Apple announces Darwin 0.3

J. FoxGlov writes "Macintouch reports that v0.3 of Darwin, the open-source foundation for Mac OS X Server is available on Apple's Public Source site. Apple Developer Connection members can get it on CD for $29. Check Public Source for more about the Darwin SDK and the new Darwin. "

Comments

Re:So what IS it?

[AArthur]

I have to agree Darwin isn't useful for much now -- it's kind of a toy for now, kind of like old versions of Linux (pre-1.0). They lacked really useful software and did not have a GUI (X Windows didn't come instantly to Linux, it was ported slowly by various projects, most famosly XFree86.

Darwin, when it gets more apps ported to it, might be an interesting alternative to the NetBSD, MkLinux or Monolithic Linux kernels on the PowerPC -- it's something new, that likely has some benifits from other kernels.

I think we can at least hope that the vast majority of GNU utilities/programs can be ported and used on this platform -- it would be great to be able to use things like the X11, GIMP, GNOME or KDE on it -- this could make it an actually worth while project.

Remember, Darwin should be a fairly optimized kernel for PowerPC 750 computers -- since Apple is the number one desktop vendor of them, and they really know them well.

So it's just another opensource UNIX-like kernel -- obviously it will attract a whole new audience, those that don't want Monolithic Linux, Netbsd or MkLinux on there PowerMac, but they do want an really fast optimized UNIX-like OS.

And, yes Apple won't mind if you did some debugging for them or if you improved gnu utils for there platform -- but they don't really expect that.

Improved HFS+, Booting, Hardware and AppleTalk documentation (in the format of objective-c++ -- that few people understand well) :-( will speed development of drivers for other populuar opensource UNIX-like kernels.

Re:mac's

[Evro]

So you're saying most people DON'T use RedHat? People say things like "if big companies don't wake up to open source, they'll die," or something along those lines, but then Apple goes and does it and everybody thinks it's evil. Everything every company does is a strategic move. Apple realized that its OS wasn't exactly the most stable one around, so they're taking some serious hints from, well, the most stable OS around. Why everybody thinks this is some kind of incestual sin is beyond me. Apple Open Sourced it to try and get people to hack on it. Obviously it's going to be hard for a huge corporation to get the kind of grassroots support that Linux has gotten, especially one as despised by geeks as Apple (well, Mac), but they're trying. I think their heart's in the right place. Of course they have the profit motive, sure, but they want to stay alive just like RH and any other company, and if they see the wave of the future is Open Source and *nix based Operating Systems, why shouldn't they embrace it? I mean, it's not like they're trying to incorporate win2k into MacOS [shudder]. This is a proven, basically universally loved platform that they're trying to adopt. They are not moving to Open Source because it's "hip" (well, maybe a little), they're doing it because they see that that's where the future of the industry is headed.

Yeah yeah yeah, they didn't release the entire source code, and it's not under the GPL. Well could you imagine what would happen if MacOS was completely GPLed? Sure, the OS would probably improve by some orders of magnitude, but Apple would probably go out of business. It's easier to start a company out with a free product and figure out a way to sell it than it is to base a company on a pay product and then give it away. That's why Red Hat may actually make money, whereas Apple surely wouldn't if they gave away the entire source to their next-gen OS.

Re:But the big question is...or is it....

[aibojo]

Will Darwin be available in the state of Kansas? If so, will it be allowed in public schools?

It always amazes me.....

[Mithy]

.....that certain (mainly if not entirely anonymous) posters around here are quick to belittle the makers of any OS which isn't open source, or worse, doesn't conform to their idea of what open source should be, or isn't Linux, etc.

Come on, folks. So the APSL isn't to everyone's taste. Nor is the (L)GPL, the BSD licence, etc. But it's a step in the right direction - namely, towards the goal of producing Software Which Doesn't Suck. And that is to be welcomed. (And having had a look at the APSL I'm rather confused about which parts of it people have a problem with. After all, it's their base code, if they release it they can put whatever restrictions they damn well feel like on it.)

Comments such as "Mac is dead" don't really help the argument any. Not to mention that they fly in the face of any real evidence (the G3 and iMac seem to be doing quite well, thank you very much).

