Slashdot Mirror


OpenDarwin Project Shutting Down

niabok writes "According to a message sent by Rob Braun to the OpenDarwin mailing lists, the OpenDarwin project will be shutting down, saying that 'OpenDarwin has failed to achieve its goals in 4 years of operation, and moves further from achieving these goals as time goes on.' The project's servers will remain online long enough to allow developers to move their various projects elsewhere."

6 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. Sad by QuantumFTL · · Score: 4, Informative

    I personally use Fink (and love it, for all of its flaws), but it's sad to me to see a good alternative source for OSS on OS X bite the dust. The only reason I'm able to enjoy a proprietary OS like OS X is because of the availability of many of the best OSS packages (if not all), and the compatability this affords me with linux-based environments. Hopefully Gentoo on OS X will go somewhere - does anyone know how it stacks up against Fink right now?

    1. Re:Sad by taybin · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't the end of the darwinports project. That project was just hosted on the opendarwin servers.

    2. Re:Sad by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the kind of nit-picking I hate on Slashdot. He didn't say "while avoiding giving anything back to the gcc project", he said "while avoiding giving anything useful back to the gcc project". He qualified the word "anything", and you've responded as if he didn't.

      Objective C was close to useless for the longest time in GCC, which adopted Apple's changes largely, I think, in the hope someone would make it a viable system in the future. A crude object framework consisting of just the Object class was added (note: not NSObject) and a small run-time, by independent (non-Apple) developers, but until GNUstep came along there was nothing you could really do with all of that unless you spent a few months developing a basic class library. Basic meaning pretty much "everything". No string classes, IO classes, or anything else, existed unless you chose to write it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  2. Don't fret. by gklinger · · Score: 5, Informative

    I started out using Fink but it never felt quite right. Then I tried DarwinPorts and I've been happy ever since. As a result, when I saw this story my first thought was, "What will happen to DarinPorts?" I checked the Darwinports Mailing List Archive and found this comforting post. To summarize, DarwinPorts is alive and well and will continue. Time to start using www.darwinports.org rather than www.opendarwin.org.

  3. Re:BSD's fault. by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative
    These licenses [X11, BSD, MIT] don't do enough to protect the contributions of the people that made the code -- they essentially enable legalized plagiarism.

    Proponents of said licenses would question just what it is the contributors want to protect. Did they turn over the code for public use or didn't they? You can't plagiarize something that was offered to you as a gift -- and that's sort of the point of open source, isn't it? That your work becomes part of the commons?

    I question the motives of open source developers who use the GPL because it affords them plaudits for the authorship of their code. The GPL doesn't really care about any developers' desire to receive credit and accolades for their efforts. The only real reason the GPL requires that works derived from GPL-licensed works must also be GPL-licensed is political. The GNU Foundation wants to spread the political cause of Free Software. The GPL is one way to do this.

    Many other developers lack these political ambitions, however. For them, the BSD style license is perfectly fine. It protects them in various ways, like limiting the developers' liability, without the entanglements of Richard Stallman's political agenda. At the same time, it allows them to offer some code to the community, without any selfish motives of social status.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  4. You're mistaken, Apple does release tons of code by LKM · · Score: 5, Informative
    To me open-source means that you have to release the source one way or another, and Apple doesn't release any piece of source code.

    Uhm... You're mistaken. Some of Apple's open-sourced code:

    • Darwin
    • Darwin Streaming Server
    • Bonjour
    • WebKit
    • Compiler Tools
    • HeaderDoc
    • OpenDirectory
    • OpenPlay

    And of course, there's more, in addition to all the other existing open source components which they use and contribute to.

    There's even more which they don't release, and you can like that or not (it's a business decision to them), but you can't claim that they don't release code.