Slashdot Mirror
Linux Gurus and OpenStep gurus collaborate
Anonymous Coward writes "www.DarwinLinux.com is a collaboration between the team at Infomagic (Linux gurus), and the team at TwinForces (WebObjects/OpenStep gurus). The goal is to create a complete distribution on a CD. Incidently, Apple will sync Darwin (Apple's BSD core under OS X) with FreeBSD later this year. "
Please, please stop making your errors of ignorance.
FACT: Mac OS X core is based on CMU Mach.
Why can't you figure that out?
And while you are at it figure this--Mac OS X supports an API that is based on NetBSD, but the guts of Mac OS X are very, very different from NetBSD. Please get your G*D damn facts straight.
We all would be better off if Hemos tried to get his f**king facts straight. He has started more flame wars over his f**king ignorance than any other contributor to /.
When he says it will be "synced" with FreeBSD, what does that mean? What is the purpose?
Thank you.
darwin comes with no GUI, no X, no nothing. It's just one console(no virtual as far as I know).
that seems to be the point of darwinlinux.com: add what's missing (which i guess is about everything ?) to make something useful.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
Actually I take a slightly different view...I think it's pretty cool they're using BSD code. :-)
I don't see any real loser in this collaboration, the NetBSD folks are getting fixes back for their tree, and the MacOS folks are getting some solid kernel code for their stuff. *AND*, they're getting the right to point at MacOS and say "Hey! That's our stuff!"
--Brian
GNU utilities?
They mentioned in an email to Omnigroup's MacOS-X admin & developer lists that they wanted to call the site "The Missing Link", missinglink.com, to go with the "Darwin" theme. However, the URL was taken (by a horseracing program, oddly enough).
So, I think they settled on "DarwinLinux" because they're a collaboration between Linux experts and Openstep (hence, Darwin) experts.
I agree with you that Apple is every bit as bad as Microsoft, and probably would have been worse if they had the position of dominance that Microsoft does.
That said, remember that pretty much the entire top management and technology team at Apple these days is from NeXt, not the Apple of yore. (Like 6 of the 8 VP's). Next pretty much did a takeover of Apple, not the other way around.
And Nextstep/Openstep is all about interoperability. This new Apple *did* release the source code to previously proprietary technologies, like NetInfo, the distributed user information database, and the Objective C language runtime. They *have* resubmitted improvements and adjustments they've made to things like Apache and Mach.
That said, I really wish they would move to a Mozilla-style development model for Darwin. As it is now, they work hard on the core OS, and every once in a while, release the code as Darwin, version whatever. This paralyzes third-party development on Darwin; nobody wants to touch the kernel or anything else, because Apple keeps saying, "we're going to release totally different veresions of this in a couple of months."
If they moved their own source code tree into the public, then people could actually collaborate and help and add value. As it is, Darwin will just be a pile of code that some curious Mac users download the binary of, and a couple of developers submit obvious bug fixes for.
IMHO, the whole concept of releasing Darwin core into open source is stupid unless Apple also releases the OpenStep/NextStep/WebObjects stuff
The OpenStep/WebObjects/Cocoa is Apple's market advantage: if they open this then Apple has nothing really left to sell. Such an act spells "shareholder lawsuit" - so don't be silly and rash.
Additionally, many Apple developers ASKED Apple to open what Apple now calls Darwin: Developers have specific use for it (developers can get some apps quicker to market because of Darwin - and this has already happened; some devs wanted to improve upon drivers, etc). So it clearly wasn't a stupid move by Apple.
All this is going to get us is yet ANOTHER X-based Unix clone
Actually, it's a varient of BSD, so it's not an all-together new type of Unix. And we all yell HURRAY when there's a new Linux varient. Why's another BSD varient bad?
And as somebody else wrote here: "Can't you see that this CD may become a huge success once Mac OS X client ships? It will be an easy way to add all the Unix stuff to Mac OS X [client/server] that Apple didn't bundle with the OS." In other words - this DarwinLinux CD allows OS X users to quickly get a large collection of standard unix utilities. This is a Big Deal for OS X power users.
And if its based on Mach, why the hell are they calling it Linux
Nobody called it Linux - not even the folk at LinuxDarwin.com. It's clearly a BSD varient. READ THINGS BEFORE YOU JUDGE THEM.
