Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases macOS 10.12 Sierra Open Source Darwin Code (9to5mac.com)
An anonymous reader writes:Apple has released the open source Darwin code for macOS 10.12 Sierra. The code, located on Apple's open source website, can be accessed via direct link now, although it doesn't yet appear on the site's home page. The release builds on a long-standing library of open source code that dates all the way back to OS X 10.0. There, you'll also find the Open Source Reference Library, developer tools, along with iOS and OS X Server resources. The lowest layers of macOS, including the kernel, BSD portions, and drivers are based mainly on open source technologies, collectively called Darwin. As such, Apple provides download links to the latest versions of these technologies for the open source community to learn and to use.
I know several friends plagued with the latest macbook and looking for an alternative, but dont want to sacrifice the reliability of the OS. BSD is an excellent choice, and Darwin helps to inform the more inquisitive mac user that there are alternatives if you can tolerate reimaging the machine, or buying different and sometimes less sexy hardware.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Wtf does this have to do with pumpkin pie?
Open source is fine and dandy, but the real killer feature is being able to easily fix a bug in the OS yourself, deploy and test to yourself, and share with others.
How easy is it to do that with Apple's OS these days?
Like they've done with every version? Of course it's only the code they have to release.
When will someone make a macOS clone based on Apple's own sources?
A universal basic income is just Leninist Communism under a different title. It didn't work anywhere it was tried. Toilet paper and the lack thereof illustrates the issue better than anything, but if you want to dig deeper, look at the relative productivity of private plots vs collective farms in the Soviet Union.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Look kids. Get over the small minded philosophical hangups. Understand that the MacBook OS is a BSD kernel + the GNU OS (tool chain) + Plus the NSstuff that Next brought. That's it. The vast majority of code is already open, because it has been developed by the community over 30 years.
Ha Ha. Good joke.
Now go ahead and pull the other one.
Linus was using a Mac for Linux at one point. I don't know if he still is?
If you have the money, why not buy the hardware you like and run the your preferred OS on it?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I remember about 15 years ago when I downloaded the darwin ISO and installed it on a machine. It was a basic unix-like system, similar to installing a NetBSD base install. Probably pkgsrc would be portable to it, so it could be a complete freenix solution to install and just use.
But my understanding is that Apple quit supporting or even allowing an installable Darwin ISO. So this is just bits and pieces out of their code repository that you can look at but not do much with unless you buy their stuff.
I'm sure I have that old darwin ISO stored away somewhere in my large collection of media (I save everything, so I even have Windows 2 shareware and applications stuck somewhere on an archived DVD) but it's about fifteen years old.
I'm pretty sure I have a NextSTEP CD install set, but it's for the PA-RISC hardware (Hewlett Packard desktop workstations, which are LOOONG gone) I wish I had an x86 NextSTEP installer, but those go for huge $$ when you can even find them, on the collector's market.
OpenDarwin was killed by Apple ages ago. This 'Open Source Darwin Code' is a joke.
No It does not compile due to unreleased source code.... Thanks Apple!
Once upon a time, in pre OS X times, Unix was not the OS of choice on a Mac. It was a homegrown OS from Apple. During that time, if you wanted Unix on a Mac, your only choices were A/UX or some version of Linux, like Mk-Linux. That was the era when people ran Linux on a Mac. Ever since OS X was released, there was little reason to
Apple has 36 to 48 months of burn-cash time left.
Timmy has stepped into the shoes of John Sculley and will receive a most very unwelcome bon voyage from residents of Cupertino, California.
Timmy, after all this is you life ... so revel in your death!
Honestly I can't imagine why anyone would choose a Linux desktop over Windows/Cygwin or Mac OS.
Unix "desktop" is practically the definition of try hard.
Apple's still sitting on serious bugs. Examples: One that's been around for many revisions of the OS is the abjectly borken UDP implementation; Apple's version of a supposedly broadcast protocol... that can only have one listener... brilliant. Linux and windows handle this just fine, too. One new in 10.12 is they borked Qt's tooltips and menus, which have worked since 10.6.8 through 10.11... and are now blank. There are plenty more. Those are just recently (and still) irritating here, so they're on my mind.
They leave bug reports untouched for months and years, but they always have time to flatten our fucking icons and implement idiotic crapola like "App Nap", don't they?
Fucking borken shit. I'm learning to really despise them. Apple: If you can't fix what you HAVE, then for Christ's sake, don't move on to a new version. All you're doing is producing a trial of borken shit. Which then the damn developers, who are SUPPORTING YOU, YOU IDIOTS, have to spend multiply redundant sets of wasted time trying to work around.
Damn it. They're going to turn my sorry ass back into a Windows developer if they don't straighten up and fly right.
I would like to go back to Windows, if it had a good version of the Windows 95/2000/XP desktop. They won't even let you have "show desktop" on the left : fuck you, I don't want to travel all the way to the right and then back left.
