Slashdot Mirror
MkLinux Not Dead
Ethelred Unraed writes "At Linux am Mac, there is an article written by Larry Kollar, an MkLinux developer, as a rebuttal to the erroneous tidbit at Mac OS Rumors claiming that MkLinux was dead (as Apple had ceased active support). Kollar's article seeks to explain just what IS going on, and where MkLinux is headed. "
It's interesting to note that Apple isn't the only one to stop development on MkLinux - as we
reported before, The Open Group also has ceased development. The article explains that
the user community has been maintaining the port since then.
OS X will basically only run on Apple G3 hardware which is only a small part of the overall PPC hardware that is there already. It is in no way POSIX compliant - even apple have said that it will not be made to be so, therefore you can't just use the source luke.
.... you have to pay for the software you want to run.
... now ... only after the apache group ported it accross.
Reading this, I have to wonder if you have any idea just what POSIX is. All evidence points to no. Therefore, a little explanation is in order:
POSIX is a standard for operating systems. It has absolutely nothing to do with hardware, unlike what you seem to be implying. When it was written, it was based off of Unix. To be considered "compliant" it must pass a rigid set of hideously expensive tests and get certified and all of that good stuff.
You'll be interested to know that Linux isn't POSIX-compliant either. It "aims toward" compliance. Guess what: so does OSX. Apple has said they're not going to bother getting it certified, that's true. Last I checked, neither was the Linux crowd.
What does that leave us with? Something not unlike Mesa. You can't call Mesa OpenGL, since it's never been officially certified, but let's face it: for all intents and purposes, it's OpenGL. Likewise with Linux and OSX: You can't call them POSIX-compliant, because they were never certified as such and likely never will be, but both are striving to (and eventually will) achieve that goal.
As for that "use the source Luke" bit, I'm not sure exactly where that came from. I sincerely hope you don't mean that it doesn't qualify as Open-Source because it's not POSIX-compliant (and the rest of the way your article reads, this seems highly likely). POSIX has nothing to do with the openness (or lack thereof) of one's source. If you mean compiling POSIX programs out of the box, prepare for another revelation: it's about as easy to do with OSX/Darwin as it is with Linux; I'll be happy to point you to more than a few programs which have already been ported over.
This means that OS X is set up as a commercial venture
No one ever pretended otherwise. Not only that, but in case you haven't noticed, Open-Source software can and does exist for proprietary platforms. Also, for the last time, Open-Source does not necessarily mean zero-cost.
Sure apache compiles out of the box
Actually, last I heard it was Apple who did that port, not the Apache group.
In my experience it looks good runs well but it is not an open-source solution.
Why not? Looks pretty Open-Source to me. It seems you're still a little fuzzy on just what Open-Source is.
The other point about OS X is that it is based on the mach kernel so it inherently has the same performance issues as MK.
I hate to say it, but you're wrong. I've used both Darwin and the OSX Developer Preview. I see no horrendous speed issues such as you describe. In fact, I've found it quite fast.
OK, perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what you've written. It doesn't look that way, though. If I have, I apologize.
Also, the standard disclaimer when I go to rebut a post: This is not intended as a flame or as flamebait; please do not take it as such.
Folks!
Whenever some journalist complains that linux lacks commercial backing, he gets major flames for being clueless. Even the last AC here states it as the most obvious truth that Open Source projects don't depend on corporate backing, in fact, projects live as long as anybody cares about them.
And suddenly, as soon as an Open Source project gets dumped by a company, everybody cries that this is the end of the project. I have some bad news for all these pundits: Nobody can predict the future in computing. A guy called Bob Metcalfe had to eat his predictions once, and might have to eat his predictions again in a few years (except that this time he was more careful and didn't guarantee for his rants.)
I don't know whether MkLinux will be around five years from now, but I also don't know, whether Apple will be around either (please, no stupid flame wars here)! Nobody knows!
At this point in time I'm happy that MkLinux exists, since I have a PB5300 to write my thesis on, and I wouldn't trust the more common office packages which run under MacOS. In addition to that I didn't have to pay Windows tax (how many got their money back after the "Great Windows Refund Day" ?). LinuxPPC doesn't run on NuBus machines, so performance comparisons are moot. As far as I'm concerned, MkLinux is alive.
I have "fond" memories of MkLinux ever since I started with DR2 on my 6100. Playing with changing libraries (static to dynamic), changing disk formats, interesting X servers/clients, installing with -nodeps, sudden crashes, periods of stability... I loved it! Why?
MkLinux introduced me to Linux. (note: it did not introduced me to unix, the &$#!@ IBM RT did that dirty deed). I was able to work at home writing code that I could then take back to work. I could program naked!:-)
I now have a G3 and run LinuxPPC but I will not look down on the great MkLinux development folks. At the end, Apple "official" dropping of support for MkLinux really didn't mean much (except perhaps to Gary Thomas). So if I may, Good Luck David Gatwood in your new career. Anybody who could put up with constant questions about how their mouse buttons stopped working must be an angel.
Speaking of the mouse, my Mouse System 3 button mouse is not officially support under LinuxPPC R5. I got tired of manually patching the kernel source (plus the mouse was bunged up) so I looked for another solution. Since I have a USB PCI card, I wondered if a USB 3 button mouse was supported. What nice about Linux? Go to the kernel source and look at the code to see if there is support. I now have a new logitech usb 3 button mouse that works just fine.