Interview with Jordan Hubbard About DarwinPorts

Gentu writes "OSNews hosts an interview with Jordan Hubbard (of Apple, OpenDarwin, and FreeBSD fame) where they discuss DarwinPorts and how they compare to Fink. There is also a hint from Jordan that there might be some of the FreeBSD 5.x advancements to be found in Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) that is coming out, reportedly, this autumn."

Comments

Bummer.

[grub]

The interviewer didn't ask for Hubbard's reasoning for leaving a dying free OS to join a dying company.

yes I'm joking

Re:Bummer.

[Dub Kat]

Hubbard has said he joined Apple because they achieved the "holy grail", a easy-to-use UNIX-based desktop where he could hack and also play RtCW. He wanted to help so he went to Apple, while FreeBSD and Linux still aren't there yet.

This has been my own experience. After trying hard to use FreeBSD and Linux for a few years as my primary desktop, I just got frustrated. It wasn't worth my time, so I switched to OS X. And coincidentally enough, I also happen to work for Apple now.

Re:Bummer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also happen to work for Apple now.

Finally, an unbiased opinion.

Re:Bummer.

[NicolaiBSD]

Hubbard has said he joined Apple because they achieved the "holy grail", a easy-to-use UNIX-based desktop where he could hack and also play RtCW. He wanted to help so he went to Apple, while FreeBSD and Linux still aren't there yet.

I can hack away all I like on my Linux boxen, play native RTCW when I'm done, and I'd say Jordan can manage to handle either Gnome or KDE.

What was your point again?

Re:Bummer.

[AutumnLeaf]

I spend all day on Linux at work as a sys-admin for an environment with about 5,000 linux boxes. I still look forward to going home to my Mac OS X machines. As impressive an accomplishment as Gnome and KDE are, they just don't meet my standards.

Re:Bummer.

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

After trying hard to use FreeBSD and Linux for a few years as my primary desktop, I just got frustrated.

I hear you. This was my primary decision for springing for a new G4 last year, instead of building my usual "god box" to run some free *NIX on. I have no reason to run Windows at home, so there was no "switch" involved.

I'll admit I got a little tired of hacking and tweaking to get the CD burner to work, the 3D card to work, the sound card to work... Sure, I got things to work (mostly, or until the next kernel update) and I still consider it fun to tweak a Linux box. But it's less fun the older I get.

I wonder...

[levik]

... if they asked him when that pesky and confusing second mouse button code will be discarded? The pile of bloatware that it is...

Works for me

[siskbc]

...and presumably it will cost another $130 for the upgrade.

I agree, that is a bit steep for a 1-year upgrade, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt on pricing before we start vilifying them. As for cost, I thought Mac-heads were supposed to be used to paying 2-3 times typical cost for stuff. (NO, that's NOT flamebait!)

The question is also, can you keep using 10.2 when 10.3 comes out? I suspect so. In fact, I kind of like the way this works - they release a new upgrade every year, but probably the last 3-4 years of upgrades work perfectly. This way, though, there is a *new* version of Mac OS out whenever you upgrade. That's pretty cool. So the only people who really get gouged are people who feel like they have to have an updated OS every year, which you couldn't even get from M$ if you wanted it. (Yeah, service packs don't count ;))

I've been using Macs since 1984, but I've given up now. The only reason I'm keeping my Mac is to run legacy apps.

Interesting, I wouldn't even touch the damned things until 10.2 came out...

Re:Apple as a software company

[Chocolate Teapot]

Apple have always been a hardware oriented company, and to the best of my knowledge have never claimed anything else. And why would they really care about 'screwing' Linux?

What I suspect you are really saying is that you would like to run OS X but don't want to to shell out the cash to buy the required hardware. What you fail to realise is that a soon as you take OS X and make it available on the huge variety of Intel-based platforms, it does not "Just Work!" anymore. Any amount of time spent trying to find the right drivers for Linux or Windows will tell you that. There is a lot to be said for having control of the OS and the hardware on which it runs.

If you want OS X, get a job and get a Mac like the rest of us had to.

Re:no thanks

[Surak]

If I want a Unix with spotty peripheral support and availability of applications, my choices are Linux and MacOS.

Spotty peripheral support? The only reason Windows has better peripheral support than either of those two is that hardware vendors supply drivers, and they supply drivers for the OS with a 90% installed base -- Windows.

But more and more peripherals are being supported under Linux and MacOS X. Some by reverse-engineering, but many hardware vendors are now stepping up to the plate and providing Linux and MacOS X drivers.

If you want to support Linux or MacOS X, then only buy hardware from those manufacturers that provide drivers. For instance, HP has open source (BSD license) drivers available for CUPS, LinkSys provides drivers for Linux (at least) for some of its products, etc.

