From what I remember, the license Apple used for Darwin only permits things to be contributed.. (eg. you can't fork it like you could Linux or *BSD, but you can give them code). If this is right, that is not open source/free software. You could look at it as Apple leeching free development without giving anything back.
The only thing NT/2k/XP use from BSD is the TCP/IP stack [as far as we know, anyway:-)]. It's not really "based" on it at all, not in the way that OS X is. Though, it would explain how the thing is remotely stable..:-P
Some of those SGI/SUN/IBM people you see on the list, are actually paid to work on the kernel.:-) IBM is the most common that I see, and they are working on important stuff (scalability). Very cool.
nVidia cards should work fine if you just want 2D (AFAIK), and there is a drm-kmod port in the ports collection which installs the kernel module for DRM, which supports.. well here's the pkg-descr:
FreeBSD DRM kernel modules for the Direct Rendering
Infrastructure. With XFree86 4.0 they provide 3d
acceleration under X for 3dfx Voodoo3/5/Banshee,
Matrox G200 and G400, and ATI Rage128 and Radeon cards.
This is a blatant troll. Please, just make it down already.FreeBSD is *not* dying, it is gaining users. Probably due to all the problems with Linux 2.4, that, and the fact that it's just a really nice OS once you make the switch. Anyway, troll ahoy...
There will be a 4.6, and *possibly* a 4.7, but 5.0 will be -released before then. See this interview with one of the TrustedBSD developers for a good read on the status of 5.0. It also covers the fixes to 4.5.
Re:FreeBSD ports and Sorcerer
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 0
OpenPorts appears to be dead in the water unfortunately. It really would have been nice to have a unified ports system between the three BSD systems... Personally I think they should adopt the use of Portage, which is written in Python and currently in use by the Gentoo distro. Results in a very clean package system in comparison to hordes of makefiles.
Re:Don't have to install from source...
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 0
Woops, yes I was talking about FreeBSD. Do you know how the SMP effort in netbsd is going? (They have an effort for SMP don't they?)
Re:how different (from standard netbsd) is it?
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 0
The project is very immature, even though the mailing list dates back to 1999, the project was picked up and dropped by many different people many times (have a read of the list if you like). This is a new start, and looks to be the most promising so far. As for the init system, sticking with NetBSD's init would be a good idea, but the debian zealots will most likely want a wrapper for it, so that the package init update scripts can work without having to consider two different init systems. It's not all that difficult, and we still get to keep NetBSD's init:-) The end goal is to get a full debian system on top of a BSD kernel, some of the userland tools may stay BSD, some might be changed to GNU. It depends on who wants what, and if any scripts choke on the different syntaxes of the same tools (eg. BSD ifconfig and GNU ifconfig have different output).
Re:There is a huge need for something like this
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 0
You can, of course, run those third-party Linux applications in linux-emulation. Linux binaries typically run as fast on FreeBSD as they would on Linux. (I can't tell the difference between a Linux binary and a FreeBSD one).
Re:Don't have to install from source...
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 0
Unfortunately this only applies to -RELEASE, since binary packages are not made available for -STABLE (theses are equivalent to debian stable and debian testing). If you run anything but -RELEASE, you have to compile from ports. You can, of course, make sysinstall think you run -RELEASE, and install the old binaries from -RELEASE, but there is always the chance that they are no longer compatible with your current(-STABLE) system.
Re:FreeBSD ports and Sorcerer
on
Debian NetBSD
·
· Score: 0
They could perhaps use the FreeBSD implementation of ports, but if you actually look at it, it's written completely in makefiles. This is very nasty. Gentoo on the other hand, have implemented their ports system in Python, which is a very good choice IMHO, since it's easy for a large number of people to understand how everything works without having to submerge themselves in messy code for months on end. Also, just using the entire ports system from FreeBSD doesn't make sense, since it's tailored to FreeBSD (eg. patches to make things compile properly on FreeBSD are applied at compile time).
Why is this being announced here? This is the development kernel series. MANY releases are to come, and I really hope that the announcements stop. These kernels are not intended for end users, and you may end up being the reason some newbie installs the kernel and has his drive fsck it self into oblivion. The 2.5 series is going to last a long time because of the radical changes planned, so really, stop announcing them.
Who in their right mind would expect them to give up Aqua? Also, Darwin and Windows NT are significantly different. Darwin is a mix of already free software, there would be no MacOS X if they had not been able to use the freebsd 3.2 code base as a starting point. It is amazing that Darwin is available, but I think that should be expected of a company who owes the free software community so much. The thing that suprises me is that the license is so restrictive!
When MacOS X runs on more than just PPC machines, I will give it a shot. I am not about to go and buy hardware so that I can run an OS, that I have to pay more money for, when I can buy cheap hardware, and use a free OS.
I think, for apple to really get in the Linux/Free Software's good books, they need to give something back. The license on Darwin is too restrictive to count, and they did rip off FreeBSD 3.2 (I realise, that is not how the BSD developers see it, but this is reality:-). Something like funding, or code, would go a long way in giving them a better reputation.
I tried Gentoo recently, and portage has a lot of potential, but its no where near APT. It can't handle dependancy conflicts, it can't even say to a depended package that 'i need gnome support' - you have to use an env variable. This may work for source based systems, but when they move to binary, they will either have to bloat each package, or provide many small packages, like debian does.
Portage v2 is in the works ATM, hopefully that will solve these problems, but, if you are a debian user, you will most likely be disapointed with Gentoo.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I just read the entire thing, and you're right :-) Maybe something good will come of darwin yet..
