Slashdot Mirror


Gentoo for Mac OS X Released

joeljkp writes "According to today's Gentoo Weekly News, Gentoo has released a new project: Gentoo MacOS (sic). This new distribution adds Portage, Gentoo's package manager, to Mac OS X, among other things."

73 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Cool by AlexanderYoshi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long until I can get Gentoo for my Xbox?

    1. Re:Cool by Wally+Fenderson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Still waiting for the commodore 64 version, myself.

      --
      It must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.
    2. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      there already is a distribution for xbox that is based on gentoo.
      its called http://gentoox.shallax.com/

      -Jonathan

    3. Re:Cool by Anubis350 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I run debian (xebian) on mine, but there is a gentoo (gentoox) distro out. check out xbox-linux.org, you might find it pretty cool

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  2. Full Text (images already /.'ed) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gentoo News
    -----------

    "Apple, we have a problem" - Gentoo MacOS X Released

    Figure 1.1: Derived from Apple's 'Redmond, we have a problem' campaign:
    The Gentoo MacOS announcement
    http://www.gentoo.org/images/gwn/200 40719_macos_pr oblem.png

    Almost exactly one year after the idea of porting Portage to MacOS X came
    up - and the joint Metapkg initiative[1] between Fink, Darwinports and
    Gentoo took off - a 20-head-strong developer team around Pieter van den
    Abeele[2] (strategic lead) and Daniel Ostrow[3] (operational) is now ready
    to release an extraordinary beast into the wild: Gentoo MacOS. They
    deliver on a promise no other Linux distribution has been daring enough to
    make yet: Portage on MacOS is now fully operational, seamlessly integrated
    as a package manager in a non-Linux operating system. It initially serves
    the main purpose of an SDK for inclusion of new packages, testing and
    patching. Granted, KDE isn't ported yet, but make no mistake: Gentoo MacOS
    is ready for consumption by Macintosh users who want, say, scientific DTP
    via TeX, something they will now be able to simply emerge in OS X just
    like they'd do in Gentoo Linux."Right now it's a tool to install lots of
    commonly requested applications on OS X", explains Pieter van den Abeele.
    "But in a few months, we'll have a port system that builds Darwin from
    scratch, provides a standardised lookup and installation routine for
    Dashboard widgets[4], enhancements and tools like the Desktop Manager[5]
    and many, many more popular OS X applications." Downloading the Gentoo
    MacOS Installer provides users with a patched portage, its tree, and the
    Python modules. It sets environment variables and demands a bootstrapping
    shell script to be run before the first emerge that detects the operating
    system (Panther or Tiger), chooses the relevant profiles and injects every
    application it finds already installed in MacOS X.

    1. http://www.metapkg.org
    2. pvdabeel gentoo.org
    3. dostrow gentoo.org
    4. http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/dashboard.html
    5. http://wsmanager.sourceforge.net/

    Figure 1.2: Taming the Tiger with a double-click: The Gentoo MacOS
    Installer
    http://www.gentoo.org/images/gwn /20040719_macos_in staller.png

    Since Gentoo's own GCC ebuild for MacOS X isn't ready yet, compiling is
    currently done using the Xcode development tools[6] which include GCC 3.3
    provided by Apple. "People already on Tiger can experiment with GCC 3.5",
    adds Pieter. Tiger, the new release of MacOS X, is due in 2005 with its
    brandnew database filesystem Spotlight[7], modernised video services and
    many other features. The Gentoo MacOS developers are busy polishing the
    knobs (a Cocoa user interface is part of the plan), getting iSync[8]
    integration to work (emerge an application on one machine, automatically
    replicate onto all other Macs in a LAN), right down to making Catalyst
    produce Darwin LiveCDs... "But first the cool stuff, then Darwin",
    chuckles strategic lead Pieter. Even though his team is already larger
    than the entire Gentoo Linux PPC developer group, they still train new
    devs almost daily, and whoever wants to help with the project is very
    welcome to get in touch. The public Wiki[9] holds installation
    instructions and serves as a reporting tool for packages outside of
    Portage that already compile without bombing out. The Gentoo MacOS
    Installer can be downloaded from here[10].

    6. http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/xcode.html
    7. http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlighttech.ht ml
    8. http://www.apple.com/isync/
    9. http://gentoo-wiki.com/Gentoo_MacOS
    10. http://www.metadistribution.org/macos/
    Full size (1024x768) screenshots of the Gentoo MacOS installation
    procedure:
    * Installer starts[11]
    * Detection of OS version and installed software[12]
    * Still busy injecting detected

    1. Re:Full Text (images already /.'ed) by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Informative
      Tiger, the new release of MacOS X, is due in 2005 with its brand new database filesystem Spotlight[7], modernised video services and many other features.
      It's not a database filesystem. I wrote an entry in my journal on the subject, and I'd quote it here if /. weren't so laggy right now. But Spotlight is just indexing the same metadata that is in HFS+ under Jaguar, plus data that it pulls out of the file, not out of the filesystem. There is significant improvement in the mechanism and the interface, but it is not a "database filesystem."

