The GNU-Darwin World

Yeah.. by alph0ns3 · 2003-07-30 15:52 · Score: 0, Interesting

It's great that Apple made Darwin open source, but MacOS X (the gui/apps/etc) still aren't. I guess they think that open source is to be only used when they are sure about making money with it.

Re:Yeah.. by HebrewToYou · 2003-07-30 15:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple has no reason to open source specific pieces of their code. They are and have been a publicly-traded, capitalist computer maker that functions to make money. The company wouldn't exist if this were the case... Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. That is where they get their revenue. That is where they must always pledge allegiance. ...especially since I own quite a bit of their stock. ;)

--
I'm not popular enough to be different.
Homer Simpson, The Simpsons
Re:Yeah.. by shamino0 · 2003-07-31 07:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple has no reason to open source specific pieces of their code.
I will argue that open-sourcing Darwin is for purely selfish reasons. There's no need for anything like altruism or ideology.
Apple chose to base OS X on BSD (FreeBSD, I believe) because it's a very good and stable platform. But they knew that they would have to make some changes to the kernel in order to port it to the PowerMac, since it's a hardware platform that that changes with each new release.
In order to reap the benefits of open source (getting updates from people all over the internet) they have to release their source as well. If they don't, then they end up needing a team of engineers to track and integrate updates that are made to the public source tree. And if the public tree undergoes an architecture change, Apple would have to integrate all of that - which can be expensive.
The only way to avoid this is for Apple to release their changes back to the community. In doing so, the community will have them in the baseline code that it uses for making changes. So when Apple then integrates those changes back into its own line, it's a relatively painless process.
In other words, by doing this, Apple greatly reduces their cost of using the BSD platform. And as a happy side-bonus, the rest of the world (that is, us) get access to the sources to the core of their flagship OS.

If I lived in gnu darwin world by luekj · 2003-07-30 15:55 · Score: 0, Redundant

I dunno about this.
But osx and gnu seem to have a pretty good relationship
Ideally darwin and osx should/could be merged
and freeosx or gnuosxwm would be free for everyone!!!
Yeah!

fp!

--
Many Thanks,

Luke

Re:If I lived in gnu darwin world by luekj · 2003-07-30 16:00 · Score: 1

Okay, I admit it.
I only wrote all that because I saw the fp oppourtunity. I knew very well that it was redundant, and yes, pretty much uninformative.
Please forgive me, slashdot mods and members alike.....for falling to the tome of firstpost.

--
Many Thanks,
Luke
Re:If I lived in gnu darwin world by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 01:44 · Score: 0

"Tome" means book.
Re:If I lived in gnu darwin world by luekj · 2003-07-31 08:42 · Score: 1

firstpost is a saga of people blatherignn thier mouthes off while making no sense and where are all the people to cahnge things backto wherei s t well mainstram fools!!!!

--
Many Thanks,
Luke
Re:If I lived in gnu darwin world by York+the+Mysterious · 2003-07-31 17:41 · Score: 1

Darwin and OS X should be merged. Unless I'm missing something here you're not getting the idea of what Darwin is and what it's role in OS X is. Darwin is OS X. If you're running Darwin your running part of OS X. There is no merging to be done as they are for the most part the same thing. OS X adds loads of features and functionality through the GUI, but Darwin is the core of OS X. Apple has a nice picture showing it here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/technologies/

--

Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land

First and foremost... by alien666 · 2003-07-30 16:02 · Score: 1

Apple is a first and foremost software company that sells hardware to leverage its software business, at least I've heard it spun that way, too.

Re:First and foremost... by questamor · 2003-07-30 16:23 · Score: 1

The best way I've heard Apple described is as a solutions company.

They'll sell you something that'll let you do email, web browsing, graphic stuff, audio stuff, video stuff, writing stuff... whatever. They happen to make and sell the whole fix, which includes hardware, software, and services (such as .mac). If you wanted to break it down further they make & sell a solution which includes the case, psu, motherboard, ram, keyboard, monitor, operating system and apps. It's all a matter of how 'separate' you want to define things, as to whether to call them primarily hardware or software.

APSL by gooru · 2003-07-30 16:11 · Score: 1, Troll

I don't know about you, but the APSL scares me a bit. There are some real nasty clauses in it, and Apple has this habit of stepping on everyone's toes. Their "Open Source" license is really giving them the ability to take your work and sell it as their own. I'm a Mac fan, but I'm hesitant to develop for them. Apple has a habit of forcing the people who support them out of the market and making enemies of their close friends. Look at the recent developments with Final Cut Pro, Safari, Soundtrack, etc.

Re:APSL by lordholm · 2003-07-30 19:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Final Cut Pro didn't have any competition on the Mac, e.g. it was an application for a nishe that didn't have an application, while I agree that Final Cut Express was an outright attack on Adobe... however you did say the Pro version and I beleve that that as an example is worth NULL and void.

The same thing goes for Soundtrack, there were no such applications for the Mac. Argument and examples are again NULL and void.

Safari however is discussable, I do beleve that MS had planned to terminate IE for the Mac and there was need for a standard browser included with the OS. It was thus necissary for Apple to create Safari, they didn't have any choise.

A more valid argument vould have been the Sherlock and Watson "incident".

--
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Re:APSL by WatertonMan · 2003-07-30 21:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Premier competed with it on the lower end and Avid Xpress on the high end. Yeah it found a mid range niche that no one one the platform was aiming for. But I'm not sure I'd say it has no competition. You left out Keynote as well - clearly a PowerPoint killer. One might also point out Project Builder and Codewarrior - although admittedly Project Builder came from NeXT and thus predated Codewarrior.
Re:APSL by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 01:47 · Score: 0

It doesn't matter whether Microsoft planned to kill IE or to continue developing it. What matters is that IE for Mac OS X sucked. Since the browser is practically the first thing a new user sees, it was most definitely not okay for it to suck as badly as IE for Mac OS X did.

Thus: Safari.
Re:APSL by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 05:38 · Score: 0

Final Cut Express was not an attack on Priemere as much as it was a defensive move. Adobe decided two to three years ago to stop development of priemere for the Mac. When Apple caught wind of this, they quickly jumped in with Express.

When Apple realized that too much of their OS experience was being dictated by IE since Netscape had been put aside and Apple realized Microsoft was pulling IE as a stand alone product, not only for Mac but also for Windows, it reacted. Safari and webcore was a defensive move. However, it turns out to be great for the development community because Apple decided to make Webcore a public OS X framework for any OS X app to use.

Between Microsoft and Adobe, Apple saw the competitive threats in time and responded with superior products in areas where monopolies were looking to excersize their domination to the detriment of us users. We should be happy that neither Microsoft nor Adobe are without competition.

Now Apple turns the tables and sets fire to the WIndows world with its iTunes Music Store. Is that a bad thing for Wintel users? Is it causing the lethargic and security plagued MSFT to start investing money toward its customers needs? Well we can only hope. And, we can only hope that the competitive pressure remains on Apple as well. They have been responding very well these past two years and see, to have learned from lessons past.
Re:APSL by ratfynk · 2003-07-31 10:53 · Score: 1

I think that those who develope code under the gpl are not that interested in who uses it. The way I see it is the branch dev on OS X do not conflict with the gpl. If Jobs wants to make money selling more expensive pro-science machines thats fine. He is not co-opting gnu apps by making them work on his platform. If you take the gnu apps completely ripp off the code change the name and copy write it and then make out that it is your software then that is ripping them off. If Jobs does that then he deserves to get his but kicked. But alowing the use of GPL apps on your Os is not a bad thing. Greasing the pockets of GPL code writers is not a bad thing either, as long as the good code remains open the whole thing will work.
The people who write crap and then gpl it will just as soon find that it evaporates, which is the way things should be. As things are now you can write crap, close its source and sell it to unsuspecting users, shitty closed code has become a heaven for the coders who would use the net to rip people off. There is no system of certification for a Windows coder you can write what ever the hell you want and hide what it really does from the user. That is the difference, and the reason why closed source software like Microsoft eventually will kill itself. It is too much of a target for criminal coders. In open source you have no where to hide.

