Slashdot Mirror
Hard Drives Preloaded With GNU-Darwin
proclus writes "A 40 gig Maxtor 3.5 inch, ATA/EIDE hard drive ready to go with GNU-Darwin
OS pre-installed, plus GNU-Darwin Office, plus a full ports tree and
select distfiles. This bundle includes Darwin-6.0.2, GNOME
desktop, AbiWord, PyMOL, The GIMP, gdFortran, parallel computing, and
much more. A triple CDR set is also included.
Available now for ppc and x86 computers. The PPC version includes
OpenOffice-1.0.1 and Mozilla-1.0. Compatibility is as specified for
our OS installer CDs. Check out our updated ordering web page.
(Mirror one mirror two.) You want it."
This doesn't even attempt to not look like an ad! A hard disk filled with (mostly) free software? How is this news?
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
What's the current rate for slash-er-tisements?
Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
But who's it for? The type of people who build their own PCs are also the type who shun all things pre-installed.
Unless there's a strain of pure hardware geeks out there...
I am a Karma Library.
Wow, didn't anyone see this coming? Sorry we can't ship an OSS system with a computer (thanks Microsoft) but we can ship it on an HD?
Of course, Aunt Em is gunna be pissed when she upgrades and looses everything on her machine and now has to log in to it...
'What's this root crap? I just want my Yahoo!'
There is some use for disk-based OS distributions: eventually, external USB2.0/FireWire drives may become a reasonable choice. You plug them in and boot from them, and you get your complete environment. However, unfortunately, most BIOSes don't support that yet, so the best you could do right now is to use a DOS or Windows chain loader.
- Went out and bought a new hard drive.
- Downloaded and installed a linux distribution.
This hard drive/OS bundle reduces that to one step... right? That seems kind of cool.Sex - Find It
No. No, I don't want it.
For intel boxes, I have FreeBSD.
For PPC boxes, I have OS X.
This does nothing better than either of the above in either hardware situation. Well, it does add "GNU" to everything. Woo. Be still my beating heart.
Hippies smell.
Last time I checked, x86 darwin only supported a very limited set of hardware.
It seems we have another distro based around GNU tools plus the other usual suspects. The only main difference I can see here is that it is running on Darwin instead of Linux or (Net|Open|Free)BSD.
It doesn't actually say so on the site, but given the software they do list, it is pretty clearly just running X like everybody else. Not that that is bad thing.
It would be nice if they could make it very Windowmaker/GNUStep centric for nostalgia sake though.
Anyway, it is good to see other kernels making it into new Distro's. It bodes well for the future.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
As for "desktop-on-top-of-unix"... if you meant by that that it comes with the Aqua GUI, i don't believe it does. That's proprietary, if i'm not mistaken.
I actually tried installing Darwin 6.0 on a laptop i got lying around here, a few weeks back. But, because the disc wouldn't boot (i made the mistake of using WinRAR to unzip and un-ISO the image), i can't really offer anything more specific about Darwin. I believe other people on Slashdot, however, are indeed running it (for x86, that is).
For all intents and purposes, it's just a BSD distro, i guess.
You can get it from Apple's site or from www.opendarwin.org
Nope. No desktop, apart from XFree86 I'd imagine. Apple are not going to open-source their GUI layer (and quite right too IMHO - god knows how crap it would end up if the bad GUI designers of the current Linux desktops started 'contributing' to the design). Darwin is Apple's FreeBSD/Mach 3.0 hybrid operating system and works on PPC (naturally) and on x86. You can get the source code from Apple's Public Source Site and at OpenDarwin set up by the Internet Software Consortium and Apple.
This is just a bad advert for someone's cobbled together install, and an out-of-date one at that. I doubt it's based on Darwin 6.0.2 (basis of Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar), the Mozilla included is old and so on...
Finally, one big gripe. The operating system is not called GNU-Darwin! Apple will be very pissed off (as will GNU I hope) at this rebranding of the operating system. Sure, there is a GNU-Darwin Ports structure, but the actual OS has nothin to do with GNU. It's under a BSD-style licence from Apple.
Instead it will be a good idea if IBM, Maxtor, WD, etc...are distributing their hd with free OS preloaded. The volume will be huge!
Also, the large capacity of current HD will allow preloading a couple of free OSes together.
GNU-Darwin is Apple's Darwin. Or at least a binary compatible re-distribution of it. At least a fork. Frankly, their website isn't completely informative on this issue, but there seem to be three Darwins:
Frankly, I'm a little unclear on the differences but either way calling it a "shitty distro with ripped off GUI graphics" is a stretch. GNU Darwin seems to me to be a GNU operating system built on an Apple-modified BSD kernel. Which sounds kind of perverted, but not necessarily "shit." Hey, they've ported it to x86! It's got to be at least important to x86 as NetBSD.
Apple's lawyers are going to have a field day with this one.
The source is open. Read all about it at Apple's Darwin page. There's nothing to sue anyone over, although Apple can via their license simply "revoke" the source and keep all of the outside changes.
