The GNU-Darwin World

proclus writes "The GNU-Darwin Distribution was founded to leverage the open source development dynamic and build the infrastructure for scientific computing on a new platform. Now GNU-Darwin is a major free software project, and the infrastructure, such as parallel computing and molecular graphics software is available to everyone via the web and on digital media discs. Check it out. Also, Apple has written up a story about it."

Comments

Re:I gave up on the Mac

[BrookHarty]

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:Confusing...

[Halo1]

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).

Which Darwin?

[CameronWolf]

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:I gave up on the Mac

[Senjaz]

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.

Re:Confusing...

[leviramsey]

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:I gave up on the Mac

[JonathanBoyd]

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.