      Comparing WinFS and Spotlight is like comparing .NET and .Mac - Apple is delivering the features that end users will receive from MS's pie in the sky technology, without implementing the actual technology. (And Jobs actually compared WinFS to Spotlight in the keynote, just as he actually compared .NET to .Mac in the keynote that killed iTools.)

      No, I'm not dissing Apple and I'm not dissing Microsoft. I'm just saying...
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    2. Re:Full Text (images already /.'ed) by loosifer · · Score: 5, Informative

      But Spotlight is just indexing the same metadata that is in HFS+ under Jaguar, plus data that it pulls out of the file, not out of the filesystem. There is significant improvement in the mechanism and the interface, but it is not a "database filesystem."

      As far as I can tell, that is incorrect; Dominic (the authoer of BeFS) has added additional metadata capabilities to HFS+, so Spotlight is actually 1) indexing that metadata, and 2) using interpreters to pull and index data from various file formats. See those post, for instance. While I agree that this does not create a true database filesystem, I would say that it's close to what BeOS had, which is the closest anyone has come.

      I must admit interest in MS's claim that they're going to create a true database filesystem; while it is obviously technically feasible, it's just as stupid now as it was years ago when Be decided to back off theirs. Thus, I expect MS to produce a solution that does what they said it would do while sucking so much that no one uses it. It will be interesting to watch.

      As to the claim that Apple is just doing all front-end stuff while MS is actually doing technology, I call baloney on that one. Apple has been good recently at creating and then utilyzing really good technology (although it's usually protocols, not servers). All of the technology available via .Mac is available to everyone, even if the servers themselves aren't. I can (and did) create a WebDAV server to store and share my calendars, and I can mount this WebDAV server as a local filesystem. Rendezvous/Zeroconf is another good example of a tech that Apple has developed, championed, and then been a real leader on.

      I agree that there are big differences, though: Spotlight is based on proven technology and will surely arrive in 2005, while WinFS is a huge gamble, will increase costs dramatically (both licensing and maintenance), and will also arrive no earlier than 2006, without actually being based on proven tech at all. If their history is anything to go by, it will be 2010 or so before WinFS is usable.

    3. Re:Full Text (images already /.'ed) by Qamelian · · Score: 3, Informative

      "while WinFS is a huge gamble, will increase costs dramatically (both licensing and maintenance), and will also arrive no earlier than 2006, without actually being based on proven tech at all. If their history is anything to go by, it will be 2010 or so before WinFS is usable."

      MS has already announced that WinFS is being withdrawn from Longhorn along with several other technologies, all of which have now been pushed back to the following Windows release("Blackcomb"). This was a result of basically two factors. First, there were too many difficulties in hitting the target dates unless some items were dropped. Second, too many third-party developers were at best apathetic over the concept of supporting some of the features, most notably Microsoft's "Trusted Computing" platform.

    4. Re:Full Text (images already /.'ed) by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'd already read the article you link to. It is what I base my point on. There are additional metadata capabilities in Tiger, but they are not part of the fileystem. Your ID3 tags are not being stored in HFS+ metadata. Everyone who thinks that HFS+ will have user-extendable metadata or a database-driven filesystem will be disappointed. It is not a database filesystem. That's perfectly OK with me.
      As to the claim that Apple is just doing all front-end stuff while MS is actually doing technology, I call baloney on that one.
      You seem to misunderstand. I called it MS's "pie in the sky" technology for a reason. My analogy is a good one.
      I agree that there are big differences, though: Spotlight is based on proven technology and will surely arrive in 2005, while WinFS is a huge gamble, will increase costs dramatically (both licensing and maintenance), and will also arrive no earlier than 2006, without actually being based on proven tech at all.
      You say that as if you had made the point, rather than me.
      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    5. Re:Full Text (images already /.'ed) by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 2, Informative
      Rumor has it that Google will sell you client/server software to make this happen on your LAN.

      No rumour - I suspect this is a reference to the Google Search Appliance. You just need to make your resources, as far as I know, accessible via http.

      YLFI
      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
  3. Server, we have a problem by Petronius · · Score: 3, Funny

    3 posts and it's already slashdotted. nice.

    --
    there's no place like ~
  4. I see that it's a catchy headline, but ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how exactly is this a problem for Apple?

    1. Re:I see that it's a catchy headline, but ... by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Interesting

      or you could run GNU and other open source software on Windows. There's already a Gentoo on Cygwin project too.