Actually, according to the license, when you take any source covered by the APSL, you're required to register with Apple. If the developers didn't do that, Apple would have a valid case to sue them over. If they did (and I'm positive they did, since they link to the damn license off their page), then Apple really doesn't have anything to get them on, unless they're keeping changes private. If they were doing that it wouldn't be GNU either.
I think your reaction is a little uninformed. A simple websearch turned up quite a bit of information on this topic, even a nice rant from the FSF about the APSL.
--
Daniel
Because the PC has no HD, it has no OS and no tax can be paid. The users then simply purchase the HD (with stuff preloaded) and drop it right in. You could just provided them with the HD to install themselves, but that would require users opening up the computer - which could cause complications and also end up with warranty issues.
Of course, the far better way would be to get rid of this pointless MS tax in the first place - but until that happens, this is as good a start as any.
(subnote: Can anyone point me to a resource that describes the history of this MS tax, how it came about and why? I'm not really up on the whole thing)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
It might be my imagination,but doesn't the $250 price tag strike anyone as being ludicrous???
I mean, looking at pricewatch, a similar 40GB Maxtor HD costs around $70-$80 (give or take, street value)
And supposedly, the 3 disc set of Darwin costs $15 per disc...how does that equate to $250???
Join the TWIT army now!
So let me see what we have here...the GNU system running on Darwin? And Darwin is Mach based? So what's that other GNU/Mach system again? Ehmm...GNU/Hurd, that's it. I love microkernels, and I love Mach, and I would liked to have seen GNU Hurd thrive, but it seems there really isn't much reason for it to survive now. Linux currently works a lot better (and has for a long time), and if you want a Mach based system, you can get Darwin, which is more stable, backed by a computer giant, and runs on more hardware. Or am I wrong here?
GPL-purists might argue that the APSL is not a Free license. This brings up a very interesting argument. [puts on flame protection suit] Apple's use of Mach illustrates the core of the liberal (BSD, MIT, public domain, etc.) licenses vs. GPL issue. Apple could use Mach as a base for their own non-Free product because it wasn't copylefted. GNU hard-liners will see this as a Bad Thing because the hard work of the Mach-developers is now being used in a non-Free product. On the flip side, this move keeps Mach alive, and will probably benefit Free Mach implementations as well. Increased interest can result in more developers for those implementations, and software developed for Apple's kernel might also be easier to port to other Mach-based systems than, say, software developed for Linux or the NT kernel. Plus the contributors to the Mach kernel Apple used can be proud that their work is featured in a product of a renowed company, and used by millions of people every day.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Hi,
this is a really honest question. Why would anyone want a GNU/Darwin system? OS X is a Unix (arguably the one that is the nicest to use), and the few of tools it lacks can be gotten with Fink. And if you really really don't want anything non-free, get FreeBSD. Where is the need for any effort on Darwin? I'd really like to know.
And please don't tell me "it's so Apple can port Aqua to x86". You can't honestly believe that's going to happen.
You want it.
I want it? While shipping out hard drives pre installed with Linux is a way of saving a user time, sparing the internet's bandwidth, and making their hard drive a more attractive product, they'd accomplish all these goals twenty-fold if they filled up the rest of that 40GB baby with free pr0n! Then we'd really want it. Can you imagine how much fun the hard drive manufacturing business could be?This is an attempt to clarify some issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, Darwin's histroy is complicated and I might be off here and there. In my opinion, the question if GNU-Darwin is Apple Darwin or not is the mirror image of asking if Linux with BSD toolchain instead of GNU toolchain is Linux or not. Darwin is an operating system developed by Apple, which serves as a basis for OS X.
Apple's Darwin distribution is a BSD flavor, with a kernel based on CMU Mach, and most of the utilities taken from FreeBSD. It is released under the APSL.
GNU-Darwin is a distribution of Darwin with some favorite GNU software ported to it, as well as the FreeBSD ports tree. It is not Free Software, as the Darwin part is APSL, and thus considered non-free by the FSF. Despite its name, its not a GNU package either. Nor is it GNU/Darwin, as that would imply that it is the GNU system on a Darwin kernel; AFAIK GNU-Darwin is a BSD system.
I don't know anything about OpenDarwin and am too lazy to go find out right now. Hopefully I have managed to enlightened some of you who were wondering what all this is.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Erm, they do package it on CD (you also get the 3x CD distrib when you buy the HD) or a free download, this is just an alternative way of distributing the software, source and the entire ports tree. It's an attempt to make things easier...... clever that ;)
Why in the hell would I spend 250 bucks on a 40 gig Maxtor harddrive with free software on it!?!
I can go to CompUSA, get robbed at 85 bucks for a Maxtor harddrive, order the stinking CD for 15 bucks and save myself 150 bucks!
If I want to get taken to the cleaners, I'll go buy Windows!
-AIf you think that just because Darwin works upon Mach it is somehow equivalent to Hurd, you are sadly mistaken. Hurd is not a Unix clone. It is as far away from Unix as VMS was, or as MacOS is. The reason why you can even talk about them in the same sentence is that Hurd can and does sport a unix personality. But Hurd can sport any personality, a Windows personality, a MacOS personality. Because basically its not Unix. It has a much more general API, over which you can host several OS personalities. A Hurd task can be a Mach task, but you can't do that either on MKLinux (Linux on Mach) or Darwin (Basically FreeBSD on Mach). There may be different reasons why Hurd will not thrive but being run of the mill won't be it. Hurd is and will be different.