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Re:APSL by Phroggy · 2003-07-31 20:55 · Score: 1

Safari however is discussable, I do beleve that MS had planned to terminate IE for the Mac and there was need for a standard browser included with the OS. It was thus necissary for Apple to create Safari, they didn't have any choise.

I don't believe Microsoft would have terminated IE, were it not for Safari. The problem is that IE for OSX sucks, and when Microsoft did finally release an acceptible version, it wouldn't have been good. Safari is good.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:APSL by Phroggy · 2003-07-31 20:57 · Score: 1

Is it causing the lethargic and security plagued MSFT to start investing money toward its customers needs?

Please, oh please, somebody call them beleagured, just once, please?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:APSL by proj_2501 · 2003-08-06 00:54 · Score: 1

I dunno, it sounds like Soundtrack is pretty similar to Propellerhead's ReCycle, which has been available for Mac for a few years.

Why does SRC ports have to be DISTRO Specific? by BrookHarty · 2003-07-30 16:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'll be glad when someone creates a generic Ports that works across all platforms. The news that Gentoo, Fink and Darwin ports where working together was great news. Gentoo has Linux, Fink Has MacOSX, and GnuDarwin has x86 and PPC.

FreeBSD/OpenBSD and all those Linux (Cooker type) distros have broken ports. Even the Binary only distros have broken packages. I think OpenBSD said 20%+ of BSD ports where broken, (anyone have the numbers?). This could fix all those problems across platforms.

Very nice.

Re:Why does SRC ports have to be DISTRO Specific? by burns210 · 2003-07-30 20:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

the problem with this, as i had a similar idea in an earlier post, and this was pointed out was: what about when 1 project is very much in need of highly portable code, while another project isn't... as in, netbsd couldn't necesarily join this universal ports, because they need to have all their ports compile across everything with a microprocessor(this is not a bad thing, btw) but a linux or darwin project only cares about x86/ppc architectures.
Re:Why does SRC ports have to be DISTRO Specific? by lpontiac · 2003-07-30 23:39 · Score: 1

Because a collection of source ports is basically what a distro is :)

Something to keep in mind is that ideally, the generic stuff that can be shared between ports (eg 64bit/endianness friendlyness, not relying on the idiosyncracies of one particular OS) eventually ends up in the program's main source tree.

I gave up on the Mac by 0x0d0a · 2003-07-30 16:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

Apple has this habit of steping on everyone's toes

I used to love the Mac. Coded for it, knew the thing
pretty inside out. Apple killed that when they killed the clones. They had a choice, and knew it, and considered it. They could have tried to become a mainstream manufacturer, with a lot of clout, and instead they chose to remain a high-priced niche manufacturer. (This isn't intended to stab at folks that still use Macs -- I'm just doubt I'll ever work in the Mac world again). They chose to serve folks who are willing to put down a fair amount of money for a polished closed-box experience. Not what I wanted -- I found Linux, and that was pretty much it.

So this makes me wonder what the point is of using Darwin. With OS X as a whole, there are some specific benefits that exist. Apple has UI standards in place, provides some services, like iTunes, that you may want. They've done a lot of eye candy. But is there any real point in using Darwin alone versus, say, Linux? Or, if you specifically want BSD, then compare it to plain ol' FreeBSD. I mean, what's the point?

--
May we never see th

Re:I gave up on the Mac by BrookHarty · 2003-07-30 16:29 · Score: 4, Informative

So this makes me wonder what the point is of using Darwin. With OS X as a whole, there are some specific benefits that exist. Apple has UI standards in place, provides some services, like iTunes, that you may want. They've done a lot of eye candy. But is there any real point in using Darwin alone versus, say, Linux? Or, if you specifically want BSD, then compare it to plain ol' FreeBSD. I mean, what's the point?

True, I wouldnt use Darwin either.

Linux and FreeBSD are my opensource distros of choice. But for Daily work, OSX gives me the power of *nix OS with all the same software. Throw in iTunes, and the nice collection of applications for OSX, its a hard OS to ignore if your a unix junkie.

And dont understimate eye-candy, KDE and Gnome look great, OSX looks perfect. Great time for opensource, pick your candy.
Re:I gave up on the Mac by Senjaz · 2003-07-30 20:48 · Score: 5, Informative

If Apple hadn't stopped their cloning experiments which where at the time killing their own hardware sales then it's questionable whether Apple would still be here.

And we then we wouldn't have had Mac OS X. No Mac OS X, no darwin.

You have a valid point for most geeks, what's the point of using it over Linux or BSD.

One thing I will point out though is that it is a real boon having that entire layer of the OS open if your job is writing things like kext's and device drivers.

--
Don't blame me - this .sig had steal me written all over it.
Re:I gave up on the Mac by JonathanBoyd · 2003-07-30 22:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Apple killed that when they killed the clones. They had a choice, and knew it, and considered it. They could have tried to become a mainstream manufacturer, with a lot of clout, and instead they chose to remain a high-priced niche manufacturer.

Actually, the clones weren't expanding marketshare - they were just eating into Apples, and at a time when Apple wasn't in a particularly healthy situation. Apple's 'choice' was kill the clones and survive, or let them keep going and die in a couple of years time, leaving the Mac market dead as well.
Re:I gave up on the Mac by Phroggy · 2003-07-31 20:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

(This isn't intended to stab at folks that still use Macs -- I'm just doubt I'll ever work in the Mac world again). They chose to serve folks who are willing to put down a fair amount of money for a polished closed-box experience. Not what I wanted -- I found Linux, and that was pretty much it.

Wait, so, you refuse to use Macs (which are perfectly capable of running Linux and other open-source operating systems) not because you don't like the hardware, but because you have a philosophical objection to being only able to buy them from Apple?

So this makes me wonder what the point is of using Darwin.

What would be the point of running NetBSD?

What would it take for Darwin to become just as suitable as NetBSD is?

What would it take for Darwin to become just as suitable as Linux is?

What's the point of running KDE instead of Gnome? What's the point of using emacs instead of vim?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:I gave up on the Mac by 0x0d0a · 2003-07-31 20:48 · Score: 1

Wait, so, you refuse to use Macs (which are perfectly capable of running Linux and other open-source operating systems) not because you don't like the hardware, but because you have a philosophical objection to being only able to buy them from Apple?

Yup. Well, for pragmatic reasons -- there isn't much reason to buy a more expensive Mac when you're just going to run Linux on it, especially when x86 has wider binary support and better debugging WRT endianness in even open source software.

What would be the point of running NetBSD?

I probably wouldn't, on an x86 machine.

What would it take for Darwin to become just as suitable as Linux is?

The same degree of software support and market acceptance. The same degree of performance. The knowledge that it will be actively developed and supported for a long, long time.

What's the point of running KDE instead of Gnome? What's the point of using emacs instead of vim?

More people use KDE, GNOME, emacs, or vim than use Darwin (not OS X, just Darwin).