    2. Re:I see that it's a catchy headline, but ... by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a poke at Apple's "Redmond, we have a problem" marketing campaign". It's funny, laugh.

      Oh well, maybe it should have been "Cupertino, we have a problem".

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  5. Yea, and? by soybean · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does this do that fink doesn't already (for the last few years) do?

    1. Re:Yea, and? by hunterx11 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This one goes to 11.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    2. Re:Yea, and? by justforaday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What does this do that fink doesn't already (for the last few years) do?

      Well, this one can compile the packages from source. Oh wait, Fink already does that...Yeah, how does this really differ from the Fink project, other than being based on Gentoo's portage system?

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    3. Re:Yea, and? by Otter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I could well just be missing something, but I've had a lot of problems with the selection granularity in fink -- e.g. trying to build x-chat without dragging in all of GNOME. USE flags would be a very nice alternative.

    4. Re:Yea, and? by Massacrifice · · Score: 5, Informative

      I recently moved bask from Gentoo-PPC to Mac OS X + Fink lately after my Linux HD crashed, so I'll tell you what I am missing the most about Gentoo.

      First, there are a quite a bunch of advanced build options in Portage that are not available under Fink (see /etc/make.conf). USE variable, easy distcc, easy ccache, powerful package query... These are things that you can't go without once you've tried them.

      Fink is nice, but its package tree is smaller and less up to date than Portage is. Besides, nobody will prevent you from having both.

      Apart from Portage, Gentoo offers multiple system management facilities. I don't know if these will be ported, but things like rc-update (init script management) and java-config really help.

      Finally, I think that what will set Gentoo-MacOS apart from Fink is the number of developper and community size. That is something that cannot be duplicated.

      --
      -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
  6. emerge karmawhore by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gentoo is one of the best distros out there. I use it on x86 and it was easy to install and set up. I had more trouble on mandrake than on gentoo. The best thing it has going for it is portage. This system of automatically downloading and compiling software is only appriciated when you've gone through RPM hell or dependency hell when compiling from scratch. I was using mandrake previously, and this is definately faster. I encourage everyone who uses a distro like mandrake, fedora, or SuSE to look into gentoo.

    I've only been using linux for a few months and gentoo for a week or so but I already see how well produced it is. I used to get annoyed at gentoo zealots, but I see what they were talking about.

    Oh, and the compiling software isn't that bad. I've spent more time searching for packages and dependecies than typing "emerge k3b". Don't believe all the hype of course, but don't believe the FUD either. Gentoo is where it's at!

    Now to make this a little more on-topic, I'm happy that gentoo is trying to make more headway into apple hardware. I think that this will only encourage apple to help and contribute to the OSS community even more. MacOS is probably the most refined modern operating system, but giving it a little more competition can't hurt.

    1. Re:emerge karmawhore by Bold+Marauder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Personally, on x86 I had far more problems with setting up gentoo (I have to compile a kernel during the installation? how fucked up is that?) than I ever had with using packages under mandrake (particularly when using easy urpmi.

      I mean, different stroke for different folks, certainly. But gentoo's strenth is its' ability to squeeze 0.0008 percent more processing power out of your 2.4ghz computer; not ease of use or installation. That arena is where (imho) mandrake really shines.

    2. Re:emerge karmawhore by Joseph+Vigneau · · Score: 5, Interesting

      gentoo's strenth is its' ability to squeeze 0.0008 percent more processing power out of your 2.4ghz computer

      Actually, that is not Gentoo's primary strength. Its strength is from the amount of flexibility that portage provides for package dependency. With binary-oriented distributions, you are forced to use the same configuration settings that were chosen by the package maintainer. Portage has the concept of "USES", which is basically a list of flags that the build uses to figure out what options to use during compilation. For example, many packages can be integrated with GNOME. I don't use GNOME. With other distributions, if the package was built with GNOME dependencies, I'd be forced to install GNOME. If the package was built without GNOME, some GNOME user wouldn't be able to take advantage of GNOME-specific features. With Portage, you can specify via the USES variable whether or not you want to have a dependancy on GNOME or not. As a side effect, you get the CPU-optimization "for free".

    3. Re:emerge karmawhore by bob670 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm going to agree with you on all points. I bought a Shuttle SK41G, GeForce4, Athlon XP 2000+ and 2x256 DDR a few weeks ago. From out of the box, assembly time and then OS install was about one hour 15 minutes with all hardware recognized correctly, all updates installed and a usable desktop, office suite, Internet tools, etc... A quick install of the nVidia driver updates and some extra software gooodness via urpmi and I was off and running in about 90 minutes.

      Compared to a couple days to get the same results with Gentoo, which is an outstanding distro, but not the distro to break Linux onto the mainstream desktop. Any casual PC user who has built a gaming PC or even tinkered around with his Dell could get Mandrake up and usable in less than an hour, Gentoo however is another story. Of course Gentoo wasn't aimed at that market, but the parent poster can't possibly paint Gentoo as easy to install and not expect some rebuttals.

