain the dir file, and b) you don't even know what install-info is supposed to do.
      • The only reason I can see to link enlightenment from /bin is because the enlightenment.install script distributed with it is somewhat broken. Instead of fixing the script, you've opted to make a link in an inappropriate directory.
      • Major revisions of shared libraries are made because there are changes that break binary compatibility. Linking one major revision of libfreetype to another one - instead of looking into the problem and coming up with a real solution - is asking for trouble.

      And, well, the version number and the complete lack of sanity checks and error handling in the install script also says a lot about the quality of the distro. Remember, distro = packages + infrastructure + handling scripts.

      --
      -chrisp

      "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."

    6. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by proclus · · Score: 1

      None of these are serious issues, which affect the utility of the Distribution in the slightest. It seems to me that the quality of your argument is in question. The only reason to choose the Fink would be if you like the software selection or the Debian package manager better that the BSD-style tools.

      Regards,
      proclus

    7. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by pfistech · · Score: 1

      Okay, I give up. If you really, seriously think that this:

      cd /usr/bin
      mv tar ~
      wget http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/packages/tar
      chmod 755 /usr/bin/tar

      is not a serious issue, then there is no point to further discussion.

      --
      -chrisp

      "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."

    8. Re:What's so special about this distribution? by proclus · · Score: 1

      Here is what we plan for Beta2.

      cd /bin
      mv cp ~
      wget http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/packages/gcp
      mv gcp cp
      chmod 755 /usr/bin/cp

      It is a serious issue, but I expect your are correct that there is no point to further discussion. *G*NU-Darwin will continue on course.

      Regards,
      proclus

  7. Ximian by cachedout · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why is this so unique? Ximian Gnome has been using this installation method for a while now. All a user has to do assuming X is installed and working is type as root, 'wget http://go-gnome.com | sh'. Simple as that....

    1. Re:Ximian by HiThere · · Score: 2

      And you know what... I didn't like that either. In fact, I finally stopped using their updater. I'm no longer so much on the cutting edge, but I usually get CD's from a trusted source, and that's what I do my installs from. Upgrades are via a signed download file. Usually in source form.

      Perhaps yast or apt-get check the signatures on files. RPM does also (well, except for a few files this last time .. which I haven't moved to yet).

      I don't really like blindly trusting downloads, even from good sites. There have been too many compromises.

      (I must admit, that what really got to me about Ximian was the way that it tended to stomp all over KDE installations, but when thinking about replacement strategies, I realized just how uncomfortable I was with the blind downloads.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Ximian by proclus · · Score: 1

      Yea, but we are reaching OSX users with free software. Actually, I got the idea from Helix Code.

      lynx -source whatever | csh

      Regards,
      proclus

  8. Cool stuff, but beware of Dillo by CmdrTroll · · Score: 2, Informative
    A few of my friends have installed this package and they've generally been very impressed. The applications are speedy and rock-solid. The one exception that they mention is Dillo: "a replacement for any major web browser." Although Dillo renders quickly and doesn't have a bloated UI, its support for major features such as JavaScript 2 and CSS is lacking, to be kind. Many web pages, such as MSN and Tom's Hardware, look very cluttered and misrendered in it - if they even come up at all.

    Dillo is a neat little effort, a cool side project, but no replacement for a real browser like Galeon or Konqueror. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt, the lowest point of the GNU-Darwin package.

    -CT

    1. Re:Cool stuff, but beware of Dillo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha!!

      Canadian
      Refrom
      Alliance
      Party

      Great!!

      The Liberals couldn't _pay_ for press like that..

    2. Re:Cool stuff, but beware of Dillo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True--Dillo has issues.

      However, it is the only major browser which works on Darwin without the proprietary pieces of OS X. The only major alternative at this time seems to be Amaya which has poor behavior at best.

      There was some work by Proclus (founder of GNU-Darwin) to get Mozilla working but it's big task, and the same applies to Konquerer (since it requires the KDE libs). I am sure they would appreciate any help....

      --
      Lagos

    3. Re:Cool stuff, but beware of Dillo by gvsu_snow_lord · · Score: 0

      What about Lynx? or other text based broswers?

      You said works on dariwn... not darwin with XFree. (since darwin is just the BSD core)

    4. Re:Cool stuff, but beware of Dillo by proclus · · Score: 1

      I might suggest instead that Mapquest and Amazon are a peice of crap, but that would be quite rude ;-}.

      Regards,
      proclus

    5. Re:Cool stuff, but beware of Dillo by proclus · · Score: 1

      JavaScript 2 and CSS, who needs it! It is just a way of popping up annoying ads.

      When SSL arrives (soon!), Dillo will be king of the browsers.

      Regards,
      proclus

  9. heres an install for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    for ide users
    just plug in your guitar and get ready to create
    some art.
    dd of=/dev/wd0 if=/dev/audio
    or
    dd of=/dev/sd0 if=/dev/audio
    for scsi.
    Your going to need a sound card as this obviously
    want work the way we want it too otherwise.
    After you press enter, start playing your best
    rifts and chords. Put some improvisation into it. Feel the music. If you need playback, pipe what you are playing back through dev/dsp device.