You make it sound as though Apple is the creator of DarwinLinux. They're not. They clearly stated that Darwin is simply a BSD/Mach UNIX. The "DarwinLinux," aside from the fact that it uses Darwin as a code base, has no direct relationship to Apple.
The current Mac OS can't be open-licenced, even if Apple wanted to. OpenStep in Mac OS X relies far too much on third party material, most notably Display PostScript. The GUI of Mac OS 8.x isn't based on UNIX at all, so open-sourcing that would be a nightmare. When the Apple-only Mac OS X Consumer is released, Apple will at least have the ability to open-source.
Further, Darwin included things which were *not* already available. These include HFS+ support, AppleTalk support, and several other items. In other words, it *does* contribute new things.
If it WERE Linux, there should be no need to "port" the software. All this is doing is diminishing the value of the Linux brand.
And if this whole setup is based on Netbsd does that mean it will share it's platform independance also? Or is this really just a ppc thing?
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
---
Posted by wetter:
Gee, I'm all singed.
OK, OK, I admit it. The only reason I called the site "DarwinLinux" was because "missinglink.com" was taken and it was the best thing I could think of.
What I really intend "the missing link" to be is a collection of the best unixware from the various *nix-wares out there, be they BSD-based or Linux based. Apple has independently decided to try to make themselves FreeBSD-like, mainly because they liked the kernel, not because they were particularly enamored of their "ls" implementation...
That said, all the *nix-wares out there are so incestuous of each other, that its hard to say where one stops and the other begins...
But one thing that I am planning on bringing over from Linux is the driver set. I hope to create an intermediate software layer between the linux driver set and the Darwin DriverKit/IOKit stuff so that you can use any driver from Linux with a recompile. That's one of the big things missing from both Darwin and MOSXS is driver support.
Someday, MissingLink might evolve into a full-fledged distribution, but that depends on whether people realize that the kernels that are coming will be pretty hip, and pretty _stable_. At that point, DarwinLinux might be a pretty good name.
Pierce
Posted by JPerlow:
IMHO, the whole concept of releasing Darwin core into open source is stupid unless Apple also releases the OpenStep/NextStep/WebObjects stuff (the gui and the libraries are missing, hello)they have for Intel (yes, you do remember NextStep/Openstep for intel, dont you?), because you wont be able to run any of the cool new MacOs applications or ported NextStep/OpenStep stuff without it.
All this is going to get us is yet ANOTHER X-based Unix clone (after they've ported all the good stuff we already have in Linux and FreeBSD)
and yet further balkanization. This is a total waste of time when open source porting efforts are already being made for Linux and FreeBSD. We have these things already, they are mature and we like them.
And if its based on Mach, why the hell are they calling it Linux??????
You know, the meaning of sentences tend to change when you choose to skip words :)
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
>Apple is more proprietary than >Microsoft--Microsoft has usually shown a >willingness towards open hardware designes
Yeah, all the computers that Microsoft designs and sells... if Microsoft made a computer it would have all MS proprietary components, be welded shut, and ugly as sin!
...end of transmission...
The LGPL might, I'm not sure, but the kernel is under the GPL.
No. We're a group of people who want solid, stable software, no matter who makes it. At least large numbers of "us" are.
Looks like DarwinLinux is just a porting effort to get the missing Unix software onto Darwin. These are just generic Unix stuff and not Linux-specific. Also no Linux kernel resources are involved. So why use "Linux" in the name? Just to get attention?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
'nuff said.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
No offense, but I think Perry simply needs to sync-up with the Apple folks again on what they're doing in BSD land. Their strategies have changed a bit in the last few months and some of it has involved doing exactly what Perry seems to feel would be "an immense pain" (I haven't heard any screaming, let's put it that way :-).
:)
Wilfredo Sanchez from Apple will be giving a talk on this topic at the USENIX annual technical conference in just a couple of weeks here (see http://www.usenix.org) and those folks who wish to get their information from the horse's mouth, so to speak, should simply attend his talk. It's just one more reason to go to USENIX this year.
- Jordan Hubbard co-founder, the FreeBSD Project. Director, UNIX Technology. Apple Computer
Darwin in its current release is still Mach 2.5 based. This will change by the arrival of Mac OS X, though.