--
May we never see th
Re:I gave up on the Mac by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-01 07:19 · Score: 0

You're fucking kidding me right? The clones were out for how long? 1995 to 1998? What the hell is that? Obviously if you "loved" the Mac, you would have been in it longer than that, which means you had no damn problem with the system being "high-priced" and "niche."

Damn lying troll. Are you just pissed off that OS X kicks the shit out of everything but requires a "high-priced" G5 to do it?

Not Free. by trouser · 2003-07-30 16:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Now GNU-Darwin is a major free software project....

GNU = GPL = Free.
Darwin = APSL = open source.

There's a big difference.

--
Now wash your hands.

Re:Not Free. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-30 17:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually, the GPL imposes restrictions on further distribution. Therefore, it can't possibly be considered free compared to a license like BSD.
Re:Not Free. by BitGeek · 2003-07-31 06:35 · Score: 1

GNU is too restrictive to be fairly called "Free".

The terms are reversed-- the Open Source license determines free software. While GNU is merely "open source".

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257

Apple has written a story about it... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-30 16:43 · Score: 0

..more like Apple has written a system to pay them.
That's what I hate about OS X - everyone wants some $$$ off you.

Not me... by BrokenHalo · 2003-07-30 16:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

The APSL is one thing, but as I am a scientist I was intrigued by their claims for this as a distro for scientific applications. When I checked the page, all they actually don't seem to be offering anything more radical than the trusty

"VIM, Ghostscript, Gnumeric, LaTeX, PyMOL [...] Rasmol, gdFortran, LAM/MPI, AbiWord, GNUplot, and Raster3D"

...not much there to entice me away from Linux, methinks.

Re:Not me... by jcr · 2003-07-31 08:06 · Score: 1

http://www.apple.com/education/profiles/toronto/

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Jargon by mrpuffypants · 2003-07-30 17:41 · Score: 4, Funny

...digital media discs...

so...like....it's on CDs?

Re:Jargon by proclus · 2003-07-31 05:36 · Score: 1

> so...like....it's on CDs?
Yes, and on DVD-R. If that is really jargon, care to suggest an alternative which includes both CD and DVD?
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Re:Jargon by bsartist · 2003-07-31 15:01 · Score: 1

All joking aside, "digital media discs" does sound a bit awkward. I'd suggest "available for download or on physical media" as an alternative.

--
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!

Confusing... by jbx · 2003-07-30 17:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

GNU is open source.
Darwin is open source.
So... what exactly are we getting here? LinuxPPC is faster than Darwin, so if you wanted something closer to GNU than Darwin, wouldn't you use that?

What's the user benefit? This is for people who bought a Mac and don't want Apple's GUI work? Or is this all the stuff that Apple would like to put in Darwin, but can't, due to the GPL license?

Speaking of which, there's this:
Please note: GNU Project considers Darwin non-free software and therefore does not recommend the use of this operating system. (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html)

I mean, let me get this straight: GNU Darwin is the version of Darwin that the GNU project doesn't recommend?

Can someone clear this up in plain English?

--
(sig) The last bug isn't fixed until the last user is dead. (/sig)

Re:Confusing... by bursch-X · 2003-07-30 19:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well GNU even considers FreeBSD non-free software because of the BSD license.

Basically GNU considers a license (BSD style) that doesn't give you any restrictions whatsoever (except for mentioning copyright) on the redistribution of the software to be non-free. Go figure.

Of course it's much more "free" to have GNU telling me I have to make everything I base on GPL software GPLed as well. This is a restriction. And don't tell me it results in more freedom, because I wouldn't be more free in choosing to use the GPL. The GPL restricts me in how I can use the code.

--
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Re:Confusing... by Halo1 · 2003-07-30 19:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think it's simplest to say that the GPL is about the freedom of the code (i.e., once the code is Free, it has to stay Free) and as such the freedom of the community at large (since this means that over time, they will almost by definition get a larger choice), while the BSD license is more about the personal freedom of users/companies (to do whatever they want with the code). Imho, it's not about which one is more Free than the other, they simply focus on different (contradicting) freedoms: the freedom of the individual vs. the freedom of the community.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Confusing... by Halo1 · 2003-07-30 20:02 · Score: 4, Informative

I mean, let me get this straight: GNU Darwin is the version of Darwin that the GNU project doesn't recommend?
GNU Darwin is simply Darwin with all BSD-lincensed programs (such as curl) replaced with GPL ones (wget) and a lot of extra programs (only GPL licensed ones obviously). It's still not a "pure" GPL system, as the kernel, most kernel extensions and probably some libraries will always be APSL (otherwise it wouldn't be Darwin anymore).

--
Donate free food here
Re:Confusing... by leviramsey · 2003-07-30 20:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Well GNU even considers FreeBSD non-free software because of the BSD license.

Incorrect. From The GNU License List:

[GPL-compatible Free Software Licenses]
The modified BSD license.
(Note: on the preceding link, the modified BSD license is listed in the "General" section.)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of ``the BSD license'', because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.

[GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses]
The original BSD license.
(Note: on the preceding link, the original BSD license is listed in the "UCB/LBL" section.) This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license or the X11 license. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license.

Basically because of the advertising clause in the original BSD license, that license is considered GPL-incompatible. GPL incompatibility basically means that you cannot incorporate code licensed under those terms into a GPL project in any way. For instance, it is technically a GPL violation to link a GPL'd program (either statically or dynamically) to OpenSSL, though many projects look the other way (gaim, however, does not look the other way there, for instance).
Re:Confusing... by clifyt · 2003-07-31 01:34 · Score: 0, Flamebait

"...the GPL is about the freedom of the code (i.e., once the code is Free, it has to stay Free) and as such the freedom of the community at large..."

So by this definition, the Chinese citizens are ACTUALLY freer than US and other westernized countries, because its all about the welfare of the country as opposed to personal freedoms.

What would Chairman Stallman have to say about this? Actually, I think this is what he wants...he's a modern day communist hippy thinking he's going to change the world by taking away choice.

clif
Re:Confusing... by Halo1 · 2003-07-31 01:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

So by this definition, the Chinese citizens are ACTUALLY freer than US and other westernized countries, because its all about the welfare of the country as opposed to personal freedoms.
No, as I said they're different kind of freedoms, one is not necessarily more free than the other. Which one you consider more free is simply based on which kind of freedom you value most. Besides, that may be the theory behind communism, but just like with capitalism (and any economical model or ideology), the practice is often significantly different from the theory.
What would Chairman Stallman have to say about this? Actually, I think this is what he wants...he's a modern day communist hippy thinking he's going to change the world by taking away choice.
You take some, you give some. It's the same as always. And the end result may or may not be more personal freedom, depending on what you want to do.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Confusing... by clifyt · 2003-07-31 02:10 · Score: 1

Heh! Just giving you some shit over the def :-)

Quite honestly, I DO think Chairman Stallman IS a commie. Do I think this is bad? Not as long as folks have a choice to be a part of that society...
Re:Confusing... by proclus · 2003-07-31 05:41 · Score: 1

GNU-Darwin is a means to reach Apple users with software freedom. It is true that the GNU project does not recognize Darwin as free software. GNU-Darwin provides a rational path toward attainment of that freedom.
If this needs any further clarification, just ask or email me privately as you like.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Re:Confusing... by jcr · 2003-07-31 12:41 · Score: 1

Well GNU even considers FreeBSD non-free software because of the BSD license.

Apparently, FSF's definition of "free" is "approved by RMS".