So now I'm too used to the Gnome 2 clone family of desktops, it's a better Windows GUI than Windows (tabs in file manager and terminals are nice to have too). Also, I don't even need an SSD to use an OS and its desktop. Fuck you, slow disk access that peg the CPU were fixed back in the late 90s with Ultra DMA hard drives. How much bloated shit do you need to run in the background to make it slow again?
There are many reasons for choosing a Linux desktop.
1. Linux is my os of choice in general, so of course I use a linux desktop. It was "try hard" in 1997 - trying to find a word processor and such. Today, any of the larger distros install a well-working desktop if you want that. (For a server install, you might want to skip a 'desktop' that won't see any use.)
2. Having used linux for decades, using anything else is a world of pain. Slowness and trouble and nothing where I expect it. And a lack of familiar applications. And settings buried under a layer of many sub-menus and sub-windows - instead of readily available in a simple textfile in the standard location.
3. Ability to avoid unnecessary change. People complained that windows xp looked different, and then that windows 8 (or 10?) was so different, and so on. Linux has had a lot of new stuff coming (gnome/kde desktops for example) but such things are voluntary. I have had the same GUI since 1997. It works well, so why change? Gnome/kde didn't look like improvement to me, so I skipped those. Can't do that sort of things with mac/windows; except by never upgrading. But that is dangerous. I have the latest software and still keep my 1997 desktop - which is nicely fast on modern hw.
4. Maintainability and good performance on cheap hw:
I volunteered to set up an office system with three workstations and a server. With no pay and nearly no budget, old machines were used. They had been used with windows with terrible performance, with users waiting 10 minutes for bootup and 'a few' minutes to log in and then minutes to start word. A windows expert might be able to improve a bit on that - but no such person were available except for normal pay levels which this organization could not afford. And it still wouldn't be good - people with good windows performance generally have nice new machines. And the next problem is maintenance - windows computers tend to go slower with time. I don't know why - I don't do windows. But I see no reason why it should be like that.
So linux it was. The old things now boot up in a minute or two. Logging in is a second or two only, starting some application is 1-15s depending on which. The users knows nothing about computers, so everything had to be easy. It is, with a custom start menu with only the few entries these people need. Storage is automatically nfs-mounted, so no risk of people saving important stuff locally and then not have it available when logging in through one of the other machines. (This used to be a problem - networking with windows was flaky, so people saved stuff on C:. Now there is no C:, and no problem. I know you can do that sort of thing on windows using a domain controller - but there was no budget for software. And booting/using such setups tend to be slow too, with no budget for nice machines.)
And the machines keep running and doesn't slow down with time, despite very little maintenance work.
You are an AC who has never used Linux or has so little experience with it you don't know how to choose a decent window manager. With 30 years+ in the field, and having used all the major OSs extensively, I can ASSURE you Linux has the best desktop experience BY FAR.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Why THANK YOU Mr computer man with your capital WORDS for EMPHASIS! Your anonymous comment on the INTERNET means SOOO much to me I'm not even SURE why we're bothering to have more COMMENTS! Can you please settle DC vs. Marvel and Emacs vs. VI for us. I KNOOOOW you CAN!
Say what? There is nothing wrong with a Unix desktop. Hell, I ran Solaris 10 with GNOME 2 on my laptop for a while and never had any issues with it - and that was when there was much less of everything on the web. We've come to the point that the actual desktop doesn't make as much difference as it used to, but some how they are getting worse with time. I can't stand macOS (vs say 10.4-10.6), Windows 8-10 (vs Windows 2000-7), or KDE 4-5 (vs 3 and older). Things just get more bloated, more complex, less user friendly and more in the way somehow. Personally, I've grown to like GNOME 3, Unity isn't bad, and I still like TDE, MATE, and XFCE. For a faster experience (especially for outside of Linux/BSD), CDE and 4DWM (or MaXX on Linux) are just fine to work with, and have about the same level of attractiveness as the flat world of Windows has become.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
It's not actually a surprise that you are a douchebag, but thanks for trying to surprise us!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This time has come, and passed.
Do you think computer programming is a "real job"?
It didn't exist until new technology allowed it less than 100 years ago. It's in high demand. It earns a high wage if done right, and a survivable wage if done barely adequately.
Nevertheless, I bet there were plenty of people alive a century ago and more who would call it pure leisure. It's not physical labor. It doesn't require you to breathe poison gas, or wrestle with criminals. You don't have to deal with inclement weather, hard travel, biting insects, or constant humiliation. You get health coverage. Pure luxury, my lad.
And yet, money changes hands on a massive, massive scale for this practice, because you have to train like a mad motherfucker all the time to do it well.
And that spells out the crucial factor that will always make the hierarchy form: Those who put in the time, to get the training, to learn how to get a larger slice of the pie, will do so. And there will be jobs for ever and ever, hallelujah, amen.