    Mac's are fun now arent' they. When you finish just reboot and get ready for the surpise of a lifetime.

    Mr Satan

    1. Re:heres an install for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newbies take note: that would wipe your hard drive.

  10. That script is weird... by CoolVibe · · Score: 4, Informative
    It replaces everything with GNU darwin stuff if you run it on Mac OS X. How do they know that doesn't break anything? e.g. GNU ls is different from the BSD type ls Mac OS X has installed default. I think a big YMMV is in place here.

    That said, I'll just download the ISO and free up a partition to run it alongside Mac OS X and Aqua. That way my normal OSX system is guaranteed not to break. My mac is a test machine anyway. I run different operating systems on it depending on what I need to test. I urge everyone that wants to test this on their machine that runs important stuff to BACK UP THEIR IMPORTANT FILES, just to be safe.

    Oh.. another thing: it's BETA. It might break. So be a little cautious, and be prepared to pull up your sleeves and do some work if it breaks, but hey, that's what being bleeding edge is all about, right?

    But anyway: Great work guys! I'll seriously check it out. I'm downloading the iso as you read this comment.

    1. Re:That script is weird... by bocee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I installed the full gnu fileutils a while ago to get colorized ls, and df -h, and after a while I realized that the gnu rm command does *not* work with mac os x. I had lots of problems with the drive thinking it was full when it was not, etc. I could fix everything with fsck, and the problems went away when I went back to the included rm command. (As always, this may have been fixed since I had problems with it.)

      Also, Apple does beneficial work on the commands that they include. For example, with the rm included in 10.1, it is now able to delete files that are locked at the (HFS+) filesytem level. Gnu rm will never do that.

    2. Re:That script is weird... by rockrat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Running the script hosed my system unrepairably. It would no longer boot into OS X AT ALL! Only a full reformat & re-install fixed it.
      Definitely a YMMV is in order.

    3. Re:That script is weird... by proclus · · Score: 1

      Don't you think that this is trolling a little?

      We know that it doesn't break anything, because we are doing much cool stuff with it. For example,

      Researcher brings Open-Source
      Software to the
      Mac

      Regards,
      proclus

    4. Re:That script is weird... by CoolVibe · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why is it trolling? I'm just warning people that they should not run that script with reckless abandon. I read the script and there is stuff in there that is just beyond me. Replacing the OSX shipped fileutil-like tools with GNU versions is a bad idea. if the OSX user is running on a HFS+ partition (as many do. Mac OS Classic and Carbon apps have some issues with UFS, because the directory delimiter on HFS is ':' and UFS uses '/'. This seriously confuses some apps. Same goes for some GNU utils that just don't take the proprietary HFS+ filesystem features into account, which is understandable, since the HFS+ fs isn't really open. You needn't replace them because they're not broken. Oh, and not everyone has the same setup. Some people use UFS, some with HFS+. Some people run with classic, some without. Some run OS X 10.0.4, and some run 10.1. That's a lot of variables. So it might work on your system, but not on someone else's. However, the people that _do_ end up with a hosed machine should mail you guys about what setup they have, what version OSX they use, if they use HFS+ or UFS etc. etc. That install script can go a long way as you get more input about systems on which it doesn't work. That's Finnagle's law for ya.

      Nevertheless, what you guys are doing with the free Darwin system is very cool, I will heartily agree with that, but "upgrading" my existing OSX system with your script is a bit dangerous. There's another comment in this discussion somewhere that talks about that as well. Maybe you could provide a version of the script that only installs the rootless X stuff and the GNOME bits, and maybe a script that transforms an Aqua system to a GNU/Darwin one. The possibilities are endless here, as are the wishes of the people that wish to run those nifty OSS X11 apps on their Aqua setup. I would like to help, but I have priorities elsewhere that take up most (if not all) of my scarse free time. I will definately try GNU/Darwin on my Mac, but I'll just play safe and set a partition aside for it, so I won't hose my Aqua system.

      You guys are doing a great job, but the OSX install script has issues (and it even says 'untested' in the script header somewhere). I am not trolling, and I am not attacking your project. I am merely warning people that they should be careful.... That's all... You guys keep on going. You are doing some cool stuff. But a YMMV is definately in order here.

      So people, just try the upgrade script, but your mileage may vary. Oh, if it somehow screws up your machine, please send bugreports to the GNU/Darwin people and don't forget to report what setup you have and what the problems were so they can fix it.

    5. Re:That script is weird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree here. Although the script didn't hose my system, it didn't even work properly (I executed it as root, so it wasn't a permission issue). I suppose I can fix it, but who needs X when you have the Real X?!