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Confusing... by stevef · 2003-07-31 17:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, it looks like that URL was just updated today...
Updates APSL version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that would qualify. The problems described in this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL.
Re:Confusing... by DJSpray · 2003-08-01 07:13 · Score: 1

So I ask the accumulated wisdom of Slashdot:

I'm a MacOS X user who would prefer to use the GNU versions of certain basic tools (cp, ls, ps, tar, tail, wc, find, cat, perhaps shells, whatever). Not for any particular political/free/proprietary/open/GPL agenda, but because I'm more familiar with the GNU versions, and (to me) they seem have better man pages, better support for flags, and more consistent usage directives. What's the best way to get them? Build individually from source? Replace bundles of them in one go?

p.s.: actually, the page cited above now says "APSL version 2.0 qualifies a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that would qualify. The problems described in this page are still potential issues for other possible licenses, but they do not apply to version 2.0 of the APSL."
Re:Confusing... by proclus · 2003-08-01 07:59 · Score: 1

One possibility is to install the GNU-Darwin package tools, then add the GNU fileutils.
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/packages.shtml
If you don't want a bunch of GTK/GNOME apps, then follow the directions to install just the essential files. After that, additional packages are easy to add fast.
pkg_add -frv fileutils
It is a binary distro, so compilation is not necessary, but if you want to compile, you can try the ports or one of the other distros.
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ports/index.shtml
Unfortunately, we are experiencing some temporary intermittent problems with the mirror system right now, so you might have to try later or order discs.
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/order.shtml
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Re:Confusing... by Aapje · 2003-08-01 11:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it's simplest to say that the GPL is about the freedom of the code (i.e., once the code is Free, it has to stay Free) and as such the freedom of the community at large (since this means that over time, they will almost by definition get a larger choice)...

By assuming that this is straightforward, you touch on the difference in view that explains the lack of understanding between BSD and GPL proponents. You see, I believe that the BSD license can protect the freedom of the community quite well. First of all, I don't believe in the myth that BSD software will be embraced, extended and replaced by a closed version that we are forced to buy. There are various reasons why this myth is FUD, but the most important one is simply that it rarely, if ever, happens. The people who bandy this /. folklore can never give me an example. Frankly, I've got better things to do than to worry about things that don't happen (other than a pay raise).

Another myth is that the Free Software library will always keep increasing (because GPL'ed code will stay GPL'ed). This notion is not only false because the copyright holder can relicense his code, but more importantly ignores the unfortunate affliction called bit rot. Software will cease to be useful when it is not maintained and updated or when it is replaced by something better. The continued existence of a useful open source library depends mostly on the ability to attract developers who contribute. Of course, the GPL has an advantage there because it forces a developer to GPL and disclose his changes (in certain circumstances). On the other hand, releasing your changes is often the most sensible thing to do and the BSD license encourages wider adoption. Clearly, the winner depends on the specific project and the rationality of its adopters. There is no reason to assume that the collection of useful GPL software will necessarily grow faster than the BSD collection (other than what is the result of the Linux 'hype' or other marketing issues).

So again, I don't believe that the GPL can protect the freedom of the community any better than the BSD license. You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend that BSD advocates aren't interested in the community.

PS. Note that I'm not championing the sole use of BSD-like licenses. I recognize that other licenses (GPL, LGPL, etc) can be better suited for certain projects. I simply disagree with the notion that the GPL is better if you wish to support the community and BSD is better if you favor the user.

--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Re:Confusing... by Halo1 · 2003-08-02 01:41 · Score: 1

First of all, I want to say that I couldn't care less which license one uses to release his code and that I'm not a proponent of one license or another (nor am I an opponent of any of the open source licenses). That said...
First of all, I don't believe in the myth that BSD software will be embraced, extended and replaced by a closed version that we are forced to buy.
I also don't think they will be replaced. I do think that it happens that improvements are done to BSD licensed programs which are then kept as closed source, so that this work is done twice or more times because the changes weren't freed.
The people who bandy this /. folklore can never give me an example.
I think it's hard to give an example of changes you don't know about, since they were kept closed source :) I don't think anyone is in a position to say how often this happens.
You're free to disagree, but please don't pretend that BSD advocates aren't interested in the community.
I've never claimed this (though the sentence you quoted may be interpreted as such). It may be better to say that the GPL and BSD licenses have different ways of attempting to keep the community thriving: GPL by making sure the code remains Free, BSD by making sure the developers are Free.

--
Donate free food here
Re:Confusing... by Aapje · 2003-08-02 08:21 · Score: 1
I do think that it happens that improvements are done to BSD licensed programs which are then kept as closed source, so that this work is done twice or more times because the changes weren't freed.

When that happens it's usually because the 'improvements' are hacks or user/company-specific changes. Those wouldn't make it into the open source distribution, even when they have to be made public. A rational person should want to contribute generic improvements because:
- Your code gets tested for free by other users.
- You reduce the integration effort when you upgrade the open source components. The difference is that every other contributor will work hard to make sure their changes don't effect yours, instead of the other way around (you will have to test against all new contributions).
- Your improvements will attract new users, some of whom will improve the code.
- You gain fame/glory/goodwill with geeks (Has our perception of IBM not changed because of their community work?).
In short, free market economics favor open source (in the absence of other concerns). Not that I believe in perfect rationality, market transparancy and proper government regulation, but still, open source should benefit from its use by commercial entities. Of course, you argue that the contribution could be even bigger if people would be forced to disclose their changes. That extra contribution will usually be relatively minor in the face of my previous comments and because of the deterring nature of the GPL. A more strict and complicated license increases the risk of using the open source code and decreases its applicability. This results in less users, which does not only reduce the number of contributions, but also causes work to be done twice (because the open source code isn't utilized). So I certainly wouldn't give the nod to the GPL by default if you are concerned about reducing rework.

"The people who bandy this /. folklore can never give me an example."

I think it's hard to give an example of changes you don't know about, since they were kept closed source :) I don't think anyone is in a position to say how often this happens.

In the absence of hard data we will have to use common sense (reluctantly, given the stagnation when science was conducted purely theoretical). Did you find my reasoning convincing?

BTW, I was talking about embrace, extend & replace when I said that.

I've never claimed this (though the sentence you quoted may be interpreted as such).

I fear that many will read your statement as fact instead of opinion. That is why I wanted to counter such an interpretation explicitly.

It may be better to say that the GPL and BSD licenses have different ways of attempting to keep the community thriving: GPL by making sure the code remains Free, BSD by making sure the developers are Free.

I like that one much better. It underscores the fact that we have the same goal. We merely disagree about the best way to support that objective.
--

The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi

GNU-Darwin Background by pudge · 2003-07-30 18:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is the distribution that swore off PPC development because of political reasons, basically saying that Apple is so bad that they can't continue to use any part of the platform they are based on, but yet they are still producing that which they said they wouldn't (new stuff for PPC). They say silly things like "the most free" distribution, as if such a phrase has any meaning. They claim to be the premiere free software distribution for Mac OS X, which is plainly false, unless you are deluded into believing that only copylefted software is free software.

This is a project driven almost solely by politics, not technology, and they can't even be consistent there. Beware.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background by proclus · 2003-07-31 02:41 · Score: 1, Troll

The answer is clear to anyone who is willing to take our many accomplisments at face value. It is clear to anyone who is willing to come to the source for their info instead of running to gossips, liars, and fud masters. Check the documentation yourself. This thread is dead.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Re:GNU-Darwin Background by pudge · 2003-07-31 02:47 · Score: 3, Funny

The answer is clear to anyone who is willing to take our many accomplisments at face value. It is clear to anyone who is willing to come to the source for their info instead of running to gossips, liars, and fud masters.