GNU/GNU/Darwin
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Surely /. can do better than this. A new OS is always interesting, but how about a review that clarifies (a) what is special about this OS, (b) why the combination of HD+OS works, assuming it does, (c) how his can be used in combination with existing OSes , (d) etc.
What I've seen so far is one very thin infomercial followed by an uninformed discussion about useless details. Has anyone actually tried GNU-Darwin?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
$250 for a 40 GB drive, what a rip-off. $122 for 40GB notebook drive on PriceWatch.... I suggest all steer clear of this get rich quick scheme.
-]Phreak Out[-
Absolutely correct, this is the devil's OS! However, I hear that if you run the disk backwards it boots up Windows 95.
Interesting idea. A strange one, but interesting.
But, it isn't for me. What I love about my Mac OS X is that it actually works, and works well. The GUI and applications of Mac OS X are thought through, there are Human Interface Guidlines that people actually follow, and it "just works".
Gnome has Human Interface Guidlines that either aren't followed or aren't very good. I know I'm picky here, but why is there, for example, no visible difference between a single and double click on a Gnome desktop icon? You have to wait until the application (maybe) starts to determine if your second click went through. That can take a very long time. Surely the Gnome HIG should (maybe does) say that the immediately visible change from a single- and double-click should be different? This is a small picky detail, the kind that IMO Gnome is full of and OS X has just a handful of.
Really, I'm just trying to illustrate that IMO, Gnome/GNU are miles behind when it comes to GUIs. I don't see who would actually use this. Running Gimp is nice because it doesn't cost anything, but you don't need to buy a second harddisk to do that. People that will benefit from this disk run OS X. What could there possibly be to make them interested in switching to Gnome? "It's free and therefore better, I don't care if the GUI sucks!"?
Any insights into why people that run OS X would want to switch to Gnome would be appreciated, 'cause I don't get it. ;-)
There are hard drive slots that fit in a 5 1/4" drive bay. The slot has a removable tray that will accept desktop hard drives as well as laptop form factor hard drives. Once the drive is bolted into the tray it just slides into the drive bay.
Our hypothetical multisystem vendor could just equip their PCs with these bays with various flavors of preloaded hard drives mounted in the pullout trays. It's literally plug-n-play that way.
The MS Tax was the natural result of Microsofts old OEM agreements. Basically an OEM could not sell the same hardware model numbers or SKUs with both Windows and non-MS OSes. An OEM would have to actually change the hardware config slightly to sell non-Windows versions of it's PCs. Since non-Windows represent small potential sales, this condition sufficed to keep them from bothering. OEMs were probably also reluctant to offend MS since a raise in their privately negotiated price for Windows could be fatal. Microsoft is now legally prohibited from imposing that condition on OEMs but their 90s+ desktop marketshare largely works to accomplish the same thing. Most OEMs still won't offer non-MS or bare PCs, especially laptops. Their are some cracks in this like the Wal-Mart Microtels but their success is not assured.
Great idea mirroring the ordering page. Too bad you didn't mirror the requirements page, too
Another alternative to Windows, Linux, BSD and OSX. Good. The Darwin method of kext's for drivers is much more flexible than the one for Linux in my opinion.
Wonder how many devices are supported though?
I seem to recal that the basic instructions for the PPC CPUs are taken from x86, meaning that at a basic level PPC CPUs are x86.
You recall incorrectly. x86 is a CISC instruction set, meaning it has lots of instructions that do many things per instruction. PPC is a RISC instruction set, meaning it has simple instructions that don't do much. It takes more PPC instructions to do the same work as fewer x86 instructions. This is offset by the PPC being able to process more instructions per clock cycle than the x86.
PPC and x86 are no more similar than, say, MIPS and m68k.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong; I probably messed up a detail or two.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
2)Unlike fink which stays out of the way of the operating system direcories like /bin and so forth. This think has all the worst chararistics of unix installs, spraying its files everywhere wiht no warning mechanisms, road maps, and no unistalls.
3) The installation interface and its dependency checking is only for the advnaced user, unless you want to just install it all. Then watch-out. Updating or selectively updating or patching is a nioghtmare in my opinion--wehn compared with FINK
I suspect this last property is the reason they are offering (forcing) people to get the whole install pre-done.
Fink is vastly superior in user experience and now in coverage of useful programs. The fink update experiece is a dream compared to Gnu-darwin. Gnu-darwin is a relic of how not to do things given the fresh start in apple unix.
On the otherhand, I'm being unfair here. Unlike FINK, Gnu-darwin has another agenda. Gnu-darwin is not trying to be compatible with the OSX way of doing things. It is not even trying to be sybmiotic as FINK is. instead GNU darwin is trying to replace OSX. And to do so it needs to put files where it thinks they belong. This does not excuse the crudeness of the delivery and update mechanisms. But if you are going to install the WHOLE distribution as you probably would od if you are using it as an OSX replacement, then it is perhaps not so bad.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.