Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Apple Will Never Replace Darwin With Linux

By Trollaxor in Technology
Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 12:01:09 AM EST
Tags: Apple, Darwin, GNU, GPL, Linux, Mac OS X, Mach, Trollaxor, XNU (all tags)

Every few months, the Mac web is bombarded with open pleas to Apple, asking--nay, demanding--that Apple swap out the Mach-based kernel that Mac OS X runs on, XNU/Darwin, with Linux. This, of course, ends in with Apple stoically continuing development of XNU/Darwin while fanboys dry their eyes and limp home after their flamewars. The cycle then repeats itself again a few months later like clockwork. The truth of the matter, however, is that Apple will never replace XNU/Darwin with Linux.


Tearing XNU/Darwin out from OS X and replacing it with Linux would be winding the clock back almost twenty-five years. Mach, which comprises a large percentage of XNU/Darwin's XNU kernel, was a microkernel research project developed at Carnegie-Mellon University in the Eighties, overseen by Avie Tevanian, who usually worked on it while playing Depeche Mode and Tears For Fears and ushered it through various revisions at NeXT and, ultimately, Apple.

This continuity of development has given Apple a tight integration between the kernel, libraries, utilities, and higher-level frameworks. Linux would throw that synergy right out the window, making Apple dependent on an entirely unregulated development team, and forcing Apple to play catch-up with their specific needs after every major upgrade to Linux. Apple would have to hire Linus Torvalds in order to recreate the creator/creation dynamic they have now. And as Linus has stated several times, he'll never go work for a company doing Linux.

Perhaps one reason Linux users bleat so unceasingly for Apple to switch kernels stems from a pre-NeXT project the company ran called MkLinux. MkLinux was a version of Mach running Linux as a process. The project was sponsored by both Apple and OSF/1 and ran on Apple's first generation Power Macs and some early second-generation Power Macs. Performance was about 20% less than a native Linux would have been, but that wasn't the point; Apple was looking at different ways to create a modern operating system in the dark times of Copland before NeXT was even a gleam in their eyes.

After Apple's operating system woes came to a head in 1997, MkLinux was all but forgotten by everyone except the long-time Apple engineers tasked with updating OPENSTEP alongside their NeXT counterparts. It was a non-starter, but it was the first taste of Linux anywhere near a Mac; it would be years later that Linux/PPC or the swatch of PowerPC versions of more popular distributions like Debian, Fedora, SUSE, and YellowDog came to Apple motherboards.

"But wait!" whine the Linux zealots, "Apple uses the BSD kernel in Mac OS X, and that's not under their control!" And so it is not. But the portions of the FreeBSD kernel are only used to fill out Mach, and as such does not constitute a significant portion of the kernel. In fact, Apple's use of BSD code is so minute that it amounts to being a charity project that allows Apple a way of keeping FreeBSD solvent. So Apple is simply not using the FreeBSD kernel, and asking to replace XNU with the Linux kernel is therefore asking something disproportionate to reality and wrong. It completely misses the point, just like Linux itself.

Alongside calls of kernel replacement, Linux zealots often ask for Apple to use the GNU userland. In the beginning of Mac OS X's life, Apple used utilities from FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD instead of Linux, which was a smart move. For one, with BSD, Apple can take what they want, modify it, and ship without worrying about anything else. That's the glory of the BSD license. It's hands-off and lets you use the code as you see fit unrestrained.

In contrast, the GPL is viral in nature and ties the hands of the developers to a process that dictates distribution of source code with the binaries. You know how Snow Leopard is going to weigh five gigs instead of Leopard's eleven? We'd be talking dozens of gigabytes today if Apple used GNU. Proponents of the GPL may argue that the GPL ensures a flow of new code back into the community, but it's really just a burden to the developer.

Another reason Apple favored BSD over Linux was standardization. Most commercial Unices are genetically related to BSD in some way. For instance, Sun's Unix, Solaris, is a hybrid of System 5 Release 4 and BSD, while IBM's Unix, AIX, is based firmly on BSD4. The same goes for Hewlett-Packard's HP-UX and Tru64 UNIX, SGI's IRIX, and SCO Group's SCO OpenServer and SCO UnixWare. These Unices represent over 97% of the current Unix market, which shows that the BSD family is stronger and more established than SVR4 or the myriad of incompatible Linux distribution offerings.

BSD command utilities, while not universal, are more ubiquitous than the GNU command set, which Linux uses. And while some GNU utilities offer BSD compatibility, it's really a crapshoot whether they'll even compile. By using BSD commands, Apple made sure that a Unix pro could sit down and get to work with their command line. Even though Linux has grown somewhat in popularity, the choice for familiarity and compatibility is still clear. For those who want Linux command tools under OS X, porting isn't a problem thanks to Mac OS X's strong POSIX support.