From what I remember, the license Apple used for Darwin only permits things to be contributed.. (eg. you can't fork it like you could Linux or *BSD, but you can give them code). If this is right, that is not open source/free software. You could look at it as Apple leeching free development without giving anything back.
Hopefully I'm wrong on this....
The only thing NT/2k/XP use from BSD is the TCP/IP stack [as far as we know, anyway :-)]. It's not really "based" on it at all, not in the way that OS X is. Though, it would explain how the thing is remotely stable.. :-P
Do you have the drm-kmod port installed? I thought that supported the Matrox line. My Voodoo3 was hardware accelerated after installing that..
Some of those SGI/SUN/IBM people you see on the list, are actually paid to work on the kernel. :-)
IBM is the most common that I see, and they are working on important stuff (scalability). Very cool.
When did RMS say that? I thought he was still trying to say Hurd is the GNU kernel :-) Maybe in another 10 years it will be mature....
> They should ditch tk as default windowing/widget
> environment though and switch to wx but other
> than that I love it.
Unfortunately wx uses a *lot* of ram just to load.. other than that it is very nice though.
This is a blatant troll. Please, just make it down already.FreeBSD is *not* dying, it is gaining users. Probably due to all the problems with Linux 2.4, that, and the fact that it's just a really nice OS once you make the switch. Anyway, troll ahoy...
SMP is not lacking, it's just poor. 4.x SMP uses that nice giant
lock, so only one process can be execute at a time (not parallel).
There will be a 4.6, and *possibly* a 4.7, but 5.0 will be -released before then. See this interview with one of the TrustedBSD developers for a good read on the status of 5.0. It also covers the fixes to 4.5.
OpenPorts appears to be dead in the water unfortunately. It really would have been nice to have a unified ports system between the three BSD systems... Personally I think they should adopt the use of Portage, which is written in Python and currently in use by the Gentoo distro. Results in a very clean package system in comparison to hordes of makefiles.
Woops, yes I was talking about FreeBSD. Do you know how the SMP effort in netbsd is going? (They have an effort for SMP don't they?)
The project is very immature, even though the mailing list dates back to 1999, the project was picked up and dropped by many different people many times (have a read of the list if you like). This is a new start, and looks to be the most promising so far. As for the init system, sticking with NetBSD's init would be a good idea, but the debian zealots will most likely want a wrapper for it, so that the package init update scripts can work without having to consider two different init systems. It's not all that difficult, and we still get to keep NetBSD's init :-) The end goal is to get a full debian system on top of a BSD kernel, some of the userland tools may stay BSD, some might be changed to GNU. It depends on who wants what, and if any scripts choke on the different syntaxes of the same tools (eg. BSD ifconfig and GNU ifconfig have different output).
You can, of course, run those third-party Linux applications in linux-emulation. Linux binaries typically run as fast on FreeBSD as they would on Linux. (I can't tell the difference between a Linux binary and a FreeBSD one).
Unfortunately this only applies to -RELEASE, since binary packages are not made available for -STABLE (theses are equivalent to debian stable and debian testing). If you run anything but -RELEASE, you have to compile from ports. You can, of course, make sysinstall think you run -RELEASE, and install the old binaries from -RELEASE, but there is always the chance that they are no longer compatible with your current(-STABLE) system.
They could perhaps use the FreeBSD implementation of ports, but if you actually look at it, it's written completely in makefiles. This is very nasty. Gentoo on the other hand, have implemented their ports system in Python, which is a very good choice IMHO, since it's easy for a large number of people to understand how everything works without having to submerge themselves in messy code for months on end. Also, just using the entire ports system from FreeBSD doesn't make sense, since it's tailored to FreeBSD (eg. patches to make things compile properly on FreeBSD are applied at compile time).
Why is this being announced here? This is the development kernel series. MANY releases are to come, and I really hope that the announcements stop. These kernels are not intended for end users, and you may end up being the reason some newbie installs the kernel and has his drive fsck it self into oblivion. The 2.5 series is going to last a long time because of the radical changes planned, so really, stop announcing them.
Who in their right mind would expect them to give up Aqua? Also, Darwin and Windows NT are significantly different. Darwin is a mix of already free software, there would be no MacOS X if they had not been able to use the freebsd 3.2 code base as a starting point. It is amazing that Darwin is available, but I think that should be expected of a company who owes the free software community so much. The thing that suprises me is that the license is so restrictive!
I don't think that the Darwin license permits that. AFAIK, it just allows people to contribute, not to take from it.
When MacOS X runs on more than just PPC machines, I will give it a shot. I am not about to go and buy hardware so that I can run an OS, that I have to pay more money for, when I can buy cheap hardware, and use a free OS.
Are the developers paid to develop FreeBSD or Darwin?
I think, for apple to really get in the Linux/Free Software's good books, they need to give something back. The license on Darwin is too restrictive to count, and they did rip off FreeBSD 3.2 (I realise, that is not how the BSD developers see it, but this is reality :-). Something like funding, or code, would go a long way in giving them a better reputation.
Is there some other show called The Tick other than that shittey cartoon? I don't see what everyone is obsessing about if not. The cartoon blows :-)
I tried Gentoo recently, and portage has a lot of potential, but its no where near APT. It can't handle dependancy conflicts, it can't even say to a depended package that 'i need gnome support' - you have to use an env variable. This may work for source based systems, but when they move to binary, they will either have to bloat each package, or provide many small packages, like debian does.
Portage v2 is in the works ATM, hopefully that will solve these problems, but, if you are a debian user, you will most likely be disapointed with Gentoo.