Slashdot Mirror
Darwin 6.0.2 for x86 Released
Jos Louis writes "Apple has released the x86 version 6.0.2 of Darwin, the FreeBSD-based core of Mac OS X. You can download the bootable ISO on Apple's site."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Read this first:d arwin/6. 0/install.x86.txt
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/
Supported Hardware
------------------
IDE:
Only the PIIX4 IDE controllers have been found to work.
Attached devices must be UDMA/33 compatible or better.
Ethernet:
Intel 8255x 10/100 ethernet controllers are supported.
Video:
You must have a VESA 2.0 compliant video card. Almost all
modern graphics cards are VESA 2.0 compliant. However, emulators
such as vmware do not have VESA 2.0 compliant emulated video cards.
Successfully tested hardware:
All 440BX motherboards tested have worked with their internal
IDE controllers.
IBM ThinkPad A21m (with onboard Intel ethernet)
Known to not be supported:
All AMD and VIA based systems.
Known to not be supported: All AMD and VIA based systems.
There goes me trying it. seems to have a fairly small set of hardware it runs on.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
From the release notes:
* IDE drives may not work on x86. Try it, if it doesn't work, it's a known problem.
That seems like a pretty major problem to me.....
If you want to test server apps for MacOS X you develop but don't have a Mac, it's a good option.
Apple uses gcc. I think they moved to gcc 3.x for the PowerPC builds. I don't know what version they are using for Intel builds.
There are probably some projects at Apple that use CodeWarrior or even MPW, but in general MacOS X is built using gcc.
Its XNU... mach+a bsd personality in the same address space with some FreeBSD userland tools.
The developers tools that ship with OS X do use GCC, and it is my understanding that Apple developers use these tools for their own software.
The dev tools that ship with OS X are excellent, and I would be very surprised if Apple put all that effort into making such kick-ass tools only to use something else internally.
There is source, you just have to use cvs to get it, or download all the components separately via the html frontend somewhere on the Darwin pages @ apple.
Darwin itself is just the kernel, some drivers, some tools (mostly bsd and gnu) and a few bits and bobs like NetInfo. Large parts aren't actually BSD however, like the microkernelness, and they have their own IO APIs (IOKit).
MacOS X is then everything else - not just Aqua as some suggest, but Quartz, Aqua, all the utilities/programs (finder, mac ui, control center), the iApps, Cocoa, Carbon etc. In fact, virtually everything that you need to have a useful OS.
From what I've seen so far, it seems that Darwin/x86 is at about the same level that Linux was in terms of features/hardware support in 1993.
They say on their website that they maintain an x86 port just to ensure that their code is relatively portable - not really for our benefit.
and what crack are you smoking? People had hacked the iPod to work with Windows shortly after it's release. To boot, Apple now sells a Windows version.
PS - Even if Apple moved OS X to the x86 family, you'd still have to buy an Apple PC.
The part you were unaware of, is that MS is miles ahead of them as Outlook 2002 can automatically run organic machine code without human intervention.
The irony here is that you are making fun of the first version of a Microsoft email program that does NOT give users access to executable attachments, and does NOT let an outside program use it to send email without approval gained from a popup window.
"And like that
What about Darwin Streaming Server and Rendezvous? What about OpenPlay and OpenDirectory? Apple is releasing lots of neat projects as open-source. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Darwin is great for OSX developers because it lets you look into the source of OSX and see how it works. It's not particularly useful as an x86 platform
- Vincit qui patitur.
Also from the release notes it looks like you're lucky if you can get a CD-ROM to work at all...
* SCSI CD-ROM drives are not supported
* IDE drives may not work on x86...
Dude, that is so flamebait.
Go read the GPL, or hell, just read the GCC FAQ, I believe that covers it.
Code COMPILED with GCC is *NOT* required to be under the terms of the GPL, it is only required to abide by the terms of the libraries in question that it is linked again, libstdc++ and libc are both LGPL'd, which basically states your program may be licensed in whatever way you deem fit, however any changes you make to the LGPL'd libraries in question must be made availible for those who recieve a copy of the program/libraries. This is in no way intended to limit one's ability to use proprietary code as a frontend or backend to the library in question, it's simply meant to ensure that proprietary extensions don't get made to 'standardized libraries' and thus break compatibility with existing/future apps (of course sure breakages might occur anyway, but it prevents the microsoftian 'embrace and extend' philosophy).