If you don't like that OSes other than Windows have inadequate or missing driver support -- use your OS of choice and VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET and buy peripherals from vendors that provide Linux or MacOS X drivers, rather than whine and complain that Linux and MacOS X have spotty peripheral support. Or, better yet, get down and dirty and start reverse engineering products and coding your own open source drivers.

Benefits of Upgrading

[Spencerian]

What siskbc said.

Mac OS upgrades are typically more interesting than Linux or even Windows upgrades as Apple tends to make it a point to add a significant change in performance and luxury to the operating system. Since Mac OS X is still relatively young, the changes you may see in 10.3 will be striking--or, to some people, a "Duh!" move.

For one, the Finder is the butt of jokes, and needs multithreading and greater power.

Second, I think Samba needs more work.

This summer, Apple fans should expect to see some serious shit. Strong rumors of the PowerPC 970 chip will probably come true (amidst NDAs) from WWDC as super-Mac hardware may finally arrive with all the system bus, cache, and 64-bit power that's needed to return Macs to compare reasonably to Pentium systems. Next, Mac OS X matures, and goes 64-bit compatible (if it's not already there).

Re:no thanks

[mfago]

Or, better yet, get down and dirty and start reverse engineering products and coding your own open source drivers.

Unless you live in the USA in which case reverse engineering could get you thrown in jail -- because congress is sure that by reverse engineering you must either be a terrorist or a thief.

Whew! I feel better.

--

Slashdot: Group session for Nerds.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[byolinux]

I'm very much the same...

I started off on an Amstrad CPC, which finally gave up in 1997, when it got smashed by a stupid relative. I then moved to a PC and dual booted between RH5/6/7/8 and Win 95/98/NT/2000 before finally getting pissed off with things never quite working right... saved up, bought a Mac, and now I'm the most sorted computer user I know...

I can do everything I want, and not worry about people doing things their own way, cause I can finally handle it all.. well, apart from Office documents, as I refuse to buy it... but OpenOffice/Aqua will be my friend there.

Love FreeBSD

[rice_burners_suck]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times... The smartest decision ever made at Apple was to embrace FreeBSD as an important component of their operating system. I like their new OS very much as it performs reliably and efficiently. It is everything that a desktop UNIX operating system should be, especially now that X programs can run on the Mac OS desktop. Obviously, I am a lot happier about this because FreeBSD and the larger free software community benefits greatly from having a much larger user base and the support of a (relatively) successful company. (Even considering that Apple is doing all of this for their bottom line; but I'm glad that they're doing it in such a way that the side effects benefit the larger community.

If you think I'm kidding, you can rest assured that your Linux distro includes something, somewhere, that came into existance as a result of Apple's work, whether directly or indirectly. Yeah... you know fully well that things get ported from one free software project to another. That's the whole point. (Ever seen the BSD license on something in your Linux distro? Yeah. That's right!) And if it wasn't "copied" as code, it was "copied" in theory.)

I was an advocate of various Linux distros for a long time, until I finally tried FreeBSD. This was relatively recent: 3.3-RELEASE had just shown up in stores and I bought a boxed set that included the FreeBSD handbook. Not ten minutes passed after installation completed on one of my machines and I was hooked. Since that moment, I can't stand the SysV style that most Linux distros have adopted. SysV is just too complicated... all kinds of directory structures stretching on for infinity, and WHY?! FreeBSD puts everything at your fingertips. (No offense to Linux advocates and developers, as I continue to use Linux on many machines at home and at work. But I really do wish that BSD-style admin stuff would show up in more Linux distros... If I had the time to do it myself, I would have done it a long time ago. But as you know: 1, setting up a truly intuitive environment is difficult; and 2, I'm wasting all my time posting junk all over /. and don't have any time left to do useful stuff.)

Back to OSX... No, I have not switched to "the dark side" yet. I am waiting for Apple to natively support x86, which shouldn't be too complicated considering that the software they used to build the operating system is relatively portable. I would be all over an x86 Apple iBook. It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.

Oh yeah... and keep up the good work, Jordan.

Re:Love FreeBSD

[Textbook Error]

It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.

Guess what, it's that same hardware that currently keeps Apple in business... An x86 Mac is never going to happen.

Although they no doubt keep Mac OS X running on multiple platforms internally (it makes good sense from an engineering point of view), an x86 Mac is not in Apple's interests - 2 minutes after Apple released an x86 Mac + Mac OS X for x86, someone would have the OS running on some generic non-Apple hardware. Once that happens, nobody is ever going to buy an Apple machine when they could get their own box for less money.

And there just isn't a market in selling OS software on the x86 platform - the vast majority of people either get Windows free with their hardware, or rip a copy off from a friend. The number of people who pay for their copy of Linux/Be/etc is nothing like enough to keep a company the size of Apple in business, even assuming that every non-Windows person decided to buy Mac OS X instead.