    4. Re:emerge karmawhore by Zapdos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How f..cked up is mandrake in order to install sdl-dev i have to install arts-dev wich of course needs kde-libs-dev etc.. etc..
      Now does sdl really need arts? Nope it was a packaging decision made for you by Mandrake. In order to feed the need of the unwashed masses that is what they have to do.

      Gentoo's strengths are many:
      1. Better optimizations
      2. USE statements allow you to fine tune your system libraries
      3. Upgrades to the latest version is as simple as using emerge.
      4. etc...

    5. Re:emerge karmawhore by javiercero · · Score: 3, Funny

      He was just giving an example, you anal retentive geek....

    6. Re:emerge karmawhore by Mr.Ned · · Score: 2, Informative

      While in a binary distribution you are forced to use the ./configure settings of the maintainer, that's not always incompatible with compartmentalizing part of software. For example, on Debian, if I look at postfix packages, I see this:

      postfix - A high-performance mail transport agent
      postfix-dev - Postfix loadable modules development environment
      postfix-doc - Postfix documentation
      postfix-ldap - LDAP map support for Postfix
      postfix-mysql - MYSQL map support for Postfix
      postfix-pcre - PCRE map support for Postfix
      postfix-pgsql - PGSQL map support for Postfix
      postfix-tls - TLS and SASL support for Postfix

      In Gentoo I would put LDAP, MYSQL, POSTGRES, or something similar in my USE flags. I can accomplish the same thing with binary packages if they are properly made, as in the example of postfix - if I want to add LDAP support, I can just install that. The same thing goes for desktop packages - there are quite a few -gnome packages in the Debian archives, and I'm sure you'd find the same thing for Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, or any of the others.

      It's just a different approach to the same concept. Don't knock binary distributions as inflexible.

    7. Re:emerge karmawhore by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny
      Compiling everything will take more time than you will ever save by adding a few optimizations!

      Sorry, but my time is valuable

      Your time is valuable, but the computer's time is not. I recommend you use a program called "gcc" to compile, instead of manually translating C into machine language by hand. What this will allow you to do, is have the computer do all this compiling work, while you can do anything you want (write a program, sleep, watch a movie, drink beer, hang out under the escalator at the mall and try to look up girls' dresses, send radio messages to the UFOs to try to get them to return Elvis -- almost anything!), without it taking any of your time.

      Linux has changed a lot since 1957. I'm tellin' ya, these fully automated compilers are the shit!!

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    8. Re:emerge karmawhore by Matheus+Villela · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is a pratical view for what you said:

      root@emulacao matheus # USE="kerberos samba -berkdb" emerge -av openldap

      These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

      Calculating dependencies ...done!
      [ebuild N ] app-crypt/mit-krb5-1.3.3-r1 -krb4 -static 6,210 kB
      [ebuild R ] net-nds/openldap-2.1.26 -berkdb +crypt -debug +gdbm -ipv6 +kerberos -odbc +perl +readline +samba -sasl -slp +ssl +tcpd 0 kB

      Total size of downloads: 6,210 kB

      Do you want me to merge these packages? [Yes/No]


      And here my global USE flags:

      USE="X 3dnow sse mmx 3dnowext alsa opengl sdl jpeg png avi mpeg gnome gtk2 -java -hardened -kde -qt -arts mysql php -pie -static"

      Gentoo is great, of course isn't always perfect, an example is with the xorg/xfree, whem xorg come out the portage was crazy, many apps was looking to xfree instead virtual/x11 to resolve dependencies, but in a few weeks everything becomes ok.

      I use Gentoo for time_i_use_linux - 1 month
      time_i_use_linux = 1 year

      And i can't see nothing in other distro that i don't have in my gentoo, portage is fantastic :)

    9. Re:emerge karmawhore by Woody77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What made me leave red-hat was actually the pain and suffering involved with installing source-code provided drivers for my printer (hp inkjet). It required a newer version of Ghostscript than I could get via an rpm.

      And the source version of Ghostscript installed to a different place than RedHat had deemed was appropriate. And uninstalling the binary version either broke everything, or didn't work, depending on how I went about doing it.

      Eventually, I hacked away at it long enough to get it to work.

      Gentoo uses the source's own ./configure and install scripts. Things go where the developers meant them to go, which means that if I need to get a different version, or patch things on my own, I can do that with a minimum of pain.

      Initial install from Stage1 is slow, and a PITA, granted. But I spend less time in front of the computer than I did with an install of RedHat where I attempted to choose what I wanted installed. Downloading over a slow connection is rough, but my computer doesn't need to sleep or go to work, so it really doesn't bother me. For home use, I don't mind a 6-hour compile time, I'm not baby-sitting it through it. It just does it.