There IS a working version of OSX for x86. How do I know this? I talked to an Apple employee and no I will not name names.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Not entirely true.
Darwin includes the *entire* BSD layer.
This means pretty much all of your comman dline stuff.
An install of XFree86 is also provided (not a window manager though)
On PPC Darwin would make a pretty good server for serving stuff up.
On i386 there isn't enough hardware support for that. If someone really was interested in that they could fix some of that hardware support for i386.
The truth is that most people who decide to work on Darwin are people who work on PowerPC.
Byte released a comparision of linux and OS X at here
It is much of the core of MaxcOS X but it lacks many of MacOS X's layers and services like Carbon, Cocoa, Quartz, and of course Aqua.
If you don't know what those mean don't post the same damn lame question to /. asking for these to ONCE AGAIN be explained. There's a search function: Goddamn use it as the topic has been discussed NUMEROUS times on /.
Or show some minimal level of initiative and look it up for yourself (hint: World Wide Web) where it's all well detailed in ways even the lamest "explain-this-to-me" poster would get in a dozen places online.
Next, yes, there is an x86 port of MacOS X inside Apple. Will it ever see the light of day? Not likely (sorry PC fanboys).
Does this mean Apple plans to use MacOS X'86?
Yes, they use it every day to make sure that MacOS X remains true to the portability of it's predecessor Openstep (which was on 5 platforms.) Undoubtedly Apple figures if MacOS X can be kept running on the very different PPC & x86 platforms then they're good for about anything.
Why x86 over some other processor? First off Openstep (or whatever you want to call/capitalize it) was updated by Apple as part of their aborted "Rhapsody" strategy to both PPC & x86 so it was little effort to keep it going to MacOS X. Furthermore this helps keep Apple from getting caught in any PPC-isms in the future. Cross-porting helps show up any problems early, keeps everyone honest, provides valuable insight into many problems.
What good is Darwin? Well, it does run a lot of code, including things like Apple's free streaming media server. It gives MacOS X developers a look into the heart of MacOS X. That it comes out for x86 just lets that many more folks play with it.
Finally, to respond to the next half-dozen whinges that come up every time:
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
As the Ogg Vorbis folks have done. There are QuickTime extensions for Ogg Vorbis, albeit still not quite ready for production.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, as you can see here but for the most part, you're right. OpenBSD started as a fork off of NetBSD, and Darwin was a fork off of FreeBSD 3.2. All the BSDs took code from both BSD4.3 and BSD4.4. NextStep which became Rhapsody, then later OSX was somehow left out of the bsd family tree, I found, but I'm not quite sure how that fits in the picture anyhow. I think it was based on BSD4.3 somehow, and might have been the first use of the mach kernel in a BSD based operating system.
Someone stole my old sig.
Giga predicts Apple will offer OS X on x86 next year:
. php
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0210/28.intel
-- It's better to be pissed off than pissed on.
http://gnu-darwin.sourceforge.net/screenshots/
Yup it's not multisuer. Until you read the last part of your own post and "...create additional accounts using standard UNIX tools.
Dunno if you are attempting a misguided Apple bashing, or didn't bother to read what you copied and pasted, but golly....
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
it would be really nice if **Carbon** was a platform independant library
I don't think Carbon is what you mean.
Mac OS X natively supports three APIs:
- Cocoa, OS X's "standard" API. Cocoa is basically a newer version of NeXTStep with a new name. It consists of an extremely elegant object-oriented GUI application API sitting on top of POSIX. This is what Apple wants people to program new applications in.
- Carbon. Carbon is a "transitional" API, that basically consists of an updated version of the old Classic Mac OS Toolbox, with anything related to unprotected memory, cooperative multitasking, or such things removed, and a lot of API cruft in general cleaned up. Apple estimates that about 20% of an average classic mac os program will have to be changed in order for it to work under Carbon. The recommended use for this is that if you have an existing codebase written for the Classic Mac OS Toolbox, you won't have to rewrite from scratch-- you can just carbonize it. Writing new applications in Carbon makes Apple sad, and it isn't as pleasant as writing in Cocoa, but people do it anyway becuase unlike Cocoa programs, Carbon programs can run under both OS 9 and OS X.
- Java 1.4.