If you cannot provide a clear explanation of your own policies, how do you expect anyone to care about your project?
This thread is dead.

No, it's in maintenance mode.
Re:GNU-Darwin Background by Graff · 2003-07-31 09:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

proclus: This thread is dead.
pudge: No, it's in maintenance mode.

Lol, good one pudge.

This article is proclus's annual "we're still around, notice us!" message. It seems that Dr. Michael Love, aka proclus, has some sort of need to continue pestering the Macintosh community. I too have tried to make sense out of his claim that the PowerPC platform is unsupported by his GNUness, while still remaining supported somehow. Through all of his ranting and ravings I have come to a simple conclusion: ignore him.

Proclus, along with the other trolls who frequent Slashdot and MacSlash, has gotten himself such a bad reputation for FUD tactics that I don't know of a single person who takes what he says at face value. Proclus does his GNU ideals more harm than good by appearing to be so zealous and fostering the impression that open source advocates are the computer equivalent to suicide bombers, taking down "big corporate business" at all costs.

Honestly, most of us just want to use our computers as easily as possible. If it is a choice between something that works easily and something that waves a banner around then I will definitely go with the solution that is the easiest to work with. If open source really wants to make an impact on people then they would do more for the cause by making their products better rather than spending so much time on useless advocacy.

How about working with Apple on their open source efforts? I know that some people think that Apple's open license isn't as "free" as it should be but they have made changes to open it up more and they are likely to do so again if the need is there. Apple has worked very closely with the open source community and there are many opportunities to show them that they are doing the right thing and to convince them to work even closer with open source.

--
Sapere aude!

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by kuwan · 2003-07-30 19:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

I used to follow the GNU-Darwin project quite heavily. I had installed it along side OS X and was even on the mailing lists. I must say that they do (or at least did) have extremely talented developers that have done a lot of good work for the project.

However, I found through the mailing list that the project is political to the extreme. Their most extreme bit of politics came when they decided to "discontinue" PPC development (as pudge mentioned) because they had issues with Apple. They were arrogant enough to think that this move would force Apple to backtrack on the things they had issues with.

It was about that time that I decided to drop GNU-Darwin completely. What kind of project drops support for the hardware that > 90% of their user-base is using? Well, from the looks of it they, not Apple, have backtracked and are still supporting PPC.

My advice would be to not take a second look at GNU-Darwin. Use Fink or OpenDarwin instead.

--
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes

All I can say is by bsartist · 2003-07-30 19:13 · Score: 1

All I can say is, as a Kiss fan from long ago, before they sucked, I find it difficult to take someone named "Dr. Love" very seriously.

--
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!

Re:All I can say is by Graff · 2003-07-31 10:18 · Score: 1

I find it difficult to take someone named "Dr. Love" very seriously.

Especially when Dr. Love, aka proclus, starts talking about Space Mormons, Mutant Radical Mormons, and his desire to form a Mormon-Wiccan cooperative.

--
Sapere aude!
Re:All I can say is by proclus · 2003-07-31 10:35 · Score: 1

Graff, I have had some respect for you until this moment. Your attempt to exploit religious bigotry has revealed your true intention.
Moreover, your post is terribly off-topic, but since you bring it up...
Anyone who is interested in Mutant Space Radical Mormon-Wiccan cooperatives, please feel free to visit Graff's links and drop me a line. Be sure and read the FAQ first.
http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/faq.html
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Re:All I can say is by bsartist · 2003-07-31 17:12 · Score: 1

In all fairness, his arguments in "Space Mormons" were fairly reasonable, given the context. As an atheist, I find the idea of primitives viewing a close encounter with aliens as a supernatural event to be at least as plausible as the idea of an encounter with a (or the) real god. There are certainly a number of passages in the world's religious texts that can be interpreted that way. He even said that he wasn't trying to present his comments as The One Truth, merely putting them on the table as topics for discussion.

All in all, the whole thing seemed like an exercise in what I like to call "Fundie Baiting" - a form of trolling. In fact, I'm beginning to get the idea that Proclus isn't nearly as fanatical about the GNU cause as he seems. I'm half-convinced that he's engaging in an especially subtle form of trolling. If that's the case, my hat's off to him - it's the best troll, with the most bites, that I've seen in years. You're right about one thing, though - Regardless of whether you interpret his comments in those articles as trolling or as the rantings of a crackpot, they certainly won't help anyone take him seriously.

Since we're getting further and further off-topic: I found one comment of his in particular - would monotheism have developed in a binary system - especially fascinating. All of the early monotheistic religions I'm aware of grew out of sun-worship. The first monotheistic pharoah of Egypt, for example, was Akhnaten, who worshiped a single sun-god. An examination of how religion may have developed in the presence of two suns would make for a fascinating science fiction novel - perhaps taking a "multi-generational" approach similar to that in Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Years of Rice and Salt."

--
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by liyanage · 2003-07-30 20:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

I absolutely agree with this and the parent post.

The politics and annoying GNU/GPL preaching on various mailing lists (and in the early days the insistence on installing/stomping onto Apple-supplied system parts in /usr/ instead of /usr/local) is what turned me off GNU-Darwin.

Which Darwin? by CameronWolf · 2003-07-30 20:16 · Score: 3, Informative

There are three "Darwin" DARWIN proper is the one used by Apple and coresponds directly with OSX releases. OPENDARWIN was founded by Apple and ISC to allow more people to contribute to Darwin. Apple takes no responsibility for OPENDARWIN. Features found in OPENDARWIN may find there way into Apples DARWIN. GNU-DARWIN is totally GPL. It was founded in response to APSL.

Re:Which Darwin? by BitGeek · 2003-07-31 06:40 · Score: 1

Uh, no. GNU Darwin is NOT totally GPL.

In fact, its no more GPL than Mac OS X-- that is the operating system is released by apple under an Open Source license.

The tools and all that other stuff- that you get with Mac OS X and Linux and BSD et al, are GPL, just as they are on other OSes that ship with them.

Mod the parent down-- its informative but its wrong.

GNU didn't GPL the Apple kernel and Darwin sources! They can't.

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257

Poor Examples by Llywelyn · 2003-07-30 20:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

You seem to drift topics. The APSL has nothing to do with FCP, Safari, or anything else in those lanes.

>FCP

Best of its class, hands down. This is called "making a competing product" and is normal business strategy--not forcing someone out of the market.

>Safari

You really need to stop drinking the Kool Aid.

No one really competes with Safari, not because Safari, but because Safari is *good*. Apple distributed a sucky version of IE as its standard web-browser and that has a *lot* to do with the user experience for a typical user. They needed to replace it, and no other web-browser for the mac quite cut it.

Once again. They produced a better product. Safari is now my primary web browser, not because I haven't used Mozilla or Camino, but because it is the best for what I do on the web (speed counts for a lot).

>Soundtrack

Who did Apple "force out" with this one?

They also needed something so that labels could publish music in m4p format, suitable for the iTMS.

You want an example? Take Watson. But none of your examples quite cut it.

--
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX

Re:Poor Examples by WatertonMan · 2003-07-30 21:16 · Score: 1

Soundtrack (which technically is part of FCP4 and just also distributed stand alone) admittedly is a fairly unique products. It's main "competitors" do a lot more. Sort of like comparing Premier and Avid.
Re:Poor Examples by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 08:12 · Score: 0

Even Watson is a questionable example. Apple clearly started the concept when it introduced Sherlock and you can see the direction it was headed by simply looking at how it evolved. Watson just managed to be one step ahead of Apple in their implementation. Even now, Watson is superior to Sherlock and has a devoted following. Regardless, Apple did absolutely nothing wrong.