By then, optimised SMP will be a reason for working with Darwin.
--- GnorpH
Hmmm,
Apple can't release the GUI portions under a free license since they don't hold copyright on large portions of it...Display Postscript. There's some NeXT-specific code in there (interceptor, and some compositing operations) but most belongs to Adobe. Adobe refuses to even license DPS for YellowBox on NT. IMHO there are nefarious reasons for this.
Instead, Apple is developing Quartz, which is a derivative of Adobe PDF with the compositing stuff thrown in, as well as anti-aliasing and the like which were not part of DPS. I'd assert that this code will also not belong entirely to Apple, and will therefore never be opened until Adobe itself is forced to open code.
This is the primary argument I have for corporations to endorse open code. In no other business that I can think of can a company pull the rug out from a (potential) industry simply by withdrawing a product. If Ford decides to stop selling cars with electronic ignition systems, your existing Ford will keep on running (well, as well as any other Ford). Adobe pulled DPS, which forced DEC to drop it on their products, and will eventually force Sun, IBM, and others to as well. Anything that depends on it (luckily, not much) will die with it next time you upgrade your commercial X server. DEC has done the same with Pathworks/Mac (VMS File Services for Macintosh) on V7.2. You upgrade, your Mac file services are no longer supported. This stinks.
I personally haven't agreed to the APSL, since I have no hardware that it will (yet) run on. I have browsed the DarwinLinux directories though and have found that there are i386 directories and even some EISA driver code out there. I think Apple has provided the Intel stuff, it is just broken and out of sync right now. Someone will no doubt get it going on Intel soon. I hope that their effort pays off for both Apple and their customers better than any of them could have expected...this would represent the best possible turn of events as it will build pressure inside and out of Apple to open more code.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that the lack of GUI on Darwin represents fertile ground for some of the interesting GUI projects that have been in the works. Maybe the Berlin people would be interested? A native DGS would be nice for GNUStep... Hmmm. Some unclaimed territory...
Ahh.. Typical of the content I've come to expect on Slashdot. I shouldn't really respond, but I will anyhow. People who tie UCB/BSD-style licensing to their code do so of their own free will. Nobody is "stealing" their code, because even if Microsoft or whoever uses the code in a binary-only product, your code is still free.
Wow.. all you rabid OpenSource/GPL advocates scream and scream for years and years for Apple to show some initiative. They do so, and you do nothing but flame them. Try to focus on the positives of this situation, otherwise the rest of the corporate world will just see the OpenSourcers as a pack of yipping hyenas, ready to rip any newcomers to shreads.
Being scared away because something is BSD-derived or has a license other than the GPL is pretty closed-minded. Go check your favorite Linux distribution and you'll find a lot of stuff with some "Regents" copyrights, lifted from BSD.
Maybe they thought the userland was good. I tend to think so, but I'm biased.
HFS file system support could probably be done pretty straightforwardly -- its a matter of someone having the energy to do so.
Ditto on COMPAT_MACOSX -- we support enough compatibility modes in NetBSD that it wouldn't be such a big deal if someone took the time on it.
Volunteers to help are always welcome!
I haven't heard any such thing. They mostly use NetBSD userland code, so it would probably be an immense pain for them to yank it all out.
As for the API, well, we all follow nearly the same API.
The OS X userland and TCP stack come from NETBSD, not FREEBSD.
If you don't believe me, look at the Darwin source code yourself. We've been working with folks from Apple for a long time, and we've been importing most of the improvements and bug fixes they've made so the source bases stay in sync.
I'm sure Apple would love to time travel back to 1985 and take up Bill Gates offer to make the MacOS the IBM compatible GUI of choice.
However, now their stuck in the position that they have to stay in business by selling hardware. Even when they were allowing clones, Apple was doing most of the hardware R+D, and they would have had to charge $300 for MacOS to even break even on the lost Mac sales.
Of course, Apple doesn't make anything which even remotely resembles server class hardware, so OS-X Server/Intel would be nice option that wouldn't hurt their sales much.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Apple, like Sun, IBM, Oracle, SGI, and Microsoft, are the enemy. They pollute the world with more non-freed software aimed at the horizontal market. If Apple is really committed to GNU/Linux, they will release their Mac OS GUI under a freed software licence such as the GPL. So far, they've only displayed a willingness to release code that was already freed (e.g. Mach) under a more-restrictive licence.