      But once I've got the system installed, maintainance is cake, especially for security patches.

      Another nice benefit is that Redhat was bumping revs at an insane speed, and rpms for RH9 wouldn't work with RH7. Not a problem with portage. With portage, it's what packages I have installed, not which version of the OS. And I can upgrade the whole box to the latest sources with a single command.

      And no, my CFLAGS only fit on one line.

  7. Gentoo MacOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    um, isn't that 'Gentoo MacOS' a tad misleading? It's like calling x86 Linux 'Linux Windows'

    1. Re:Gentoo MacOS? by Noksagt · · Score: 5, Informative

      um, isn't that 'Gentoo MacOS' a tad misleading? It's like calling x86 Linux 'Linux Windows'
      No--this isn't an OS (gentoo has run on the Mac hardware for sometime). Rather it is a native OS X port of portage and other gentoo utilities. It would be like calling cygwin "cygwin" (in other words Cygnus + GNU on windows).

    2. Re:Gentoo MacOS? by keesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really. Gentoo isn't limited to Linux -- the Gentoo/Linux name was dropped a long time ago. There're ports underway for *BSD, OSX and possibly IRIX.

    3. Re:Gentoo MacOS? by DaCool42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps "Portage MacOS X" would make more sense?

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
  8. Am I missing something? by Moofie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I read that blurb, and I still don't know what the significance of this release is.

    "Right now, you can use it to install TeX! Someday, you might be able to install some other stuff!"

    I mean, I suppose this is kool and the gang, but what is the problem that is being solved here? Maybe I'm just not clear on the concept.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  9. In case you don't get it. by torpor · · Score: 5, Interesting


    This means (sorta, as in 'soon') that a Mac-user will be able to rebuild their own OSX box, using the Gentoo scripts, and still be able to maintain compatability with all OSX apps.

    In other words, a 'better build system: a public one' has been unleashed on a commercial operating system, so that - separate from the company itself - alternative builds of the OS can be done, publically.

    Why is this good? Because with Gentoo you can take personal risks that Apple can't. Gentoo allows you to build a system "Just for You", whereas Apple have to compile/link things "For Everyone".

    Expect to see highly-tuned Gentoo boxes running GentooMacOS in the future, smokin' 'Factory OS' setups. I'll be digging into this a bit further, next point release sort of thing, and if I get the same results out of applying Gentoo to my OSX machine as I have with my Linux boxes, I'm excited. I may man I can put off a hardware upgrade or two and just 'Take Things To The Next Level' on my aging Powerbook...

    Oh, and in case you think Apple should be 'worried about' this, it seems to me that they already get the point. With all the OS releases they've been doing lately, and the upgrades/improvements in the one area 'open source' is lacking: usability, and it seems to me that they're positioned well to be 'competing with the Open Source Base' ... but thats just my personal opinion.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:In case you don't get it. by mikrorechner · · Score: 3, Informative
      In other words, a 'better build system: a public one' has been unleashed on a commercial operating system, so that - separate from the company itself - alternative builds of the OS can be done, publically.
      I think you forgot that while the source for Darwin, the system "under the hood" of OS X, is available, the UI is not. That means no Quartz, Spotlight or Core Image technologies, and no applications like the Finder or Expose.

      Now, who would want a Mac without all this? That stuff, among other, makes it special. If you want only the underlying system, you can install OpenBSD right now.
      --
      "Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
    2. Re:In case you don't get it. by torpor · · Score: 3, Interesting


      You can still -RUN- all that stuff, its just that Gentoo will let you fine-tune all the goodness (kernel, system /bin's, /usr/bin's, etc) even further, around it, and yet still maintain a fully working properly configured system.

      This one really does go up to 11.

      And since its Open Source, Apple can instantly turn around, and start using it themselves.

      Its not "Apple, we have a problem.", its "Apple, we have source."

      They (Apple) certainly get the point...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    3. Re:In case you don't get it. by goMac2500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure you understand what this is... It is basically a Gentoo package manager, allowing you to downwload and compile Linux programs on OS X. Yes, it does sound like it could build the Darwin kernel. No, this will not magically make your computer faster. Apple has worked hard to ensure Darwin is already extremely fast. Not only that, their kernal extension system already disables kernal extensions you don't need. If anything the bottleneck is in Aqua, most likely in Windowserver. You cannot simply use a different Windowserver (like X11) and expect all your OS X apps to run. Windowserver contains a lot of custom code to create memory space foundations unique for Cocoa and Carbon (gotta load those Carbon resource files into memory). Windowserver is not open source and not able to be recompiled. There is no magical way to make X run faster. And I hate to break it to you... but Linux is starting to get just as slow with X11.