A program can have different components from each of the three groups above. Anyway, while i am not altogether certain abotu this next bit, it's been implied that due to some slightly legacy code, Carbon will NOT be supported away from the PPC or even if apple releases an x86 OS X. At any rate, unlike NeXTStep, Carbon was not designed as a platform-independent API, it's full of a LOT of macintosh-specific idiosyncracities, a small number of incorrectly-constructed Carbon apps will actually break if you put them on a non-forking filesystem, and it just wouldn't work very well on other OSes, i don't think. And besides this, it just isn't as good an API as Cocoa. You don't want it.That said, Cocoa actually is available as a GPLed, cross-platform API! GNUStep is a third-party reimplementation of NextStep/Cocoa that follows Cocoa closely enough that porting between the two is somewhat trivial. There is no reason why you cannot use this right now.
Apple keeps complaining when OSS programmers emulate the look and feel of a Carbon application instead of calling the real thing.
No, apple keeps complaining when skin developers for other OSes copy the exact textures of the skins in Mac OS X. They also complain if people release applications whose interfaces are straight copies of iApps. I haven't seen them complaining about "Look and Feel" in a long time.
But if you want your application to not be tied specifically to MacOS X then your better off using winelib or wx for your widget set
Umm, why not use Java 1.4 and Swing? That's about as crossplatform as it gets. Wx would be ok too but Winelib doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
If Apple wants OSS programmers to use the real thing then they should provide the real thing to OSS programmers.
While it would be really cool if Cocoa were a cross-platform API like it once was, Apple really doesn't seem concerned with exploring that avenue right now. They seem to be of the opinion that if you want to write an OS X application and have it not tied down to OS X, that's what Java's for. Sorry.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
When you leech Darwin, you get the BSD core, a few services, an apache webserver, and some modifications and tweaks that apple has done. That's about it. So, if you think you're going to load it up with a beautiful looking GUI with all the pretty buttons, realize that the CARBON toolkits (as i understand it, carbon powers all the pretty buttons and all the nifty crap that makes OS X so attractive) don't run at all.
Darwin, the FreeBSD-based core of Mac OS X
The core is NOT based on FreeBSD. The userland is a port of the FreeBSD userland, yes. It would not be based on Linux, if the default userland were GNU-utils.
The core of Darwin/MacOS 10 is a Darwin (or NeXT Step) -based kernel/"core" running on Mach-nanokernel.. more alike GNU/HURD than FreeBSD (or Linux).
mwcc is the Metrowerks C Compiler. It's also the same compiler that is used for BeOS PPC (BeOS x86 uses gcc).
-- Rob
Y'a jamais des choses qu'on peut pas se débrouiller ; juste laisse-moi t'aider!
Apple already works with IBM, sometimes. A large number of the G3 chips (possibly all of them, i can't remember) were manufactured by IBM.
Darwin is no longer a true micro-kernel. Maybe people will stop bitching. Apple has taken the best of both worlds and combined them.
i n/ PortingUNIX/additionalfeatures/The_Kernel.html
Read Apple's Docs on there developer site:
"The core of any operating system is its kernel. The Mac OS X kernel is also known as XNU. Though Mac OS X shares much of its underlying architecture with BSD, the kernel is one area where they differ significantly. XNU is based on the Mach microkernel design, but it also incorporates BSD features. It is not technically a microkernel implementation, but still has many of the benefits of a microkernel.
Why is it designed like this? Pure Mach allows you to run an operating system as a separate process on the system that allows for flexibility, but can also slow things down because of the translation between Mach and the layers above it. With Mac OS X, since the desired behavior of the operating system is known, BSD functionality has been incorporated in the kernel alongside Mach. The result is that the kernel combines the strengths of Mach with the strengths of BSD.
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Darw
No. They're included with new computers that come with Mac OS X, and they're included in the retail Mac OS X box. The only time you have to download the tools is when new releases of them become available.
And signing up for the Apple developer program is about as tricky as signing up for Slashdot. If you want to do it anonymously, get yourself a free email account and go for it.
I write in my journal
One word:
Gentoo
I actually have a friend that switched from FreeBSD last year to Gentoo Linux.
It is a complete ports system (compiling everything from source, with auto-dependency resolving). It also has a very cool init system (with dependency checkin and resolving) along with other cool features.
Give it a try - it is GREAT, I simply can't use anything else now.