Someone has already said it, but... by hummassa · 2003-07-30 23:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

GPL = free software, copylefted: protects the [continuing] freedom of the FUTURE users, ensuring the software will STAY free software.
BSD = free software, non-copylefted: protects the [somewhat more ample] freedom of the CURRENT users, ensuring they can do [mostly] whatever they want with the code.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:Someone has already said it, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 01:51 · Score: 0

That's a pretty serious distortion.

GPL abridges the freedom of everybody, "present" and "future" alike. (By "present" and "future" I assume you mean users of original and derivative works.)
Re:Someone has already said it, but... by Space+Coyote · 2003-07-31 02:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's a pretty serious distortion. GPL abridges the freedom of everybody, "present" and "future" alike. (By "present" and "future" I assume you mean users of original and derivative works.) GPL grants freedom to the software, not necessarily the users. That's why it's called 'free software' and not 'free users'. The idea is that free software benefits all, free users just benefit themselves.

--
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Re:Someone has already said it, but... by trouser · 2003-07-31 11:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Hazzaaaaa! You da man!

--
Now wash your hands.
Re:Someone has already said it, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 15:48 · Score: 0

That has to be the most insightful post I've read.
Re:Someone has already said it, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-04 19:04 · Score: 0

GPL abridges the freedom of everybody, "present" and "future" alike.

Nonsense.

You anti-GPL trolls still don't get it; copyright law is what curtails your "freedom" to distribute someone else's work. In fact, due to copyright law, you never had any such freedom.

GPL grants you additional rights, conditionally. Is it RMS's fault that you don't like his conditions? What exactly do you want to do, anyway? Roll a GPL'd work into your own proprietary software and sell it as closed-source while claiming it's all your own work?

Jesus fuck!
Re:Someone has already said it, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-13 14:28 · Score: 0

No, you are spreading even more severe distortion. The GPL protects your freedoms as a USER AND DEVELOPER of software. If you sit down and use a program containing GPL'd code you are guaranteed that you can modify the software. However, you cannot DISTRIBUTE GPL'd code that has been mangled with proprietary (i.e. secret) code.

On the otherhand, the BSD is about your freedoms as a DEVELOPER of software. If you sit down and use a program containing BSD'd code you don't necessarily have any rights to modify the program. On the otherhand, if you obtain BSD'd code you are guaranteed that you can develop just about anything.

Your claim that code posseses rights that are protected by the GPL is preposterous. All copyrights protect the rights of the copyright owner, not the object that is granted copyright protection. If your assertions are not the positions of the FSF. The GPL does not grant freedom to the software, it grants freedom to the users of the software by strictly guarding the interests of the copyright holders.

Any copyright does the same. If you want to use Microsoft source you must obtain permission of the Microsofy (via the purchase a license). If you want to use GNU source you must obtain permission of the FSF (via acceptance of the terms of the GPL).

If you are developing a proprietary product and want to incorporate GNU code the GPL is as restrictive as a propriatary license, because the FSF will not license the code under terms that allow you to distribute your derived product. The FSF uses it's exclusive rights granted by the copyright laws and its exclusive ownership of the GNU Project source code (this does not include Linux) to enforce it's will, much the same way that Microsoft uses its exclusive ownership of the Windows code to enforce its will.

Qt is distributed under the GPL, but you can also purchase a license compatable with a proprietary project.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by Pathwalker · 2003-07-31 00:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

Plus they are still running unchecked binaries right after they download them.

Take a look at their quickstart script, which they suggest that you use by piping it to csh as root.

The first few steps:

Download a compiled wget binary using curl
chmod 755 wget
put wget in /usr/local/bin
use the new wget to download some other code

They never check to see if the download was corrupted, or if someone had replaced it with something else.
Is it so hard to do something like:

...download wget... if [ `cksum wget | cut -f1 -d\ ` != 2989954681 ] then echo "Someone is playing silly buggers..." exit fi ...install wget...

For each of the few programs and libraries that they need to download to get the package manager up and running?

I've complained about this before, and I'm sorry to have to do so again, but running an unverified binary as root right after you download it is one of the STUPIDEST ideas I have seen.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong by proclus · 2003-07-31 01:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

GNU-Darwin clearly supports PPC. Read your own Slashdot link. The real news was that MacSlash "reported" that we dropped PPC support, even though we didn't. We never said that we would produce no more new stuff for PPC, but rather that we would not link to proprietary libraries. GNU-Darwin is assiduously consistent.

If you want GNU-Darwin background and a balanced view, ignore Pudge's "FUD" and try the following links.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2003/ 1/20/191655/929
http://www.gnu.org/brave-gnu-world/issue-25.en.htm l
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/01/2 028254&mode=thread

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 01:54 · Score: 0

In fact is is a common practice to run unverified binaries for one-time bootstrapping purposes. Wget is overwritten by an MD5 verified version during the subsequent installation processes.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 01:58 · Score: 0

This is FuD. GNU-Darwin does not overwrite any Apple installed binaries.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is Right! by pudge · 2003-07-31 02:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

We never said that we would produce no more new stuff for PPC, but rather that we would not link to proprietary libraries.

You yourself wrote: Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode. Read it yourself if you forget.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is Right! by proclus · 2003-07-31 02:15 · Score: 1, Informative

Give it a break Pudge. You are way over-modded, and you should know better. Maintanence mode means that we will continue to provide updates and support. Despite the bad press and acrimony that we faced as a result of the false report, we have continued to support Apple users, which is consistent with our stated mission.

Regards,

proclus

http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is Right! by pudge · 2003-07-31 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maintanence mode means that we will continue to provide updates and support.

So ... this is different from how it was before, how, exactly? And how does the addition of brand-new PPC packages square with this?

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is Right! by proclus · 2003-07-31 02:29 · Score: 0

So ... this is different from how it was before, how, exactly? And how does the addition of brand-new PPC packages square with this?

Isn't this a dead horse, Pudge? I think this means that the PPC side of the Distro is well maintained.

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is Right! by pudge · 2003-07-31 02:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Uh, since many people still think it means what I said it means, no, it is not a dead horse. Again, how is it different from what it was before? Is there an answer, or not?

the point by jbolden · 2003-07-31 02:38 · Score: 2, Informative

The point is easy. With Mac you get a business desktop almost as good Windows + a Unix dev box almost as good as Linux fully integrated. When you compare this with the alternatives like:

Windows & Cygwin, Linux & Wine, VMWare Mac offers the far better product.

People use Fink/Darwinports/GnuDarwin because they want more Unix software than what Apple provides out of the box.

Re:the point by 0x0d0a · 2003-07-31 03:13 · Score: 1

I think either I or you are misunderstanding the article. My understanding is that people are discussing a text-based (well, I suppose there's X support) Unix environment. This is does not contain the graphical stuff that's what Apple's selling.

--
May we never see th
Re:the point by jbolden · 2003-07-31 06:09 · Score: 1

GNU/Darwin, Fink, DarwinPorts... enhance the underlying Darwin level within OSX. I was saying the point of using Darwin over other Unixes is because there exists the rich collection of applications exclusively for Darwin (i.e. exclusively for OSX) while at the same time the Unix level wasn't much worse than a Linux.
Re:the point by 0x0d0a · 2003-07-31 19:49 · Score: 1

You can't run OS X applications on Darwin alone. You need OS X.

--
May we never see th
Re:the point by jbolden · 2003-08-01 13:49 · Score: 1

Reread the thread. There isn't another Unix that Aqua runs on top of.
Re:the point by 0x0d0a · 2003-08-02 05:20 · Score: 1

So? If I run out and use Darwin *alone*, I can't use Aqua.