  10. That's why the Metapkg Alliance was formed by Shinzaburo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Metapkg Alliance was formed explicitly to improve cooperation between Fink, Gentoo, and DarwinPorts. Besides, have you actually tried Gentoo MacOS yet? Perhaps it offers (or will eventually offer) a significantly large value proposition over the other port distributors. Only time will tell.

    1. Re:That's why the Metapkg Alliance was formed by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I use Fink right now on my iBook, and use Gentoo Linux on my PCs. The advantages Portage has over Fink (that I've noticed) are that Fink doesn't have a
      --pretend
      option (which shows what packages will be installed, without actually installing them), and the ability to (easily*) install unstable packages on a per-package basis (you have to completely switch Fink to the unstable tree, while with portage you can
      ACCEPT-KEYWORDS="~<i>arch</i>" emerge <i>packagename</i>
      )

      *I think there might be a way to install a single package from unstable, but it's a complicated dirty hack
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  11. My Only Question by tunabomber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will it handle the X11 dependency gracefully? I spent many, many hours trying to get Fink either to recognize that I had XFree86 installed as a binary or to compile it from source without getting errors all over the place. I'm not a newbie to package managers like apt and ports, but despite this I eventually ended up giving up trying to install X11 apps with Fink because I just didn't have the time to spend trying to get it to work properly. As a result, I am now using Quicken instead of GNUCash.

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
  12. Re:OK, so... by doodlelogic · · Score: 4, Funny
    where do I download the source code for OSX?
    Uhm... here?
  13. Oh the, err for want of a better word, 'Humanity'! by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear God, No!

    All idiotic zealtory of Gentoo with all the, well, mindless zealotry of Mac! A winning combination!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  14. Resistance is Futile by Locarius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...all your base are belongs to gentoo I can not say enough good things about the direction this Distro is going. Future of Linux, or the future of all OS's?

  15. Re:Fink? by Shinzaburo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Gentoo MacOS brings the Gentoo Portage package management system to Mac OS X. Yes, it provides functionality similar to Fink and DarwinPorts, and all three solutions have agreed to cooperate in the future.

    Portage seems to have several advantages over the other package management tools, including the following summary from the Portage manual:
    Multiple versions and revisions of the same package in the tree, conditional dependency resolution and feature support, fine-grained package management, sandboxed safe installation, configuration file protection, profiles, and much more.
  16. Re:make sense? by Joseph+Vigneau · · Score: 4, Interesting
  17. I don't think you get it by Shinzaburo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think the parent poster "forgot" that the Mac OS X UI source isn't available for custom compiles. That's not what Gentoo MacOS is about -- it's about being able to easily install and update popular *nix software on Mac OS X.

    Who would want a Mac without Quartz, Spotlight, etc? I certainly wouldn't give up these features. But some people might want to use alternate desktop managers on Apple hardware. Just because you're not interested in doing so doesn't mean there is no reason for others to want to.

    Besides, you don't necessarily have to forgo the Finder and Exposé to use Gentoo MacOS. It's a package manager, and as such can install a bunch of *nix tools that work alongside Mac OS X without replacing it.

  18. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    MacOSX != Darwin.

    You may be able to get Darwin's source, but good luck getting the rest of MacOSX source. This shouldn't be called Gentoo MacOS its should be called Gentoo Darwin.

    At least the MacOS zealots have something to be zealotishious about, Gentoo zealots only have zealotness to be zealotishius about. Obviously.

  19. Re:Yes! Finally! Optimized MacOS! by Antihero77 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Doesn't anyone know the right compiler flags? Does O4 work on a Mac?! AWESOME! I'm going to go recompile my Gentoo in celebration of this huge day.

    See ya in 6 months.

    --
    and now Tom with the weather...
  20. Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Shallax has been kicked off gentoo because he refused to work as part of a team or commit the xbox patches back to gentoo. At this point in time gentoox has nothing to do with gentoo, and he is violating the "gentoo" trademark by using the name.

    1. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're not entirely correct.

      http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=1195349

  21. how's its hygiene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the most awesomeliest things about Fink is that it installs everything in root /sw, no exceptions (i.e. /sw/bin, /sw/usr/lib, etc). That means you don't have to worry about contaminating the Apple-controlled parts of the OS, and uninstalling all customizations is just a matter of trashing /sw. I would never even think of installing anything in /usr or /usr/local (because it "belongs" to Apple).

    Does Gentoo MacOS do the same thing? If not, why not????

    1. Re:how's its hygiene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Installing in /sw is the stupidest part about fink. It should be /opt at worst, but /usr/local is perfectly safe to use. It's just a lot easier to use that way. It's a cinch to compile external apps from source because they already know how to deal with /usr/local. It was a pain in the butt trying to get all the right flags when fink was installed in /sw. Apple will not touch stuff that you put in /usr/local. They don't "own" that directory. It exists for the very purpose of the administrator installing his own packages. The "danger" of installing to /usr/local is overstated and you should just ignore fink's stupid warnings.

