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."

Comments

Serious question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone actually use Darwin on x86? I know it's good that Apple have kept open the core of their OS (although it'd be a good step to see more Aqua code), but surely if you want a PC-based UNIX you'd go for some BSD flavour or Linux in the first place.

Only reason I can see for running Darwin is for Mac hackers who want to enhance the OS -- but that poses another question: does Apple accept patches?

This is a serious question -- what are the benefits of Darwin being open?

GCC

[00_NOP]

I assume Apple don't build their production software with GCC, or do they?

Anybody care to comment - as best they can - on the difference between the GCC compiled code and code compiled with whatever tools Apple use?

Re:GCC

[Jezza]

It seems (from a developer's point of view) that they use GCC for Darwin and Cocoa and CodeWarrior for Carbon.

This makes sense - Mac developers have used CodeWarrior on "classic Mac OS" for quite some time.

NeXT always used GCC (in fact I think they helped to add Objective-C to GCC in the first place).

It's a safe bet they use GCC for the Intel builds too - that's how you get portability for Kernels (that's how Linux does it too).

It's always seemed to me that GCC was the unsung hero of open source, and Linux in particular.

I'm confused...

[Dirtside]

Okay, every time there's an OS X story on Slashdot, someone asks when they'll be able to use it on x86 hardware, and someone else responds and says, "Never!"

So here we have "the x86 version 6.0.2 of Darwin, the FreeBSD-based core of Mac OS X". Huh? Is it just the user interface part of OS X that there's no x86 version of? And exactly how much stuff does this "FreeBSD-based core" contain? Is it just a kernel, filesystem, and some basic utilities, or what?

Re:I'm confused...

[tswinzig]

Okay, every time there's an OS X story on Slashdot, someone asks when they'll be able to use it on x86 hardware, and someone else responds and says, "Never!"

And every time there's an article on slashdot telling of the latest Darwin release, someone posts a question very similar to yours:

So here we have "the x86 version 6.0.2 of Darwin, the FreeBSD-based core of Mac OS X". Huh? Is it just the user interface part of OS X that there's no x86 version of? And exactly how much stuff does this "FreeBSD-based core" contain? Is it just a kernel, filesystem, and some basic utilities, or what?

It's basically the kernel. Nothing on the level of the user-friendly OS X.

Anyone actually use Darwin?

[ryochiji]

Just out of curiosity, is anyone actually using Darwin? If you do use Darwin, why do you use it?

Re:Anyone actually use Darwin?

[SirSlud]

We have a box at work serving anywhere from 20 to 40 requests per second, 24/7 .. its been up, no reboot required, for over 2 years. Its been through software upgrades too, so its not like we havn't touched it in this time. (Warning: Thats just one example. I'm not looking to get into an 'uptime' pissing contest. I'm sure Linux can do this too .. or at least I think it can. :)

There are lots of differences between FreeBSD and Linux that are more esotaric in nature, but to me, FreeBSD represents the best balance between a stable, time tested code base and active development.

I have to imagine there is a reason why FreeBSD is used in so many ISPs and server farms (like Yahoo.) For us, the choice has been well worth it, save for a few troubles, like the lack of native threads.

To me, FreeBSD is the OS of choice for sysadmins who're well past the 'gee wizz aint this cool' phase of their computing life and just want something stable and tidy; even if its not bleeding edge with respect to hardware support. To me, FreeBSD is an experienced performer that does very little complaining, even if it can't do *all* the tricks Linux users might wish it did.

Re:Anyone actually use Darwin?

[Anonymous Cowrad]

I guess I'd better answer that, since my original post is being regarded as flamebait. I don't really want to get into why I don't like Linux for the same reasons I don't go to Mass and talk about what and asshole Jesus was.

One reason I've been largely uninterested in using Linux is that I see no compelling reasons to leave FreeBSD for it. All my FreeBSD boxes are headless/gpu-less, so I don't care about KDE, Gnome, etc. Linux may have the advantage there, I don't know. I don't care. If I want to work on a desktop, I have OS X.

I've tried many distros, and I've never found one to be as straightforward and simple to manage as FreeBSD. I'm looking into building a Gentoo box soon, though. I hear their ports system isn't half bad.

So, Linux sucks for me. As a server, it's far too complex for my needs. As a desktop, it's far too not OS X.

By the way, moderator types,it really sucks bad when one can't express a contrary opinion without getting marked as 'flamebait'. It's not a crime to think Linux sucks.

Open Source for Apple

[swagr]

Basically this just means that developers who write console applications, servers, etc can now port and test with ease.

This is good for Apple because they get more for free.

They do it to maintain the balance of power

[Ilan Volow]

The name of the game is deterrance. It's like cold war.

• Apple works on a partial x86 port of OS X (Darwin x86). Not that they are ever going to deploy a full x86 OS X, but they want to let microsoft know they can do so at any moment.
  
• Microsoft keeps "re-evaluating" whether they should be releasing Mac versions of Office. Not that they are ever going to cancel Office for Macintosh, but they want to let Apple know they can do so at any moment.
  

DSS supports open formats

[benwaggoner]

Darwin Streaming Server can stream MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4. It can also stream with codecs like H.263 that are compatible with open source solutions. And QuickTime streaming itself is based on RTP/RTSP/SDP, etcetera. The only thing propritary is QuickTime specific codecs, and DSS doesn't know from codecs and clients.

As Charles Wiltgen says, "Darwin Streaming Server is the Apache of Streaming."

Something only Apple could do?