--
May we never see th
Re:the point by proclus · 2003-08-02 07:29 · Score: 1

That is correct. There are quite a few of us running "Darwin-only", which means that we use Unix tools and X11 instead of OS X.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong by daeley · 2003-07-31 03:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Dude, I *emailed you* to confirm that story before I posted on MacSlash, and you confirmed it. Is there some other version of fair reporting you'd like?

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.

blink tags? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 04:58 · Score: 0

Their work is great, but using blink tags to advertise their stuff? I don't know what this world is coming to.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong by proclus · 2003-07-31 05:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes I did receive an email, but it did not include the title of the article. It was the title which was sensational, damaging, and factually incorrect.

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

what the fuck are you smoking? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 05:54 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Who else but proctanus, err, procleus, would call GNU/Darwin a major project? Face it, GNU/Darwin is the Darwin kernel (developed by Apple and various BSD folks), and a whole bunch of unrelated gnu software (developed by various other people).

GNU/Darwin has a sourceforge web page and a gasbag cheerleader, and little else.

Re:what the fuck are you smoking? by ratfynk · 2003-07-31 09:07 · Score: 1

If MS windows takes the educational high ground, then the axiom that the average computer user is stupid will be proven. Making scientific computing available at a low cost is a noble goal. Go write some useless windows junkware, or game, I am sure you can peddle it to the average computer user. But do not fault those who try to keep the arts and the sciences available to those with ability and little money. In short go take a flying f...

Yes this is flamebait but you friggin' deserve it.

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Re:what the fuck are you smoking? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 15:06 · Score: 0

do you know what you're talking about? GNU/Darwin isn't "Making scientific computing available at a low cost". It doesn't "try to keep the arts and the sciences available to those with ability and little money". It replaces Darwin's BSD command-line tools with GNU ones.
I fail to see how ls --color is in any way scientific.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by ProfKyne · 2003-07-31 05:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Guess that makes them eligible for the Darwin awards.

--
"First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."

Parent is pure flamebait. by BitGeek · 2003-07-31 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Macs have been a better deal pricewise than PCs since 1995.

Its time to stop modding up "insightful" every troll who comes along and whines about Macs being "expensive". IT just isn't true, and its a sure sign the person has never used a Mac.

And the point to Darwin, since you're ignorant of what it is, is that it has Apples new IO system, IOKit, and quite a variety of other stuff that is Apple written, and does not exist in BSD or Linux OSes (unless its migrated there.)

There's more to OSX than "eye candy".... if you were a Mac developer as you claim, you'd know that.

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257

Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 06:53 · Score: 0

"Macs have been a better deal pricewise than PCs since 1995."
I guess that's why I spent $2500 for a Dual G4 that's louder, slower, has less memory, has smaller harddrives, and has a crappier video card than the $1000 PC I bought?
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 14:09 · Score: 0

The mactards aren't that good with numbers.
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by 0x0d0a · 2003-07-31 20:02 · Score: 0

Macs have been a better deal pricewise than PCs since 1995.

I'm not sure what factors you're using in your calculation of "better deal". They certainly aren't the obvious cheaper per MFLOP or cheaper per byte of RAM or hard drive space. They aren't cheaper from a standpoint of number of folks you can serve on a webserver. You may have some metric that supports this, but I think that it's nonobvious enough that you need to expressly cite it for a claim like the one you made.

Its time to stop modding up "insightful" every troll who comes along and whines about Macs being "expensive".

You consider it trolling to complain about spending a lot of money?

IT just isn't true, and its a sure sign the person has never used a Mac.

Well, have it your way. I certainly can't prove it to you.

And the point to Darwin, since you're ignorant of what it is

I'm ignorant as to what additions from base BSD are in it, yes. I haven't been following Apple for years.

is that it has Apples new IO system, IOKit, and quite a variety of other stuff that is Apple written, and does not exist in BSD or Linux OSes (unless its migrated there.)

Hmm. This certainly is something, though I'm not sure many folks would choose an OS simply because they like the API for driver development.

There's more to OSX than "eye candy".... if you were a Mac developer as you claim, you'd know that.

I never developed on OS X. I gave up on Apple well before. Eye candy *is* the single most notable feature of OS X. When I left, Apple was still debating whether the BSD sockets interface was a good idea or not and whether Display Postscript should go in.

--
May we never see th
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by Phroggy · 2003-07-31 20:28 · Score: 1

Its time to stop modding up "insightful" every troll who comes along and whines about Macs being "expensive". IT just isn't true, and its a sure sign the person has never used a Mac.

*sigh*

Yes, there are trolls who say that Macs are too expensive. There are also a lot of honest and educated people who say it too. I could build a decent PC for around $500; the cheapest Mac is $800 with no DVD or CDRW and officially cannot be upgraded (aside from RAM and an AirPort card). I don't even have the kind of screwdriver that will open the case, and there are no expansion slots anyway.

If I wanted a dual-monitor setup, another $200 should get me a decent monitor and video card. The cheapest Mac I could add a second monitor to is the 1.25GHz PowerMac G4, $1300 (includes dual-head video card).

Apple's laptops and high-end desktops are price-competitive, but their low-end desktops are expensive.

By the way, I plan to sell my two fastest Macs to help pay for a dual-processor G5. I won't buy that $500 PC because Linux isn't good enough on the desktop and Windows is utter crap.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by BitGeek · 2003-08-01 05:05 · Score: 1

Your decent PC is nowhere neare the quality of even the eMac.

If you compare the price / performance you will find Macs are cheaper.

The ONLY people who think PCs are cheaper are either comparing fly-by-night no-brandname component PCs or think that MHz is a measure of the performance of the computer.

Thing is, you could buy a used Power Mac and upgrade it as you wish for less than the cost of an equivilent new PC.

There are almost no PC manufacturers that don't put out machines designed to die of power supply failure inside of 24 months, anymore. Dell certainly isnt' a quality manufacturer.

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by BitGeek · 2003-08-01 05:07 · Score: 1

No, that's why you're lying.

Course, its not uncommon for slashdot posters to be unable to discern the difference between clockrate and performance.

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by meme_police · 2003-08-01 05:29 · Score: 1

No, that's why you're lying.
Course, it's not uncommon for Mac fanatics to be unable to discern the difference between myth and reality.
Like I said, I use both PCs and Macs, a Mac being my primary desktop at home and a PC being my desktop at work, and there's a big difference in performance.

--
The meme police, They live inside of my head
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by meme_police · 2003-08-01 05:35 · Score: 1

"There are almost no PC manufacturers that don't put out machines designed to die of power supply failure inside of 24 months, anymore."
Now there's a troll if I ever saw one. All my clone PCs and Dells that are older than 24 months are working just fine. And since neither you nor I can predict when the younger machines will fail I say your really full of shit now.

--
The meme police, They live inside of my head
Re:Parent is pure flamebait. by BitGeek · 2003-08-01 08:17 · Score: 1

Of course there is-- a given mac will outperform PCs costing up to %50 more.

--
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257

ATTENTION, MODERATORS PLEASE by hummassa · 2003-07-31 06:56 · Score: 1

This is a Very, Very insightful post! I could not have described things better. Mod this up, up, up to the top please.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by Pathwalker · 2003-07-31 07:41 · Score: 1

In fact is is a common practice to run unverified binaries for one-time bootstrapping purposes.

It may be common, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

I am not even that concerned about the risk of someone replacing one of the startup files with a trojened version - that's why I only used cksum and not something stronger.