    6. Re:That script is weird... by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      This is not an upgrade for an Apple supplied OSX installation, this is an installation for a Darwin (not supplied or supported by Apple) installation. If you're using OSX and running this script you'll probably fuck something up seriously because OSX is a bit different from the Darwin distro. You can run the GNU-Darwin Ports on OSX but it would be pretty silly for me to run this script on my 10.1 installation on my Powerbook.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    7. Re:That script is weird... by proclus · · Score: 1
      To the contrary, this upgrade is especially for Mac OSX.1 users. GNU-Darwin is OSX.1 compatible, and it will remain so.


      Regards,
      proclus

  11. GNU Darwin? by istartedi · · Score: 0, Troll

    OK, so they took from BSD, gave to GPL, then mixed the result with something as absurdly proprietary as Curl. Are they trying to see how many people they can piss off with one OS?

    As a BSD "thief", I get nothing.

    If I were a GPL lover, I would get tainted with Curl.

    As someone who appreciates a good commercial package, I am left with concerns that they will decide to turn it over to "the community" which is just a synonym for abandonment.

    Of course, that's just me. They could please me by keeping the BSD codebase that they modified BSD, and then they could run whatever proprietary code they wanted on top of it.

    I expect that others may be more or less difficult to please. Then of course there are the users, who don't care about any of that crap. If they can please the users it might be a moot point. This could end up being part of the "open monopoly" if it ran on x86.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:GNU Darwin? by marmoset · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are you talking about? How does culr "taint" anything? Curl is dually licensed under an MIT/X-derived license and the MPL. The MIT/X license is GPL compatible. Are you trolling or just confused?

    2. Re:GNU Darwin? by z4ce · · Score: 2

      Blah, BSD people don't care if you license their stuff GPL. That's why they licensed it BSD, because they want you do whatever fits you best.

      Curl, proprietary, are you on crack or just a troll? Curl is under a MIT/X license. Check out http://freshmeat.net/projects/curl/

    3. Re:GNU Darwin? by Tet · · Score: 2
      OK, so they took from BSD, gave to GPL, then mixed the result with something as absurdly proprietary as Curl.


      But not only that, they're disappearing down the same route as Ximian, namely chasing Microsoft in the "features and convenience are more important than security" game. The more users get used to seeing installation instructions that involve piping the output of an arbitratory web download into a root shell, the more they'll start to believe that's just the way it's done. You or I might know better, but the average user that'll be thinking ofdoing this probably won't.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    4. Re:GNU Darwin? by proclus · · Score: 1

      That was hilarious! BTW, I made a stink over curl...


      http://darwinfo.org/devlist.php3?number=11712

      The first thing the script does is fetch wget with curl. It uses wget for everything after that. BTW, don't worry, we never re-license _any_ code.

      Regards,
      proclus

  12. curl is "absurdly proprietary?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    ...something as absurdly proprietary as Curl...



    Uh, what exactly is "absurdly proprietary" about this? Try and get your facts straight before your pour more salt on licencing wounds, OK?


  13. WGET Missing from OS X.1 by Buran · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "This assummes you have curl or wget or something."

    Well, I did have wget in 10.0 up to 10.0.4, but the 10.1 update "helpfully" deleted it from my system. After several annoyed looks and some time spent searching Google, I found a download site for a precompiled binary for wget that will run under OS X (downloads as an installer .pkg file; you'll need to be root or an admin to install it.) The file is, for those who want to get it directly, here (.tar.gz format... use gunzip and tar -xvf to unpack if StuffIt Expander doesn't/can't.)

    If you really, really want to compile yourself (you need to have installed the developer tools, which come with boxed copies of OS X), the source is here.

    Beats me why Apple did this...

    1. Re:WGET Missing from OS X.1 by invdaic · · Score: 1

      Apple replaced wget with curl in 10.1
      It does the exact same thing, they just seem to like it more.

      --

      "If IE is 'just a web browser' then emacs is 'just a text editor'."

    2. Re:WGET Missing from OS X.1 by TotallyUseless · · Score: 3, Informative

      they did this because wget is gpl, and for whatever reason they saw this as a reason not to include it. After updating to 10.1 the first thing i did was install fink tho, and type 'fink install wget' into terminal. Minutes later i had a fully compiled/working install of wget, waiting to go! Yay fink!

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    3. Re:WGET Missing from OS X.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you didn't know - you can download developer tools from Apples' website - you have to register though. It is about 200MB.

    4. Re:WGET Missing from OS X.1 by Buran · · Score: 1

      I'm downloading fink as I write this. Looks pretty interesting. Thanks for the tip!

    5. Re:WGET Missing from OS X.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why install wget when you can just use the superior curl, which is also under an open source license (MIT/X)? If you can't stop yourself from typing wget, make an alias or symlink.

    6. Re:WGET Missing from OS X.1 by l-ascorbic · · Score: 1
      Or just type curl -O instead of wget.

  14. This just in... by geomcbay · · Score: 3, Funny

    Matt Dillon falls off his rocker, calls for this project to be renamed BSD/GNU-Darwin.

  15. Re:GNU Darwin? -- Troll by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
    If I were a GPL lover, I would get tainted with Curl.