Motives aren't all that important. Companies have a strategic aim to keep existing, and that generally means making money. So if public release of source code, in Apple's view, helps them along that road - and, incidentally, releases more source to the public in the grand design of producing Software Which Doesn't Suck - I'm all for it, on both counts. If only Microsoft would follow the same route, we might even (eventually) end up with a version of Windows which didn't suck, though this is probably heresy. ;)

I might have to go get myself a Mac now, so I can take a better look at this thing. Hmm.

"Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)

Why so glum?!

[MochaMan]

I'm curious why it is everyone seems to be so bloody condescending toward Apple. I mean, half the postings I've seen so far are along the lines of "Who cares?" or "it's just a ploy to impress people, don't download it - it's not *pure*".

Well, so what if it is a publicity stunt? I, for one, don't believe that Apple's doing this through some sort of perverted notion of altruism. No way, they're trying to attract back some market share! But who cares?

I know Richard Stallman would likely say that it's not real free software, but listen, it's great to see a company doing this at all! People now have some new code to play with if they want; they have a new option. Maybe, just maybe, there's even something we can learn from the architecture they've thrown together. Hey, there might even be some great idea in there that could be incorporated into Linux to make it better. And perhaps not, but at least they've opened up the code to let us learn from what's there.

If nothing else, it's a new toy for interested people to play with, modify, and hack.

So Apple produces proprietary software (in general). So they don't swear alliegiance to the Free Software Foundation. Who cares? They've done something right. If someone hands you a free hamburger, you don't whine and complain that it wasn't a steak, you take it and say thanks or you leave it and say no thanks. Now I know some people are going to say "but they're trying to pass this hypothetical hamburger off as a steak!" My response: you'd have to be an idiot to believe that. They've tossed one more modification of BSD onto the table. Dissect it, hack it apart, figure out what makes it tick, or leave it alone, but please, stop whining!

It's a Good Thing

[cookd]

I am inclined to believe that this is a Good Thing(tm). Of course they did it for a marketing objective. Everything every company does is for a marketing objective, to make money in the long/short run. That isn't wrong. What is wrong is to not play fair, to force everyone else's hand, to damage the overall industry to get ahead (and if you have any idea who I'm talking about, good for you). I don't see anything wrong with what Apple has done.

Potential for bad: some hackers waste their time.

Potential for good: We're actually going to know what is going on behind a commercialized OS. We've all heard the rumors about the crazy stuff in Win98 code:

// There is a memory leak here, but I can't figure out what causes it...

or

// Crashes here. I would fix it, but release is next week, so no time. We'll get it in the service pak.

and of course

if(appID=APPID_NETSCAPE_NAVIGATOR){
SetTimer(random,CrashIt)
}
if(dosVer&DOSVER_DRDOS){
MessageBox("Your machine is running an unstable operating system. Upgrade to MSDOS 5.0.");
}

So obviously if they are willing to let the source out, they are comfortable with it. They are confident about it. They have nothing to hide, and can prove it (at least for the part released, which appears to be the most critical part of the OS). No more secrets. This is a Good Thing.

Ok, so it's license sucks rocks. So? I wouldn't expect a whole lot of big user development on their kernel. I don't think that is the point. I'm sure they'll accept and take a look at all submitted bug fixes, but that isn't the point either.

The point is that everyone can study the OS and know everything about it that they need for programming the Mac. I'm reminded of the source code to the original PC BIOS that appeared in the appendix of the original IBM Technical Reference manual (still good reading, by the way, if you do low-level PC programming). I learned a lot about what was going on. When I had a question about "what exactly does this function do," and the docs were sketchy, I could jump to the assembly code in the appendix and figure it out. For some things, the BIOS source was my only doc - like how to program the timer chips, etc.

With MS's OS's you can't do that. And believe me, the docs are sketchy sometimes. With no source to look at when things get confusing, you're always hoping that there is someone on some newsgroup with the answer. And the MS Word team gets privy info on the undocumented API's. None of that with an OS OS :P.

I don't think I'll ever look at the code. I'm stuck in a rut programming my PC under FreeBSD, Linux and Windows. But for those who do need to do a lot of programming on Mac boxes, I have a feeling that this will help a bunch.

Hope that made sense. Happy hacking!