Just because Apple is anti-Microsoft does not mean they are our friends. Yes, they have produced nice hardware, but so has Microsoft--I like the Microsoft IntelliMouse. That doesn't mean I embrace Microsoft's vision of one operating system for the entire world.
Apple is more proprietary than Microsoft--Microsoft has usually shown a willingness towards open hardware designes. Apple won't even come that far. As far as Apple is concerned, they should be the only hardware vendor. Standards-based specifications such as SCSI or USB help this situation somewhat, but I recall in recent history a great difficulty on the part of the LinuxPPC team in getting decent specs on the iMac.
Hopefully, anal freed-software fanatics such as I will be able to steer the DarwinLinux group in the right direction. I certainly wouldn't mind any improvements in FreeBSD, as I've found it a wonderful kernel (I just want Debian GNU/FreeBSD ;þ). I am not writing this to show my hate for Apple; I'm simply pointing out that they are yet another huge corporation, such as my beloved IBM, that tends not to have any respect for the lowly hacker such as you and I.
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
Two arguments:
First: $99 dollars for a full featured, consitently designed operating system does not strike me as expensive. Yes, you can by a Red Hat or SuSE (for example) Linux distribution. But if you want real drag-and-drop and you want to avoid the retrograde command-line, it seems to me a bargain. And Apple will throw in free OS upgrades (Mac 8.6). Does a certain Redmond-based company do that (Windoze '98)?
Second: You get what you pay for, Natty.
Then I agree. Being somewhat interested in the flexibility that the assorted Unixes (Linux, BSD, et cetera) provide, it would be cool if the front-end happened to be a Macintosh, and the guts Unix.
How many ports do you want them to make. Ideally, they have to ship a _finished_ product at some point soon. Making ports all sorts of nonessential hardware is the last thing they need to be doing NOW.
Yes, Apple is totally suspect for making both hardware and SW. It's horrible how I never have to deal with device drivers and have never had a hardware incompatibility problem. It's also really bad that my OS is optimized for the chip and technologies that I'm running it on. God, how awful!
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
They want to port and pack in some of the common utilities and services that come in every Linux distribution and make a similar distribution for Darwin (which is the Open Source version of MacOS X).
Right now, Darwin is just a binary that you download and install... it doesn't come with anything except the raw files to make it work and compile
I know I'll sound like a dolt asking this, but if Mac OS-X is based on Mach and NetBSD, then what's with this "DarwinLinux" thing? I don't understand. I gather from the web page that they want to package a distribution of utilities and programs, but what does it have to do with Linux? Please enlighten me.
--- Tao
FreeBSD is Alpha/Intel specific. NetBSD supports the motorola crap.
^D
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
erm, their domain is called linuxdarwin. if this is not 'calling it linux', what is?
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
darwin comes with no GUI, no X, no nothing. It's just one console(no virtual as far as I know).
I'm not to excited of it, it's BSD and it's yet-another-lisence so it has scared me off
Plain ol'GNU/Linux works today, darwin just got it's first release a couple of days ago. Don't expect to much from it at this point...
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
Or they might add all the x86 stuff and totally bloat darwin who is pimary creted for PPCs ;-)
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
How about suing them for flase marketing?, no linux[kernel] is used so they are only in for the hype.
They say they want the missing pieces found in a GNU/Linux system but them they should use the term GNU/darwin or DarwinGNU or something, defenitley not darwinLinux.
They just showed how ignorant they relly are, the least thing they can do is to use the correct name: is that relly a problem?????
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
1) I'll tell you they will NOT port linux to darwin(if the darwin kernel goes whats left??, almost nothing except a strangely lisnced BSD system!)
2) LGPL has nothing to do with linux, linux is covered by GPL
3) If they take GPL code, their code must be GPL to, and they don't want that.
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
I've been to the WWDC, so i might be a bit brainwashed :) but Apple is really participating in the open source movement.
Not only because of Darwin (which is in part based on next/openstep,net and openbsd, but will be synched to freebsd 3 ), but also because of several opensource tools they use and improve (which includes getting bugfixes and improvements back into the code base like they should).