    You've got to be a troll. Anyone who's been around *NIX for 2 months or longer knows the difference between cURL and Curl. The fact that the context is either using "curl" or "wget" makes this incredibly clear.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  16. Um, disturbing by skullY · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Is anyone else highly disturbed by this? Have you read through that csh script? And why csh, there's no black magic there, and at least my copy of osx came with /bin/sh.

    From the script:

    essential_binaries:
    curl -o wget http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/packages/wget
    chmod 755 wget
    cp wget /usr/bin
    rehash
    Erm, so 10.1 comes with curl, which besides providing a library for use in your own programs, also seems to be more unix-like and full featured than wget, with the exception of recursively getting an entire directory tree, which 95% of the time I use wget I'm not doing anyway. This script also doesn't seem to use wget for anything but fetching single files. (Was s/wget/curl -O/ too hard?)

    cd /usr/bin
    mv tar ~
    wget http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/packages/tar
    chmod 755 /usr/bin/tar
    wget http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/packages/killall
    chmod 755 /usr/bin/killall
    Oh boy, here come the first of the unwelcome "improvements." Apple thoughtfull provided not only the bsd tar program, but a binary called "gnutar" as well that seems to support all the options of GNU tar on my linux machines (With the one exception of bzip2 compatability, but that's easily fixed by piping bzip2 output to tar.) And KILLALL, don't forget about one of the single most dangerous commands to get into the habit of using, next to rm -rf. God forbid they have to cat pid files or even use awk to figure out a process id in a one time use shell script. It might make the script ugly.

    *sigh*

    I really do appreciate the work GNU-Darwin is doing, they're filling the few gaps on my osx machine. I just wish they didn't go the extra mile to make my system GNUified. It's not becoming of a nice BSD install.

    --
    When I was able to do my own spam-armoring, you got a chance to email me. Now you can only hope I see your reply.
    1. Re:Um, disturbing by CoolVibe · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Indeed... Wow, sensible people at slashdot. Who would have thought that? ;-)

      Instead of instantly running to my Mac OS X machine to type in the command line so I could have GNU/Darwin on my OSX installation I first _READ_ the script.

      Again... YMMV to all who try this out. Don't whine if it breaks. I can not stress this enough: back up your important files first.

      I wish Taco took more care in posting stories like this without slapping a big YMMV on it. Someone actually might try it out and render his system unusable. I'm waiting for the horror stories already.

      Oh, I would like to mention that GNU/Darwin is very cool, I have no gripes with it (yeah, well I got some, but they are merely small things I needn't bother anyone with and which I can easily solve myself) but I am always weary of "ready to run" upgrade scripts that run right off the web. It makes me think of a comment Wietse Venema once made about security and running scripts in a hapless fashion without checking what it actually does.

      So... again... YMMV... If it breaks, well, you have been warned. Now go and have fun. GNU/Darwin is seriously cool. Try it. (but back up your files, just in case).

  17. WGET gone; curl is it by melquiades · · Score: 2

    Beats me why Apple did this...

    I believe it was deprecated in favor of curl, which I'm told is more robust anyway. It has the same basic syntax:

    curl url

    1. Re:WGET gone; curl is it by gvsu_snow_lord · · Score: 0

      the basic syntax to actually download a file (in a useful form is)
      curl -O url

      To get the developer tools for 10.1 (not 10.0.x version) you need to either buy 10.1, buy the 19.99 update to 10.1 or download the free tools from ADC. (which has been stated before)

  18. RETRACTION (was Re:GNU Darwin? -- Troll) by istartedi · · Score: 2

    No. Not trolling. I've dabbled in *NIX and have a BSD partition for when I absolutely need it, but I only fire it up every 6 months, sometimes longer.

    I honestly had no idea there was something called cURL. The only time I had ever heard "curl" used in association with computing was in connection with Curl, the MIT-commercial partnership to which you linked. So, I retract my previous statements in regards to cURL.

    Maybe I went off half-cocked, but then again if I made this mistake maybe others will too. Poor marketing on the part of cURL? If Curl is really "out to get people" maybe cURL should consider a pre-emptive name change to prevent lawsuits.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:RETRACTION (was Re:GNU Darwin? -- Troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I went off half-cocked, but then again if I made this mistake maybe others will too. Poor marketing on the part of cURL?

      Perhaps your not a part of tehir target market? Or is your ignorance always the blame of someone's marketing department?

      If Curl is really "out to get people" maybe cURL should consider a pre-emptive name change to prevent lawsuits.
      Being reasonable people, I don't think they have any intention of suing MIT for adopting the same name as they were using for thier project. The best way for them to prevent law suits seems to be to choose not to file one.

    2. Re:RETRACTION (was Re:GNU Darwin? -- Troll) by istartedi · · Score: 2

      Well now, it seems that you are just being petty here, but I'll reply anyway.

      Perhaps your not a part of tehir target market? Or is your ignorance always the blame of someone's marketing department?