[CathedralRulz]

I wonder if the reason that Apple is willing to make it's core OS open source is because, as long as software developed with it is running on a Mac (that's the idea), and they are the only folks selling Macs, the more the merrier.

Apple started doing this in 1999 at great expense and effort. In this time, has it paid off? I really don't know, so please enlighten me if it has or hasn't.

It's Obvious to me...

[maccroz]

Okay...maybe this has already been posted and I missed it, or maybe I'm way off...but here's my take on the situation.

The reason Apple is releasing Darwin for x86 is because Motorola has very little incentive to keep up in the processor wars. Granted, the PowerPC chipset is fantastic, it's just not a big player anymore as Motorola has better things to do than to cater to Apple's whims.

Just as they released an infantile Darwin for PowerPC, they are releasing it now for x86 so that people can port their drivers to Darwin. Once Apple has enough hardware support, they are one step closer to porting Aqua and all the higher layers of MacOS X towards the x86 architechture and having a way of escaping the sluggish Motorola chips.

MacOS X is a fantastic operating system and unfortunately it is far from living to its potential due to inferior and expensive chips from one provider. This is one step in the direction that people have been encouraging apple to make for the past 15 years. We all know that Apple is slow to respond, they like to take their time and make sure it is the right decision before they do anything drastic.

Imagine how much cheaper an x86 Mac would be and how much of a heavyweight they would finally be if MacOS X became an option to the other 95% of the computing population. I believe that this is just Apple keeping all their options open with a miniscule investment on their part.

I'd still like to see two buttons on the iBook, or heaven for bid they put a wheel on their stupid buttonless mouse. I love Apple, but sometimes they just have their thumbs up their asses. Hopefully this is a move in the right direction.

Re:Supported Hardware - USE THE FORK!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

That's exactly right. People under 18 (in the US; varies in other jurisdictions) can't legally waive their copyright-derived rights over their works. In order to release software under a license like the APSL or the GPL requires that the licensor waive certain rights that would ordinarily be protected by copyright. (I'm not sure if this is true of the BSD license, but I don't believe it is. The BSD license doesn't require the licensor to give up any rights, as far as I know.)

The important side-note to this is that any GPL'd software that includes contributions by persons who are or were under 18 at the time is being distributed illegally. By the letter of the law, anyway.

GNUStep versus GNOME/KDE?

[cpeterso]

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.


I've been researching GNUSteplately and wondering why it doesn't get more high profile attention. The GNUStep framework seems to solve many of the same problems that GNOME and KDE are trying to solve. However, instead of reinventing the wheel, GNUStep uses a time-tested API design that is source compatible with Mac OS X (a platform many people consider the pinnacle of user-centric Unix). What can GNOME and KDE do that GNUStep/OpenStep cannot?

I believe the biggest problem for GNUStep is that few people use Objective C. That is a big speedbump to people adapting their legacy code.

Rhapsody X86?

[mbourgon]

Time to go back a little in the Wayback machine. I have a set of Rhapsody CDs, which (as I understand it) was Darwin + Mac_goodness, basically NeXTStep + Mac stuff. Now, I don't have the floppies for it, so I've never been able to test it. But, would anyone like to comment on how well it works, the state of Pre-Aqua on X86, etc, etc?

Re:For the freaking 10,000th time...

[tialaramex]

"Yes Apple licensed a codec, you want access to it find someone willing to pony up the cash like Apple did."

My understanding (and so this is 2nd hand, but I don't see you doing any better) is that when you call Apple they say "Ask Sorenson" and when you call Sorenson they say "Ask Apple".

Yes, they can /legally/ give everyone the run around like this, but I don't think it's /ethical/ for them to do so. It may even be bad business.

Worse, experience suggests that if a better alternative is developed and made free Apple AND Sorenson will do everything in their power to discourage their users from accessing this improved technology.

The duplicability versus scale problem hits big for this kind of stuff. Everyone hiring one or two academics, making them sign NDAs and keeping them apart is not the most effective way of delivering improved compression to real users. That's why we have a dozen competing "next generation" streaming audio codecs, none of which are universally available. [It would be nice to think that MS & Apple will see sense and ship Vorbis but don't count on it]

This /is/ rocket science and if Apple were serious about delivering for media people they'd put their codec money together with other people's and have the technology developed in the open. They can differentiate elsewhere without wasting all these resources on duplicated effort.

Re:But where is the source code to the Carbon libs

[spitzak]

You are mostly correct except for this:

Umm, why not use Java 1.4 and Swing? That's about as crossplatform as it gets. Wx would be ok too

It does not matter how well those work, for any real application development "native widgets" does not work, no matter how much you wish it did. The differences are just too great. Simple things like order (system a needs A before you can send it B, while system b needs B before A) can make it impossible to port your code without the differences percolating directly to the highest level. How else do you explain that virtually all Open Source development uses toolkits (Qt, GTK, FLTK, Mozilla, Fox, Tk, ...) that draw things at a low level and bypass any native widgets.

In any case, GNUStep, if it works, would be a very good idea. I don't have a good explanation as to why it does not seem to be succeeding, I know Gnome was looking for a toolkit at one time and they don't seem to have considerd using it. It may also be that it was too hard to make Windows-like programs using GNUStep.

Possibly the popularity of OS/X will help. GNUStep should make their #1 priority to clone Cocoa as closely as possible in such areas as widget sizes and shapes so that portable programs will work. If they do not do this then it will be just like wx where it is not much use for portable programs except for small demos.