They actively work on improving Apache (and they claim to have submitted many bugfixes and improvements) and are standardizing on egcs as a compiler (again they have improved/fixed it and submitted the stuff).
Darwin might not even be the last thing they release as opensource, they are looking at all the software projects. While granted most won't be open source, many will be.
So bottomline, they are not only taking from the opensource movement but attributing to it as well, unlike a redmond company i could mention (although they are to scared to even touch opensource).
btw,Darwin= mach 3.0 + bsdkernel (including tcp stack)+drivers+file systems on which bsd apps can run.
Too bad those Apple people are a bunch of pricks and expect me to buy a Power Mac and an expensive operating system. Oh well.
I have both an old PPC 7100 on my desk and a brand new Pentium II MMX (which cost me 3000$CAN). And I find that Linux with KDE on this Pentium feels much slower than MacOS on my PPC 7100.
An iMac is MUCH faster and would have cost me less!
--- Whatever takes you through the night...
The point is it's a real OS, unlike the Mac OS. Even 8.6 crashes pathetically regularly.
Moreover, the Mac UI hasn't grown up much since 1984 and is still oriented towards single application use on a single monitor with no way to move an application widgets in their entirety to a specific area of the screen. There was a quote from Jobs on this in the Sept. 1995 Byte, "The Macintosh has been dead in the water since 1985 in terms of its user interface."
NeXT/OPENstep does much better in this regard, and I really hope that this group follows their UI cues and improves upon them.
William
http://members.aol.com/willadams
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The NeXT/OPENstep UI is much more than merely the Dock.
This has been discussed at length in comp.sys.next.advocacy and I'd urge you to read there (try ) and to try out a NeXT machine.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The newest issue of Linux Journal has several features on Linux and Java.The program writing and backbiting of forces,philosophy of free software and programs.There is room for both and Microsoft better realize the controls are off.Philosophy can stop Unix and the big M also.Aren't we really a group of idealists at heart?
icey
Actually, when I said an expensive operating system I was thinking of MacosX server. It seams really hot and could give me both my nice old Macintosh "look and feal" and that rad unix thing I have going on. Now we're talking $400 for an operating system. That is one pretty penny, seamus. (;
I guess this opensource stuff spoils me. I'm not used to paying for my software anymore! Paying over $10 for an OS seams just down right outrageous. Me being a poor lazy high school student, $400 is more money then I'm likely to have for a while.
I remember those good days I had with my little Mac. Now wouldn't it be cool if I could just get that nice little interface on top of a free unix operating system AND run Escape Velocity. . hmmm posix compliant Macos gaming machine, drool. Too bad those Apple people are a bunch of pricks and expect me to buy a Power Mac and an expensive operating syetem. Oh well.
Though I would like to see how fast Apple would pull out there termination clause if someone tried to add Macos style functionality and compatibility to Darwin.
What was probably meant was that it will be in tune with (synced with) FreeBSD and future releases of FreeBSD. Just the use of a cool word cause it makes it so much more WOWish..
Just my 0.2 cents.
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
Isn't there something in a site that calls itself www.darwinlinux.com and claims to be trying to be "the best free unix distrubtions" {typo the site provided}. Is that to directly imply that Linux can now be safely termed the best Unix around? What about variants of Unix {no names = no flames :-))} :-)).
The focus seems to have shifted somewhat from creating features that people wanted, adding stuff to an OS that is the best around, to creating a version that is unique and your own. Then what really is the diff between MSoft and them (leave the free bit out please).
Before there's a flame war on anything that's unintentionally hurt anyone, just consider are distributions doing this kind of positioning such a great idea?
I wonder if 2 many choices is a good thing or a bad thing...
Mmmmmmm. Floor pie!
Once Darwin is further along, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple simply recompile the remaining layers,(ie Quartz and Cocoa) and release OSX/x86 ala Rhapsody DR2/x86. I am unaware of any technical reason they couldn't do this. With this approach, they can provide a larger market for their developers without dooming the project by attempting to do too much initially.
(For those of you who don't know, Quartz is the replacement for the DisplayPostScript imaging model found in OSXServer and Openstep. Cocoa is the new name for the Obj.C and Java API's formerly known as YellowBox)
Openstep is Dead! Long Live Openstep!