      As a matter of fact, my ignorance is the fault of marketing. It's not my job to know the name and purpose of every product on the market. It's marketing's job to make their product something I know about. If it weren't for marketing, "windows" would be something you open when the weather is warm, "oracle" would live in "delphi" and "ford" would be a stream crossing. It wouldn't be my fault for not associating these words with something else.

      Now it seems to me that Curl must have a pretty good marketing department, since they got mentioned on /. even though their philosophy is 180 from a lot of people here. cURL OTOH, being Open Source, probably doesn't care about marketing, which is just one of many problems with OS/FS.

      Being reasonable people, I don't think they have any intention of suing MIT

      Read what I said again. You switched cURL with Curl.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  19. THE LINK IS NOT GOATS.CX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be modded up since another screenshot as been modded as 3.

  20. Always knew I was a bit cowboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, I usually use the recursive switch with wget, otherwise a browser...
    also rm -fR gives that nice seat of the pants feeling...
    + killalll is handy...

    then again, not sure I'd be so blaise on servers
    that weren't my own machine.

    1. Re:Always knew I was a bit cowboy by snookums · · Score: 1


      killalll (sic) is handy...

      Indeed killall is handy, but if you get into the Linux (or is it GNU) habbit of using it to kill processes by name, then you will get into a lot of bother when you use it on a system (not sure which flavours) where it reall does "kill all" and you end up with no init(1).

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
    2. Re:Always knew I was a bit cowboy by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      IRIX is one example. I thought, well I'll just type killall to see it's quick help (assuming the GNU style of telling me a quickhelp with invalid command line options).

      That really kills EVERYTHING, no prompt, no quckhelp, (if you were root). It's the fastest way to take down a small supercomputer that I know of. :)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Always knew I was a bit cowboy by dsouth · · Score: 1

      killall under Solaris will terminate all processes, not kill processes by name. Add a linux sysadmin and hilarity ensues.

    4. Re:Always knew I was a bit cowboy by JBird · · Score: 1

      I have experienced killall first hand. This instance was on Compaq Tru64 Unix (Digital Unix at the time). First day on the job, I try to kill some named processes (having previously admined Linux systems). Lo and behold, the box has every process killed and effectively halts! Not a good thing to happen on your fist day :-)

      At least now under Irix 6.5.x, killall works like Linux. Funny, a lot of things in Irix 6.5 look like Linux!

  21. curl | csh? Danger will Robinson, danger!!! by Mike+McTernan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    curl http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/one_stop | csh

    Erm. Isn't this a bit of a dangerous install strategy? e.g. sourceforge get hacked again and http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/one_stop points to a script that starts with 'rm -rf /'. Not so fun now...

    Wouldn't it be better to use something that does a bit of public key crypto and verifies that you are really downloading something signed by a darwin guy or sourceforge? At least using https would help to stop a man in the middle attack...

    --
    -- Mike
  22. No more security risk than usual by mbrubeck · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The more users get used to seeing installation instructions that involve piping the output of an arbitratory web download into a root shell, the more they'll start to believe that's just the way it's done.

    When's the last time you read the entire Makefile and all external files that it calls, before typing 'make install'?

    This is no different from downloading a tarball with a Makefile inside. You are downloading a script from the net and running it as root. You either check the script yourself beforehand, or you rely on the fact that a reputable party is providing the script and that more paranoid users will be checking it and publicizing any trojans inside (and ruining the reputation of the author).

    The situation I would really warn against is running an unexamined script that isn't provided by a known author, or even worse a compiled binary with no source available. As long as the source is public, it is no different from what Unix admins have been doing for decades every time they install software.

    1. Re:No more security risk than usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An arbitrary tarball can have a checksum attached, and other people can vouch that such-and-such file (as determined by the checksum matching) is OK.

      Tell me how you plan to do that with 'lynx | sh' or similar.

    2. Re:No more security risk than usual by Get+Behind+the+Mule · · Score: 3, Insightful
      When's the last time you read the entire Makefile and all external files that it calls, before typing 'make install'?


      Dunno about you, but when I download a tarball, I sure as hell don't su to root and blast away with 'make install' right after I get it. I read the READMEs and install instructions, read some docs, check out the available install options, and generally have a look around. Then I make the binaries under my usual login account, take a look at the results, and finally 'make install' as root as the very last step.

      Sure I could still get fooled that way, but it does give me a good chance at an informed opinion about whether the stuff I downloaded and will install is indeed what I thought I was getting. And in fact, sometimes I've stopped the process, because the package in question required something for the install that I wasn't willing to do.

      Piping the output of a web page into the C-shell as root is about the most cockamamie idea I have ever seen! And this is in a headline on Slashdot! You've got no chance to decide whether you're installing something legit -- even the most cursory inspection is impossible. Sheesh, if this is what people running Unix boxen are going to start doing, then it won't be long before the Unix world is just as saturated with Code Reds and Nimdas and God knows what-all the Microserfs have to live with.
    3. Re:No more security risk than usual by Tet · · Score: 2
      This is no different from downloading a tarball with a Makefile inside. You are downloading a script from the net and running it as root.