To install KDE X and everything they depend on you just do:
emerge kde
It then downloads the source for KDE, X and everything they depend on, compiles them for your hardware (mine are all athlon-tbird optimized), then installs them.
All very nice and tidy.
Check it out - you will be amazed.
Derek
it's not that microsoft would pull office:mac, but that office:mac wouldn't run on OS X for x86. Neither would Photoshop, iTunes, Dreamweaver, Tropico, etc.
They're all carbon apps. Carbon doesn't exist on x86. Carbon has never existed on x86. Why do you think Apple's making such an effort to shove everyone onto Cocoa? Cocoa is running on the x86 version of OS X (which does exist, it's just a small skunkworks project in apple. don't believe me? go search through macslash.com).
Not Debian, but it's GNU to me
Mac OS X 10.2 uses a custom version of GCC 3.1 according to this GCC mailing list announcement.
It was apparently tweaked to accomodate the GCC 2.95 C++ ABI for certain drivers and libraries.
I, for one, hope the GCC steering committee will allow them to add Objective C++ to the GCC main branch.
You're obviously very ill. I prescribe large quantities of NetBSD's (and now FreeBSD-CURRENT's) rc_NG, maybe with a dose of slaming your head against a brick wall until the desire to use SysV init goes away
With the switch to a new processor you can expect many more things to break. Apple undoubtedly can recompile all their iApps. The issue is third party companies. (Especially MS Office)
I think Apple has been hedging their bets because of problems with Motorola. Thus they've been compiling much of Darwin on both systems and likely Aqua as well. But to run them on x86 will undoubtedly create all sorts of problems. Not to mention optimization problems.
It might be nice in the long term, but consider what the initial user experience will be those first six months to one year. . .
Further most companies will be forced to develop for both PowerPC and x86 version of OSX.
Unless IBM falls behind schedule I just can't see Apple being able to afford the costs of switching to the x86. The real problems of the PowerPC chip in terms of competitive speed though means Apple has to be able to if necessary.
You should check out the rc system that comes
with NetBSD 1.5 (and will come with FreeBSD 5).
It's similar to SysV rc, but instead of making
the dependencies implicit in the numbers in the
script names, they're encoded explicitly at the
beginning of each script.
% head fsck
#!/bin/sh
#
# $NetBSD: fsck,v 1.2 2001/06/18 06:42:35 lukem Exp $
#
# PROVIDE: fsck
# REQUIRE: localswap
These scripts also pull in a common set of sub-
routines, so instead of having everybody define
their own start and stop routines, you just set
a couple of variables and let the system do the
rest. The routines can be overridden with one's
own when more control is needed.
Mac OS X uses a similar scheme. Within a few
years, monolithic rc is going to be nothing but
a bad memory in BSD-land.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
All it would mean would be that Apple would unplug the PowerPC CPU from the motherboard and plug in an Intel CPU (plus whatever other motherboard tweaks were necessary to make this actually work: the pin-outs are different, for example).
You're an idiot. Are you aware that the PowerPC uses a completely different architecture than x86?
And "architecture" doesn't mean "pinout". The motherboards would have to be *REPLACED*, not re-socketed/slotted. Apple would have to rewrite a significant portion of their software, as much of it probably depends on PowerPC-exclusive stuff. Not to mention that *everything* would have to be recompiled for x86.
Sheesh. Swap a chip? Where the fuck did you get that idea?
opensource.apple currently redirects users to opendarwin.org to fetch the iso, but unfortunately opendarwin.org has been taken offline. in the interim the following mirrors are available...
z 8 6-602.iso.gz
z p c-602.cdr.gz
. 0/install.x86.txt . 0/install.ppc.txt
darwin/x86 iso
http://web.mit.edu/darwin/www/darwinx86-602.iso.g
http://enigma.us.itd.umich.edu/darwin/www/darwinx
darwin/ppc iso
http://web.mit.edu/darwin/www/darwinppc-602.cdr.g
http://enigma.us.itd.umich.edu/darwin/www/darwinp
md5 checksums
MD5 (darwinx86-602.iso.gz) = d4e9a94c48d900736fa9f77d42707d50
MD5 (darwinppc-602.cdr.gz) = 07d4614c4e3b417f0022a97cf941ad97
installation instuctions
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6
http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/darwin/6