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)
Also, what is the hardware support like?
Run it if you like BSD and microkernels.
Some people like the technical approach; some people like it because it's "fun" to play with/develop what will be the basis for a true consumer product; some people like it for the same reasons others prefer penguins over platypi.
Myself, I'd rather run *BSD (in Free/Net/Open forms) over RH8 for a number of reasons- a few technical, a few based on rational-self-interest (the BSD tools and system layouts seem more 'intuitive' - always a dirty word - to interact with vs. some of the GNU-scene counterparts, but that's just personal preference), and some political.
I couldn't say how good it actually is, because I've been prejudiced against it by hearsay (QNX6 gets love from me, if I want to enjoy a microkernel OS), but that's why someone'd want it.
I'm using it. The reasons I'm using it will get me modded down, though.
Quite simply, I think Linux sucks, and I choose not to run it on my x86 boxes. Almost all of my x86s are FreeBSD machines, but FreeBSD gets pretty boring after a while. Set it up, it runs, you're done.
So I play with Darwin now and again, just for the change of pace.
I don't know if 'change of pace' is the kind of answer you're looking for, but that's mine.
--
pants ahoy
Several replies to this:
Do you really believe that software developers are going to switch in droves to a proprietary, single platform set of APIs that requires the use of a 20 year old unsafe programming language?
1) I can only assume by '20 year old unsafe programming language' you refer to C. Since you talk about only Cocoa for the rest of what you say (not Carbon) I can only assume you are referring to it when you say 'single platform set of APIs'.
Since the 'standard' for Windows programming is in C++ (arguably LESS safe than C, since you can over-ride operators), and the 'standard' API is MFC, I fail to see your point, when compared to Windows.
Since the 'standard' programming language for Linux is C, and OSX and Linux share the vast majority of the basic API's and the rest (X11) are available as a free download, I fail to see your point in comparison to Linux/BSD.
I think Cocoa and Quartz are a dead end, with no prospect of widespread adoption by software developers, outside a die-hard community of Mac developers... Open sourcing Cocoa and Quartz wouldn't make the APIs technically more attractive, but at least they would ensure their continued existence.
2) You state that Cocoa and Quartz are a dead end, with no prospect of adoption software developers outside the 'die-hard' community of Mac developers. First, Quartz is rarely accessed as an API on its own, unless you are doing eye-candy. Usually it is called by the application-level API you are writing in (Cocoa or Carbon). You are really only showing your lack of familiarity with these APIs by mentioning it in the same context.
Second, the Cocoa API is more or less source-code compatable with GNUStep. What is GNUStep? It's an open-source implementation of the Objective-C OpenStep APIs on top of X11. What's OpenStep? It's the open standard that NeXT released and implemented and eventually became Cocoa. You can write full-fledged OSX applications that cross-compile for GNUStep on Linux TODAY.
Third, as a professional developer who is experienced on (Classic) MacOS, OSX, UNIX/Linux and Windows, I will state my opinion that I find the Cocoa APIs to be the most attractive to use. If these APIs were unattractive to use, why would anyone have gone to all the trouble to do a complete re-engineering of them in the form of GNUStep?
In any case, I don't actually want Apple to open source Cocoa and Quartz--I think it would just prolong the agony... unless Apple goes out of business first.
Damn! I've been trolled.
This is a serious question -- what are the benefits of Darwin being open?
A little research reveals that Apple does in fact accepts patches and hopes to see real real help and real results from the open source community with their kernel.
So the real question about their open-source philosophy is, Does it actually work? In other words, are they actually seeing results, and are we really trying to contribute.
I know for a fact that I don't ever plan to contribute to Apple's open-source projects because:
I realize that Apple has reasons for not opening their other projects, and I don't expect them to change their minds any time soon. But how much help can they really expect when they don't give us any incentive to work with them?
Did Apple decide to take this road because "open source" was just one of those buzzwords that translated to "free labor" in the minds of management? Do they really have any intention of listening to what hackers want, or do they just expect us to work on anything that calls itself "open source"?
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
OK, I'm not the original poster, but...
:)
:) Honestly, I wouldn't kill myslef rather than use Linux, but I sure do like FreeBSD (come on guys, ipfw2... see the light!).
I'm a FreeBSD person, I use it on my various servers (from web to mail to router to NAS). (Oddly, the thing that first got me into *BSD was that MkLinux wouldn't support the ethernet card on an old 68K Mac, so I put NetBSD on it instead.)
Now not that I've used Linux much, but I once heard the phrase "FreeBSD is an operating system, Linux is a kernel with some stuff attached". Certainly the way FreeBSD *feels* coherent, and is very natural to work with, makes that statement possibly true for me.
Linux doesn't suck. As such. It can just seem like a goddamn mess at times. In the same way that skins designed by people used to Windows never ever look as good as those designed by people used to Apples (just look at www.kaleidoscope.net), apt-get or RPMs just aren't as nice as ports (www.freshports.org). Where things get installed, where the logs are (fair play, RedHat's pretty good at logs as well), all sorts of stuff... whenever I've nearly put Linux on a server (because I want some bit of hardware that only has Linux drivers):
1) I look at a Linux distro, with its docs, and think "Oh my God, wtf...", and
2) Suddenly someone writes a driver for FreeBSD, and I am saved
There endeth the entirely xenophobic ramblings of Huge Pi Removal
- Oliver
The right to bear arms is only slightly less stupid than the right to arm bears...
In large friendly letters
Fact: Darwin (and Mac OS X) supports multi-button mice.