      Speak for yourself. None of the code I compile myself is either compiled or installed as root. If the final deliverable calls for a setuid root program, then yes, I'll run the final make install as root, but only after checking the Makefile to see what it does.


      The situation I would really warn against is running an unexamined script that isn't provided by a known author


      But that's exactly what you're advocating. Since you don't know if the DNS for the download domain has been hijacked, you haven't a clue who the author of the script you're piping into a root shell is.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  23. Security by (char+*)+jmi · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Uh, isn't that command a bit dangerous? Downloading a script from a possibly untrusted website and executing it as root without even reading it?! Not a good idea.

    If this continues the crackers only need to compromise one computer-- the packager's webserver-- to get into a whole load of users' boxes...

  24. context switching by WiseWeasel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your X environment is a Mac application that you can switch to by clicking on its window or on its dock or double clicking on its finder icon. Once the X environment is frontmost, you can switch frontmost apps the way you usually do with whatever window manager.

    --
    "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
  25. x86 Darwin by Hostile17 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know if any active development is taking place for the x86 port of Darwin ? I have downloaded it and had look, but it supports very little hardware and if I build a system just for it, I might as well get an iMac and use it in its native platform.

    --
    Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    1. Re:x86 Darwin by Gabhlan · · Score: 1

      What's so wrong with 'rm -Rf ' ? It's the only command I use for trashing dirs. As long as you know what you're doing (which lets face it, most here do) you're not going to trash anything important. People who don't know how to use commands like this safely should do what Apple wants them to do and stick to a GUI, and it you rm -Rf /bin or rm -Rf /System it's your own fault.

      --
      The wind blew so cold
      The fan won't turn any more
      Files die in the heat
    2. Re:x86 Darwin by Hostile17 · · Score: 2


      What's so wrong with 'rm -Rf ' ?



      Did you read my post ? If you did, I would like you to explain what your post had to do with x86 Darwin.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
    3. Re:x86 Darwin by Fjord · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing the previous poster meant to respond to this post

      --
      -no broken link
  26. Re:gnome over x? Afterstep by namespan · · Score: 2

    Seeing a Nextstep-ish window system on top of OS X is quite a hoot! Thanks.

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  27. chill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and maybe a couple ppl should chill, since everybody does have a copy of those, then there's no problem, is there . . . he doesn't have to be an expert at everything he posts!

  28. fink == apt-get by mbrubeck · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use fink myself. It's sort of a clone of apt-get for OSX. Minor correction -- fink is not "sort of a clone" of the Debian tools. It is actually a frontend to the dpkg/apt suite, which they ported to OS X. Fink uses the real Debian package management tools and the .deb package format.

    1. Re:fink == apt-get by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      Oops, wrong choice of words. Since I use Redhat, I'm not that familier with the differences (if any) between dpkg/apt and fink.

  29. Yeeaaaarrrrgggghhhh!!! by smcdow · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    /bin/csh is evil.

    I consider its use as a programming lanugage the mark of a rank amateur.

    Don't believe me? Try this.

    --
    In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
  30. Note the actual license on GNU-Darwin-ports by mr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is actually a BSD license.

    And, on the main page, the license is listed as GPL. http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnu-darwin/

    --
    If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
    1. Re:Note the actual license on GNU-Darwin-ports by proclus · · Score: 1

      We do not re-license any source code.

      Regards,
      proclus

  31. Wow, one command. by Bobo+the+Space+Chimp · · Score: 0, Troll

    > "OSX.1 users can now install the GNU-Darwin base
    > distribution automatically with one command. As
    > Root: "curl http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/one_stop | csh"."

    Congratulations, GNU, on entrance into the 1980's.

    Now if someone can just figure out how to make a batch file and make that double-clickable on the desktop.

    --
    I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
    1. Re:Wow, one command. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just rename the batch file to file.command... now it's double-clickable on the desktop.

  32. DON'T DO THIS UNLESS YOU WANT TO REPLACE OS.X.1 by Nijika · · Score: 2, Informative

    Um yeah... Just for the people who copy and paste before reading through!

    --
    Luck favors the prepared, darling.
  33. Other safe, easy installations to run as root: by Nindalf · · Score: 3, Funny

    curl http://madhaxxors.com/0wnZj00 | sh
    curl http://goatse.cx/setwallpaper.csh | csh
    curl http://spamforprofit.org/easymoney.pl | perl
    curl http://microsoft.com/msonly/seekNdestroy | bash

  34. Re:curl | csh? Danger will Robinson, danger!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, why don't you just curl the script, look inside it (check for nastiness) and then csh it?

  35. Re:curl | csh? Danger will Robinson, danger!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Actually, why don't you just curl the script, look inside it
    > (check for nastiness) and then csh it?

    This is what I would do, although complex scripts may contain hidden dangers (trojan anyone?).

    Encouraging others to pipe directly to csh may not be a good idea...

  36. http://curl.haxx.se/ by bagder · · Score: 2, Informative
    Hey

    Lots are being said about cURL in these discussions, both favourable and some things not so favourable. Feel free to stop by and make your own opinion.