      If it turns out that Gentoo/MacOS does install to a stupid non-standard directory, I'm going to be very unhappy.

    2. Re:how's its hygiene? by saitoh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I rmemeber correctly, part of what was the big hitch against fink originally was that it broke rank and did that. /usr/local is your stuff, period. Nothing should be put in /usr/bin unless apple installed it, but /usr/local/bin is just your stuff. And fink basically just kinda gave everyone the finger when they said no and put it elsewhere.

      Its kinda like, install the Dev tools, then compile something from scratch, where does it go when you do 'make install'? It puts it in /usr/local/bin. Thats just how unix works, and since we are essentailly using a FreeBSD base, thats how it works (notice the reversal of more/less)

      I can see arguments both for and against this, but one thing that portage does is it keeps track of what is *your* stuff, and where that stuff is, so if you dont like something, you can remove just that. Now, I've only had to do this once, and what I did was not tied to shared libraries, so someone else who uses Gentoo will need to chime in here (my server was done with "measure twice, cut once" planning).

      But I can see how it can safeguard against that for each replease of OSX, given various components built into portage.

      Now, I do understand the reasoning by using /sw, and it is a different way of doing stuff (and what it accomplishes is a very valid point, of keeping things seperate as you noted), just one that some people dont like, or have other reasons against which I am not well versed in.

      - Page

      --
      We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
    3. Re:how's its hygiene? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Judging by the screenshot here:
      http://www.metadistribution.org/macos/8.png

      It seems that it puts stuff into /usr/bin

      I don't know what the effects of that would be on an OS X system.

    4. Re:how's its hygiene? by akiro · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://gentoo-wiki.com/Gentoo_MacOS

      From the documentation: "Portage installs things in / and could possibly overwrite important packages that were installed by OS X. Use this technology at your own risk!".

      I think I'll stick to fink for now, they could at least have used /usr/local and not mess with / :-/

  22. Re:Let's get it straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..." I DON'T want linux software..."

    Is someone twisting your arm to install OSS stuff?

  23. No, Apple *has* a problem by ink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And Gentoo is the solution. OSX is shipped with a very stripped-down UNIX program suite. Fink addresses the problem nicely, and Gentoo looks like it's aiming at the same problem. I don't think the author meant that Gentoo on OSX *is* the problem.

    --
    The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
  24. Ah...But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The real question is, when is portage going to move over to a real opreating system? ...ya know. Like Windows.

  25. Re:OK, so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Aqua : OS X :: Gnome : Linux

    OS X is Darwin, but OS X also includes additional software. As in all Unixes, the GUI in OS X is not an integral part of the operating system. There are even OS X users who boot to a console, and then run X if they want a GUI.

  26. Re:Let's get it straight... by halivar · · Score: 4, Funny

    I WAN'T MacOS software, it's user friendliness, simplicity, consistency and excelent graphical core with all that eye candy on my x86 machine. Without a loss of speed. Clear enough?

    And I WANT a Ferrari Testarossa that gets 40 miles to the gallon. AND I want laser beams on the hood! Clear enough?

  27. Re:OK, so... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nice try, but no. The point of Gentoo MacOS is to use Apple's well-designed, proprietary OS with popular, open-source applications. If you want, go get Gentoo for Macintosh hardware / PPC, but you'll lose the benefits of Mac OS X. Not everything has to be open-sourced; frankly, there would be no was OS X could have reached the state it is in now had it been developed open source. There wouldn't have been enough incentive for Apple's talented developers, and management wouldn't have been motivated to include it with Apple computers.

  28. Partially working for solaris too by Stonent1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Portaris, Portage on Solaris

    Just something I've toyed around with. The major stumbling block is that the developers need to add the ability for portage to recognize other oses. Mine isn't really a complete project, more of a log of stuff I've done. Others have followed and managed to get things like KDE to fully install in solaris using portage.

  29. Windows XP by green+pizza · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hi, I'm Joe Q Developer. I only write small freeware apps, so Microsoft won't even talk to me. So please tell me where I can legally download the source to Windows XP?

    Oh, I can't?

    Apple may not release the source to its higher level frameworks, but everything you need for low-level hooks is right there in Darwin. Hell, that's most of the OS.

  30. Re:OK, so... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Informative
    No, Darwin is OS X. What you don't get is the window manager and other nice software but the OS is a free download.

    You are free to develop console apps or develop OS X apps that run on X-Windows.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  31. Re:I have a bad feeling... by Woody77 · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Redmond, the 11 goes to you?

