Where does it mention harware? Just because Darwin is open source doesn't mean Be can get techincal specifications on the hardware.
What better technical specification is there than the complete source code for a working operating system kernel?
I can think of a lot of better technical specs than scouring gazumpteen source files. Hmm...maybe the technical specs themselves would be better technical specs. Moreover, being granted access to the errata on those specs is arguably even more important. Unless source is copiously commented, which not all of it is, looking at source is only so helpful, and it's never as good as real documentation. "Source code as hardware documentation" is a backassward concept.
This whole topic drives me a bit nuts. What would Be gain by supporting these machines anyway? I can build a nice dual PIII machine cheap (maybe $12-1300). But other people have pointed all these issues out...Be is a commercial company, and unlike LinuxPPC or other groups (admirable though they may be), Be has a lot to lose if it's sued. And Apple has proven itself to be litigious. Sure, they haven't sued the LinuxPPC guys, but why would Apple sue the LinuxPPC guys for reverse engineering the iMac and G3/G4 machines? There's no money, and precious little prestige in smacking the little guy around. Be, on the other hand, can be viewed as a competitor to Apple (not by me necessarily).
If I were running Be, I'd support Apple's more recent hardware if
Apple and Be worked out a contractual agreement to support the machines and provide access to occasional technical help
Motherboard specs and errata were shared
I had some idea that access to these specs would be ongoing in good faith for many years, and that little tweaky hardware changes wouldn't somehow creep into to new models just to make my life miserable
It made some business sense of some sort
Just because source is out there in the world and someone can dig through it and try to divine the details of motherboard designs that may or may not be working as spec'd, doesn't mean that's a good use of anybody's time.
Slashdot Mirror
Where does it mention harware? Just because Darwin is open source doesn't mean Be can get techincal specifications on the hardware.
What better technical specification is there than the complete source code for a working operating system kernel?
I can think of a lot of better technical specs than scouring gazumpteen source files. Hmm...maybe the technical specs themselves would be better technical specs. Moreover, being granted access to the errata on those specs is arguably even more important. Unless source is copiously commented, which not all of it is, looking at source is only so helpful, and it's never as good as real documentation. "Source code as hardware documentation" is a backassward concept.
This whole topic drives me a bit nuts. What would Be gain by supporting these machines anyway? I can build a nice dual PIII machine cheap (maybe $12-1300). But other people have pointed all these issues out...Be is a commercial company, and unlike LinuxPPC or other groups (admirable though they may be), Be has a lot to lose if it's sued. And Apple has proven itself to be litigious. Sure, they haven't sued the LinuxPPC guys, but why would Apple sue the LinuxPPC guys for reverse engineering the iMac and G3/G4 machines? There's no money, and precious little prestige in smacking the little guy around. Be, on the other hand, can be viewed as a competitor to Apple (not by me necessarily).
If I were running Be, I'd support Apple's more recent hardware if
Just because source is out there in the world and someone can dig through it and try to divine the details of motherboard designs that may or may not be working as spec'd, doesn't mean that's a good use of anybody's time.
s'all I have to say 'bout that.