    We host our project web pages at http://curl.haxx.se/ and we welcome your contributions!

  37. GNU? by Arandir · · Score: 2

    Darwin is not a GNU project. FreeBSD is not a GNU project. Mach is not a GNU project. OSX is not a GNU project.

    And of course, GNU Darwin is not a GNU project. So why is it called "GNU Darwin"? This project has nothing to do with GNU. Sure it has some ported GNU software, but so do my Solaris and FreeBSD boxen. Come to think of it, so do my Windows and QNX boxen.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    1. Re:GNU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is not a GNU project either, but we all know how badly the FSF and Debian folks like to call it GNU/Linux. Why would GNU-Darwin be any different?

    2. Re:GNU? by proclus · · Score: 1

      Hi Arandir! You have to understand that the project is more about software freedom than it is about geneologies. We call it GNU-Darwin because we are reaching Apple users with free software.

      Regards,
      proclus

    3. Re:GNU? by TerryMathews · · Score: 1

      Why is Linux technically called "GNU-Linux"? It's not because of the Linux kernel; it's for the GNU tools that are attached to the Linux kernel. In theory, if I built a whole toolchain and simple programs to run under the Linux kernel, and they wern't GNU tools, my distro wouldn't be "GNU-Linux", it would be something else.

      It _is_ correct to refer to the package of GNU programs for Darwin/OS X as "GNU-Darwin". It has nothing to do with whether or not Darwin is GNU and everything to do with the tools being GNU. In theory, your Windows box with GNU software (If it has the full set) is now "GNU-Windows". Pretty nifty eh?

      --
      -- Terry
    4. Re:GNU? by Arandir · · Score: 2

      RMS wants LinuxOS to be called GNU/Linux because he really believes that it is "The GNU System" that he started back in 1985. It has nothing to do with there being GNU software included. Solaris ships with GNU software but RMS doesn't call it GNU/Solaris. FreeBSD contains just as much GNU software as LinuxOS does, but he doesn't want to call it GNU/FreeBSD.

      He just thinks that Linux is really The GNU System with linux as the kernel instead of Hurd.

      GNU Darwin is no such beast. Not even close.

      In theory, your Windows box with GNU software (If it has the full set) is now "GNU-Windows".

      Of course Windows doesn't have the "full set". GNU is a complete operating system in its own right. What good is Hurd going to do under Windows?

      But that's beside the point. Not even RMS considers Windows with all possible GNU software installed on it to be "GNU/Windows".

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    5. Re:GNU? by Arandir · · Score: 2

      We call it GNU-Darwin because we are reaching Apple users with free software.

      That might make sense if all of the free software you were porting over to Darwin where GNU software. But it's not. GNU is not a repository of all possible free software. It is a specific project to create a specific operating system.

      Why not call it "BSD Darwin"? BSD is also free software, and there's a hell of a lot more BSD stuff in GNU Darwin than there is GNU stuff. Since RMS insists that LinuxOS be called "GNU/Linux" since he thinks it is derived from GNU, then why not call your project "BSD Darwin" since it is clearly derived from BSD software.

      Or even better, since you want to use "GNU" to imply "free", why not just call it "Free Darwin?" You would avoid much confusion that way. It would also avoid pissing off the BSD community by taking their software and renaming it GNU.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    6. Re:GNU? by proclus · · Score: 1
      A rose by any other name?


      GNU=Free


      There you have it. Do you want to have our usual free software debate again, Ara-dear? ;-}


      Regards,
      proclus

    7. Re:GNU? by RLiegh · · Score: 1
      Why is Linux technically called "GNU-Linux"? It's not because of the Linux kernel; it's for the GNU tools that are attached to the Linux kernel. In theory, if I built a whole toolchain and simple programs to run under the Linux kernel, and they wern't GNU tools, my distro wouldn't be "GNU-Linux", it would be something else.

      It _is_ correct to refer to the package of GNU programs for Darwin/OS X as "GNU-Darwin". It has nothing to do with whether or not Darwin is GNU and everything to do with the tools being GNU. In theory, your Windows box with GNU software (If it has the full set) is now "GNU-Windows". Pretty nifty eh?
      -- Terry


      I don't own an Apple/BSD/GNU/Darwin system, so this is all conjecture; but I was under the impression that the "toolchain" was derived from FreeBSD, wich would place it largely under the BSD license. If that is in fact the case, then it would not be any more valid to call it GNU/Darwin then would Windows GNU/Windows (granted, you cannot rebuild windows using cygwin) or calling FreeBSD GNU/FreeBSD (where you do use GNU tools to rebuild the OS).

      Point being, how is it you can call it GNU/Darwin, but not GNU/FreeBSD? Where is it you're saying the difference lies? In using GNOME? In replaceing the fileutils? Where, exactly?
    8. Re:GNU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What the shit is this? Are you RMS in the form of a teenager?

      GNU != free

      ...and it sure would be nice if RMS and his commie-butties would quit trying to give such a singular meaning to a word that has so many interpretations within our language.