  32. Why did you bother posting? by paz5 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Guess you were right. About the modding part that is...

  33. Re:Why would you install Linux on a Mac? by cangeceiro · · Score: 2, Informative

    in this case you arent putting linux on the mac. it is mearly adopting gentoo's portage system to the mac. So you are still running OS X, you just have the kewlness of portage.
    personally i am canning fink as soon as i can get this damn dmg downloaded

  34. Repeat once again: WinFS is NOT a filesystem ! by theefer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I must admit interest in MS's claim that they're going to create a true database filesystem

    I read this occasionally on /., but it is wrong. WinFS is not a (database) filesystem, and this is why the FS in WinFS does not stand for FileSystem but FutureStorage (there must have been a contest to find such a stupid name). WinFS is a database over NTFS that remains the filesystem. It just adds meta-data to files, but in a separate database.

    I went to a mini-conference by a ms evangelist, and he repeated it many times.

    I'd be more interested in what Reiser4 does with metadata, it seems much more interesting than a mere additionnal layer.

    --
    theefer
  35. Re:OK, so... by bfg9000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...there would be no was OS X could have reached the state it is in now had it been developed open source. There wouldn't have been enough incentive for Apple's talented developers, and management wouldn't have been motivated to include it with Apple computers.

    Except, of course, that it would drive sales of Macs, exactly as it has done. Apple wouldn't sell half the units if it weren't for OS X. And if you're worried someone else will take the source and port it to x86, that's irrelevant. The important functionality has been mostly duplicated WITHOUT having the source code; Expose, the Aqua look, the swooshy dock, brushed metal, the MenuBar... all are available elsewhere WITHOUT it being open sourced. So keeping it closed didn't help them keep a monopoly on their ideas, because once somebody sees a good idea, everyone else uses it. And that's okay. It's what we've always done, at least back to the time someone started copying Henry Ford's assembly line idea so they could compete effectively, thus creating the auto industry that gives us cheap, reliable automobiles. Society gets better by constantly taking other people's ideas ("standing on the shoulders of giants"), improving on them and reselling them. And then the other guy is forced to innovate again to stay ahead. That's capitalism. Capitalism doesn't work without competition to drive quality up and prices down. We argue against it when our favorite company is getting copied, but they copy people as well, regardless of what the zealots say. Konfabulator, Watson, Xerox Parc's GUI ideas, BSD guts, the iMac idea which an artist apparently submitted to Apple as an idea. No company is an island unto itself; everybody is affected by the innovations of others. And opening the source wouldn't help x86 or Linux or whatever duplicate the "whole widget" effect which is the main selling point of the MacOS, because the relevant code would only apply to the exact Mac hardware it was written for -- which means you gotta buy a Mac to get the "whole widget" effect, or make your own hardware and software yourself.

    In short, it wouldn't hurt Apple a bit. Sure, somebody might port OS X and run it on their Toshiba, but the user wouldn't be buying a Mac anyway; they've already got a Toshiba. And the "whole widget" smoothness wouldn't be there, so it'd be more like running a crappy version of linux than the real OS X on the real hardware. They'd get bored and go back to Windows, or spring for a real Mac if they liked it enough. And Apple might sell a few more copies of iLife.

    Not that I think Apple should waste their time porting OSX, I just know that some large firms don't allow closed-source, proprietary code on their servers due to security concerns. The Chinese government said they found an NSA backdoor in Windows; I would assume the NSA also ordered one put on the Mac.

    --

    I'm not normally an irrational zealous dickhead, but I figure "When in Rome..."

  36. Re:Yes now you can have a bastarized OS by michaelggreer · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure you understand what this is. It doesn't install Linux, or any part of it. It installs Unix apps, many of which are also included in Linux distributions. By far most of them are command-line. I need these (Perl libs, graphviz,etc.). If you don't need them, or don't know what they are, then don't use them.

  37. Re:Package management and OS X by mdarksbane · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't think of these as OS X applications. What a portage tree does, or X11 on OS X does, is give a mac box almost all the strengths of a linux box with all the strengths of a mac box. you don't lose anything; you can still use only mac programs, with nice installers and GUI's (and I, personally, prefer to whenever possible).

    However, it gives you the option of having just as nice of a package management system and a huge list of open source tools that *aren't* available with a nice GUI as well. It's the best of both worlds, with no requirement of dealing with either. *That's* what's so exciting.

  38. There were reasons by FredFnord · · Score: 2, Informative

    In 10.2 and possibly 10.1 (and maybe the first one or two releases of 10.3?) Apple did put stuff into /usr/local. They don't now. All these people shouting 'they do!' 'they don't!' might consider that they could both be right.

    And, since Apple did that when fink was setting up, /usr/local was NOT a good place for fink to install, because there were definitely things to be overwritten in there.

    -fred

    --
    Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.