A common suggestion is that Apple could build in some kind of dongle into the system to prevent the OS being modified to run on a generic box. The point this misses is that the only system like this which would ever work is the one they already use - their dongle is the Mac.

Re:Love FreeBSD

[Sentry21]

Back to OSX... No, I have not switched to "the dark side" yet. I am waiting for Apple to natively support x86, which shouldn't be too complicated considering that the software they used to build the operating system is relatively portable. I would be all over an x86 Apple iBook. It is the hardware that currently prevents me from switching.

Then you'll be waiting a long long time. Why on earth would Apple ever switch to x86? The power use is astronomical, the architecture is ungainly, ALL mac software would have to be ported (and believe me, that's no easy task), and it would lose all the hardware advantages it has - altivec, fast FPU instructions, the RISC-ish architecture.

Apple has the PPC970 coming out from IBM, which will be (relatively) low power, fast, support vector instructions, and run at a 900 MHz DDR bus, to name a few. Why on earth would they throw away speed, compatibility, and reliability just to have a processor that's only better in name and for a few applications. Nonsense.

Accept it. x86 is not going to happen, nor should it happen. It would suck, period. The machines wouldn't become any cheaper, they wouldn't become any faster, and the battery life would be cut in half if not more. Bad bad ugly idea.

--Dan

Re:Love FreeBSD

[bmetzler]

Powerpc processors are crippled compared to athlons or pIV's and yet apple charges a premium for them.

I guess I haven't noticed the premiums that Apple charges for notebooks. I'm looking to purchase a notebook, and am trying to decide if I shuld go iBook or not. Everyone tells me that Apple is more expensive, but for their notebooks I don't see that. Similarily configured notebooks from Apple, as far as I can tell are ~$300 LESS then notebooks from Dell or Compaq.

-Brent

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[sporty]

It's so not the same.

command-option-escape is kicking your annoying guest out the house.

"killall 'Internet Explorer.app'"

That's stabbing him in the eye first :)

Re:Apple Marketing Droid Alert

[Chocolate Teapot]

That's what they told you to say?

Moron.

Does apple expect to sell macs because "the masses" will want to use OS X so badly that they'll buy Macs next?

Obviously. And they make some pretty sexy looking hardware too. Before you start shouting that the looks aren't important, take a look at the cars people drive. Take a look at the money they spend on curtains and carpets and non-essential items for purely aesthetic reasons.

The only excuse for not porting it is to make you buy apples

Your new to the business world, aren't you?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

THE ANSWER

[feldsteins]

Here, for your reading enjoyment, is the text of the last time I responded to this question. (And here is the link.) Please distribute this text/link to every nerd on earth so that we can dispense with this question once and for all.

The lack of clones is the major problem with Apple? Sure, it keeps prices high and marketshare low. It's true. It is the worst thing about the platform.

And yet, it is also the one single thing that makes them unique in the market and gives them value. The vertical integration they have (hardware/os/iapps) allows them to a) innovate their product line faster and more radically than some other hardware/software makers and b) allows them to sell an entire end-to-end solution (like firewire-imovie-idvd-superdrive) with a user experience better than anyone elses. These things are at the core of what makes Apple Apple. Take them away - take away the vertical integration by doing clones - and what you get is cheaper boxes and much rejoicing...and a dead/dying platform within 2 years because it has lost that which made it valuable to begin with.

Bonus point: Why should anyone care? Certainly Mac users should care, but others should, too. Apple has an influence on the personal computer industry that is vastly disproportionate to its marketshare. They innovate. Others follow. Therefore, a healthy Apple is good for the industry. Mac clones = bad for Apple = bad for the pc industry.

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[Junior J. Junior III]

Now all they have to do is implement driver support for every piece of i386 hardware known to man, and it'll be ready to blow Windows out of the market.

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[bsharitt]

I then moved to a PC and dual booted between RH5/6/7/8 and Win 95/98/NT/2000

Wow that's a lot of operating systems on one computer.

Re:i386 Ports of OS X

[bsharitt]

I think NASA used these x86 macs to do the video editing when they faked the moon landings.

Re:When...?

[mfifer]

When MacOS X for Intel/AMD architectures?

Next Tuesday.

Re:Things we need to see...like real SAMBA.

[dalamcd]

Also, this might one of the reasons they have not released a x86 port.

Yes. It is reason #65,934,834,989.

Reason #1 is: It would be the stupidest thing ever done in this universe or any other.

dalamcd

Re:Mac OSX vs Linux

[davesag]

while I agree, it's still not that hard to

1. type 'e' in the search box and hit return
2. cmd a to select all
3. cmd delete to trash them

this has the advantage too that you can see what you are about to trash, you cmd z to undo that move to the trash, or you can pick thru your trash and selectively put back any files you didn;t mean to trash. try doing that with rm -r *e*

nice you have both options tho..