      It's absurd, I tell you. Websters has it right. There's multiple definitions of the word "free". Therefore, assuming a singular meaning for a term like "free software" is bunk.

      By the way, I find you and your project boring and trollsome. I'm glad you prefixed it with "GNU" so I can toss it into the same loony bin linux belongs in.

      (pre-emptive "fuck you" to the moderator who mods this down - I'm damn right with respect to the word free, don't cover it up with slashtrash points)

    9. Re:GNU? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      GNU=Free

      Hmmm, not quite.

      GNU="GNU's Not Unix".

      GNU is free, but not everything that is free is GNU. How much more plain than that can you get?

      Oh, and don't call me "dear" :-)

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    10. Re:GNU? by proclus · · Score: 1

      Software freedom rules, and GNU-Darwin will continue to bring GNU-style free software to Apple users.

      Regards,
      proclus

    11. Re:GNU? by proclus · · Score: 1

      We are using the FreeBSD ports and package tools to bring FSF-style free software to Apple users. GNU* is the correct name for what we are doing.

      Regards,
      proclus

    12. Re:GNU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solaris ships with GNU software

      Not nearly enough of it, though... :-(

    13. Re:GNU? by Arandir · · Score: 1

      Taking a quick look at the "Recent Additions" packages list, I see that 9 out of the first 10 entries have no ties at all to the FSF (the tenth is a tenuous tie at best).

      Looking closer, I see that the first two entries aren't even licensed under a FSF-style license at all, but under MIT-style licenses.

      I'm not sure what you mean by "FSF-style free software", but it's clear that your project is porting more than GNU software, and more than copyleft software.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    14. Re:GNU? by proclus · · Score: 1
      With the exception of the ports system itself, nearly all of our top offering are GPL-covered. Check the basefiles.


      Having said that, free software is what it is. We favor copyleft, but we are using are using the ports system to bring free software to users. Of course, that ports system is derived from FreeBSD, as you know, and all 6000 ports were picked by FreeBSD users and developers.


      We have added a number of ports to the collection, most of which are copyleft, all of which are free software.


      Regards,
      proclus

  38. Time for a darwin topical icon? by sasha328 · · Score: 2

    I mean, Darwin has it's own mascot, the Platypus. Why not use that instead of the BSD demon?

  39. what the... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    erm, why would anyone want "GNU-Darwin" instead of just plain Real Darwin? It seems to me that Apple is a better source for a PowerPC operating system than whoever this gnu business comes from. Does putting the letters "gnu" in the title really make you that much cooler?

    I mean seriously, Darwin is even open-source to begin with.

    1. Re:what the... by proclus · · Score: 1

      GNU-Darwin is Darwin itself, but overlaid with free software.

      Regards,
      proclus

  40. Re:GNU? "GNU" is "GNU is Not Unix" but Darwin IS by MacBoy · · Score: 1
    is GNU/Darwin a paradox?

    Darwin is Unix, as is its bigger brother, Mac OS X. Real Unix. BSD 4.4 (or whatever minor version is actually is). GNU means "GNU is Not Unix" (it's recursive, but that's the fun of it). So what does GNU/Darwin mean?

  41. csh for scripting? ouch.. by Argon · · Score: 1

    Did they really use csh for their install script? Ouch.

  42. what part of BETA don't you understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why are you going on and on about something possibly breaking your system. The software just came out of ALPHA fer crissakes!

    of COURSE you should back up your system before using it. Thank you, captain obvious.

  43. Warm lap by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

    For the bitchers, please remember than the GNU-Darwin project no matter how inaptly named is not supported by Apple and thus anything mentioning the GNU-Darwin project may fuck up an Apple supplied OSX installation. Besides that I think this project is pretty nifty, it's one of the reasons I was pretty excited about getting OSX on my Powerbook. Not only would I get the cool features of OSX I also get to fire up Terminal.app and use a huge number of FreeBSD ports. The article from the other day where both OS 7.6 and WindowsXP were running on an iBook 466 I found pretty interesting. There was little content but the demonstration was pretty cool.

    --
    I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
  44. Re:GNU? "GNU" is "GNU is Not Unix" but Darwin IS by RLiegh · · Score: 1

    Actually, didn't Novell (?) sue the Regents of California so that they could no longer call 4.4BSD "Unix"? So that would mean it's NOT Unix....

  45. Re:GNU? "GNU" is "GNU is Not Unix" but Darwin IS by Arandir · · Score: 2, Funny

    So let's call it BNU!

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  46. But... by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
    Why isn't that in the form of a warning on the webpage with +100 size font and blinking letters?

    As you can see from some of the /. reading public, they tried it anyway, so somewhere someone didn't get it (and neither did I).

    Why is everyone in this discussion going on about curl and wget on OSX? Makes me think I'm not the only one here that didn't get it.

    Needless to say, it should be more obvious that this upgrade script is not intended vor OSX. Maybe a few tests can be built into the script, to prevent running on a OSX system?