When I was trying to download the Gnu-Darwin wget binary to generate the checksum for that example code, it took me 3 or 4 tries. The webserver was overloaded, and kept dropping the connection after a partial transfer. Had I been trying to do an install, it would have failed in an unpredictable manner.

By at least including a simple checksum check (and possibly checking the exit codes from curl and wget rather than assuming success) in the install shell script, the install could have failed cleanly, and let me know what happened.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by proclus · 2003-07-31 08:08 · Score: 1

Thanks for the nice fix, and I've passed the info onto the GNU-Darwin developers. It will most likely appear in the next revision.

If you have any other helpful suggestions, please feel free to pass them along. Cheers!

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

Kinds of freedom by Trurl's+Machine · 2003-07-31 10:06 · Score: 1

as I said they're different kind of freedoms, one is not necessarily more free than the other. Which one you consider more free is simply based on which kind of freedom you value most.

Actually, there is a philosophical tool to roughly measure "more free" and "less free" kinds of freedom, IIRC developed by Isaiah Berlin. It's the concept of "negative freedom" vs "positive freedom". Despite the name, negative freedom is better than positive, as it gives you more options. When I say - "you have the right to wear a blue hat", I give you positive freedom. When I say - "I don't care about the kind of hat you wear", I give you negative freedom. Obviosly, your personal freedom is broader in the latter case.

This concept is particularly useful when discussing totalitarian ideologies vs liberal ones. Dictatorship often claim to give their citizens more positive freedom ("our citizens have right to this, that and that... and nothing else") while democracies give negative freedom ("our citizens can do anything that's not prohibited").

So, back to the GPL/BSD - I think it offers mostly "positive freedom" ("you have right to this and that, anything else is prohibited") while the BSD offers mostly "negative freedom" ("this and that is prohibited; otherwise, do as you please").

Re:Kinds of freedom by Halo1 · 2003-07-31 19:40 · Score: 1

So, back to the GPL/BSD - I think it offers mostly "positive freedom" ("you have right to this and that, anything else is prohibited") while the BSD offers mostly "negative freedom" ("this and that is prohibited; otherwise, do as you please").
I think it's more complicated in this case. The reason is that the GPL inherently causes more and more applications (or at least modifications to existing GPL applications) to be freely (Freely) available, while the BSD license does not enforce that. So the GPL sort of automatically introduces more choice, which in turn gives you more freedom on the level of choosing applications (what good does it do if you are allowed choose whatever you want, if there is only one choice?)

--
Donate free food here

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong by bsartist · 2003-07-31 10:41 · Score: 1

We never said that we would produce no more new stuff for PPC

I won't debate what your intentions were - only you know that for certain. All I can say is that the traditional and commonly accepted meaning of the term "maintenance mode" is precisely that - patches and bugfixes only, with no new stuff.

If you misspoke, misunderstood the terms you were using, or simply changed your mind - just say so. You'll sound far less foolish doing that, than by continuing your constant Clinton-esque "that depends on what you mean by maintenance" denials.

--
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong by proclus · 2003-07-31 10:56 · Score: 1

I don't think there is any ambiguity here at all. Just ask yourself what it means to maintain a Unix distro, then you will understand that this means keeping it current for the users. As a distribution-level project, GNU-Darwin must provide updates and new packages from time to time.

The confusion here arises solely from the incorrect headline at the time the story broke. There are no conspiracies or unseen agendas. We are only trying to reach Apple users with software freedom.

On the other hand, if people insist on believing and spreading falsehoods, then they might like to tell people that we don't support PPC. It is just that simple.

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

What were you thinking Hemos? by Jack+Auf · 2003-07-31 13:12 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Why oh why would you post another self aggrandizing "story" from Proclus, the world famous GNU-Darwin troll. I am not, in any respect, advocating censoring the irritant but for God sakes man don't encourage him either.

Proclus is nothing more than a Stallman-bot wannabe. If he was really serious about furthering Darwin he'd abandon GNU-Darwin and contribute his efforts to the OpenDarwin project.

--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong by bsartist · 2003-07-31 14:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

In your own words:

First, we are making explicit and binding the following policy. GNU-Darwin will not support or distribute any software which links to proprietary libraries...

Followed by:

Second, we will be moving our operations to x86, and we are putting the ppc collection into maintenance mode.

There's nothing at all ambiguous about this. You announced your intent to move your active development operations to x86, while putting ppc development into "maintenance mode." According to the commonly accepted, widely used meaning of the quoted term, your intent was to continue to apply patches and bug fixes to the packages you'd already made for ppc, but only create new packages only for x86.

The confusion here arises solely from the incorrect headline

Okay, let's run with that assertion. The natural question to ask is, why was the headline incorrect? Two possibilities come to mind. One is that you misused a common term, and the editors who wrote the headline assumed you were using it in the more commonly-accepted sense - given the general tone and context of the rest of the announcement, not to mention many of your messages prior to that, that's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

Another possibility is that the editors knew what you truly meant, but for some reason maliciously perverted the sense of your announcement for reasons of their own. As far as many of us are concerned, this idea isn't even half as credible as the first. To assume that every single one of the many editors out there misrepresented your statement would require a pretty high level of paranoia.

I'm giving you some benefit of the doubt, and assuming that your intentions were a bit more benign - let's say you really meant you'd be buying and using x86 workstations for most of your work, and treating ppc as a secondary target rather than your main focus. If that's the case, the fact is that your words and tone did not accurately convey your intent.

Or perhaps you wrote while angry, or frustrated, and later changed your mind. That's understandable - it happens to all of us from time to time.

You need to understand the fact that continuing to blame others for this misunderstanding is not helping your case or your cause. In the eyes of many in the community, you are damaging your own credibility as well as that of the project you represent. The best damage control you could possibly do right now would be to simply admit that you misspoke, or that you changed your mind. No one believes otherwise anyway, and your continuing denials are the reason the issue keeps coming up.

--
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!

Re:GNU-Darwin Background - Pudge is right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-31 15:01 · Score: 0

i have a suggestion: Fuck off. Go use red hat linux, you dick-face.

Re:GNU-Darwin Background: Pudge is wrong by proclus · 2003-08-01 05:49 · Score: 1

Thank you for all your kind attention to these various matters, which appears to be very well-intentioned.

I am unwilling to compromise the truth of the matter, which is that the Distribution was misrepresented not be me, but by the factitious headline at MacSlash, a simple lie. If it were not for that misreport, this conversation would not be taking place.

It is no surprise that such a sensational headline was picked up by other sites. There are many possible reasons for this, but we clearly live in times when lies are often repeated and amplified by many in the press. It is also no surprise that corporate media outlets did not pick up the story, despite Apple's stock drop ;-}. Real damage control means squashing falsehood.

Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

OK, HERE'S THE REASON by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-01 09:37 · Score: 0

While OSX is Apple only, Darwin runs on x86 hardware, as well as PPC hardware, and what ever else it's been ported to.

Darwin includes quicktime streaming software. It's backed by a large company who's known for quality software.

I personally find it usefull to run Darwin on X86 hardware. It allows people to try out the *NIX side of OSX before commiting to the hardware, and to verify that it meets their needs.

Re: Yes Free! (version 2.0) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-02 20:03 · Score: 0

Here it is, straight from the GNU's mouth:

"APSL version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a license that would qualify."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

With this proviso:

This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for your software.

(Darwin is not yet under APSL 2.0

what you mean to say is by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-03 14:49 · Score: 0

that was a time when they really were beleaguered.

135 comments