Slashdot Mirror
OpenDarwin.org Releases Darwin With Fixes
An anonymous reader writes "OpenDarwin released a 'fixed' version of the Darwin 6.0.2 ISO (the OpenDarwin-20030213 Binary Release) for both x86 and PPC. It is currently installing, so I can't tell you all what works now, etc. Hopefully I can use my old PC box as a server with this..." Apparently, it is mostly a recompile, without local OpenDarwin modifications. It doesn't include perl, pending integration of perl 5.8 ... could this mean Mac OS X will finally have a current perl in the next Mac OS X release?
MacOSX support any number of button mouse and scroll wheel out of the box. It is just Apple mouse that has only one button.
I sadly happen to agree. Tools that are upgraded independently of base OS release should not be tied to the OS. Case in point would be Solaris. Starting with Solaris 8, perl is part of basic OS. End results: a) It is compiled with Sun compiler, so it is damn near impossible to compile additional modules, as pretty few people have Sun cc installed (hint: Basic Sun CC costs ~1K USD). b) OS is tied to the idiosyncracies of perl 5.005, and Sun themselves recomment that you do not upgrade perl that is installed.
The most sensible thing to do is compile a fresh copy of perl using the compiler of choice, and then install it into a different directory, and modify the system wide PATH.
Arguably, FreeBSD learned from the complaints of the users, and detangled perl from the core OS. This way upgrading perl is a breeze, and only breaks things you install, not the core OS.
Maybe it's time for more distributions/OSes to either stop shipping perl by default, or at least make sure that nothing depends on spcifics of a perl version, so worry-free upgrading is possible?
Apple didn't just pick up the Mach kernel and used it, they improved it a lot and one of the things they did was to rip out all that message passing stuff, while still retaining the modular design of the kernel. The result is that they more or less get the best of both worlds: a modular design with the speed of a monolithic kernel. Of course they did lose the ability of a true microkernel where the whole kernel doesn't crash if one of its modules does.
Donate free food here
no gui? ;-)
How bout xfree86 like every other nix out there
I downloaded this but never installed it because it installs to the /opt directory. I was really hoping for a package that would replace the the perl integrated into OS X (/usr/bin, /Library/Perl, etc.)
sig != null
I think you are missing the point. Darwin is not about competing with Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD... It is about Apple being able to port OS X to x86 if they wanted. I know there is tons of controversy over whether or not this will happen, but it is a possibility. This would not be hard to do either - as long as they keep Darwin updated. Dell selling systems with either OS X or XP pre-installed? Ha, unlikely, but Darwin is what makes it unlikely instead of impossible.
Maybe if you weren't a retarded troll you'd realize that Apple has fixed NetInfo so it checks /etc now. Any changes made in /etc (related to stuff that NetInfo knows about anyway) are reflected by NetInfo. I realize that trolling must take up a good portion of your day, but Apple fixed this with 10.2.
Do I think you are Informative, Interesting, or Funny? NO WAY!
It's called sarcasm. I guess if you don't like what anyone has to say, you just call it a troll so that you don't have to deal with it.
This is no news at all... They took a microkernel and covnerted it into a monolithic kernel. 'Nuff said.
In other words, a microkernel can't be brought down by one single part.
The great thing about microkernels is that a flaw in the TCP/IP stack won't result in an exploit or a DoS on the kernel. So Apple took a microkernel, then removed all the features that make a microkernel a good thing.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Does this sound like a good license to you?
Wow, you do a fantastic job of taking text completely out of context. Try reading and understanding the entire licence next time. Section 2.2 clearly indicates that you may publicly deploy your code so long as the source is also made available.
Before anyone falls for nonsense like what was posted above, I would encourage you to read the licence yourself.
The APSL is an open source licence. A major difference between it and a BSD-style licence is that you have to make your changes publicly available if you distribute binaries. But hey, there are lots of licences like that... the GPL for instance.