Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Darwin 6.0.2 for x86 Released

Posted by pudge on from the i-guess-people-do-still-use-x86 dept.

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."

13 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Serious question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  2. GCC by 00_NOP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:GCC by Jezza · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. I'm confused... by Dirtside · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:I'm confused... by tswinzig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
  4. Anyone actually use Darwin? by ryochiji · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --

    ---
    Open Source Shirts
    1. Re:Anyone actually use Darwin? by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Anyone actually use Darwin? by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --

      --
      pants ahoy
  5. Open Source for Apple by swagr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --

    -... --- .-. . -.. ..--..
  6. They do it to maintain the balance of power by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  7. DSS supports open formats by benwaggoner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

    --

    My video compression blog
  8. It's Obvious to me... by maccroz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. GNUStep versus GNOME/KDE? by cpeterso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    cpeterso