Apple to this day remains with XNU/Darwin after six (and coming up on seven) major releases of Mac OS X. and are unlikely to switch any time soon. At most, a move to the GNU userland would be feasible, but since that's already available for OS X and BSD, Apple doesn't want mired in the GPL, that's unlikely too. So for the time being, it would be easier on all of us if the Linux-for-Mac OS X camp just quieted down and realized that Mach is what works best for Mac OS X because it offers so much more than Linux.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o open pleas
o Apple
o Mach
o Mac OS X
o XNU/Darwin
o XNU kernel
o Carnegie-M ellon University
o Depeche Mode
o Tears For Fears
o Apple [2]
o unregulate d development team
o MkLinux
o FreeBSD
o a charity project
o keeping FreeBSD solvent
o GNU
o NetBSD
o OpenBSD
o BSD license
o GPL
o Solaris
o AIX
o HP-UX
o Tru64 UNIX
o IRIX
o SCO OpenServer
o SCO UnixWare
o Also by Trollaxor


Display: Sort:
Apple Will Never Replace Darwin With Linux | 76 comments (65 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
-1 (2.06 / 16) (#8)
by I Did It All For The Horse Cock on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 01:33:48 PM EST

__________________..._______________
___________.'"___________"'.________
__________/____.--._.--.____\_______
_________/____/_________\____\______
________/_____| / \ / \ |_____\_____
_______;____.-' \o/ \o/ '-.____;____
_______|___|_()_.-"""-._()_|___|____
_______;___|____\_____/____|___;____
_______\___;_____\___/____;__/_____
________\__\______\_/_______/__/____
________.->""--.___V___.--""<-. 
_______/_______________________\____
______/__________APPLE__________\___
_____/___________________________\__
____/______/_____FAGS______\______\_
___;______|_________________|______: 
___|______|_________________|______| 
___|_______\_____.-v-._____/_______| 
____\_______'.__/_____\__.'_______/_
_____;._______`--|___|--'_______.;__
_____|_`-.________)_(________.-'_| 
_____|___|_```___|___|___```_|___|__
_____;___\_______|___|_______/___;__
______\___\____(___Y___)____/___/__
_______\___'.___"-----"___.'___/____
________\____`-._______.-'____/_____
_________'._______```_______.'______
__________/`-.___________.-'\______
_________/__,__``;---;``__,__\______
________|__/__|__|___|__|__\__|_____
________'-'|__/\_/___\_/\__|'-'_____



\\\
  \ \        ^.^._______  This comment brought to you by the penis-nosed fox!
    \\______/_________|_)
    / /    \ \
    \_\_    \ \

kitten voted -1 on this story, (3.00 / 7) (#9)
by N0574 on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 02:16:50 PM EST

so apparently it's not about Devo.

- NCCTG N0574 CANCER PROTOCOL
kitten's not dead? (3.00 / 4) (#10)
by LilDebbie on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 02:45:05 PM EST

when did that happen?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
kitten has an emo blog $ (none / 0) (#22)
by anaesthetica on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:14:18 AM EST


—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
That's a lot of links. (3.00 / 2) (#11)
by gr3y on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 06:14:59 PM EST

But overall you failed to provide any evidence to support your assertions.

As a result, I decided that this should be re-sectioned as an op-ed, since you are advancing your wholly unsubstantiated opinion as fact. Re-section it to op-ed, and I'll vote section.

Your vote (-1) was recorded.
This story currently has a total score of 10.

I am a disruptive technology.

Thanks. I try to be as informative as possible. (3.00 / 2) (#18)
by Trollaxor on Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 02:16:50 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Kill yourself (1.00 / 3) (#13)
by Nimey on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 09:24:27 PM EST

and quit shittin' on my queue.
--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I am arguably too manic to do that. -- Crawford
I already fuck my mother -- trane
Nimey is right -- Blastard
i am in complete agreement with Nimey -- i am a pretty big deal

I'm the only one offering content in this dump. (3.00 / 2) (#17)
by Trollaxor on Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 02:16:18 PM EST



[ Parent ]
lol (none / 0) (#19)
by Fake Can Be Just As Good on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 04:55:04 AM EST

your link to the supposed vast amount of support of replacing darwin w/linux contains only one semi-relevant post (semi-relevant in that i can't tell if Kevin Ball is retarded or joking), and it comes from 2000 at that. -1 garbage

This is a plan... (3.00 / 2) (#20)
by jolt rush soon on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 05:56:45 AM EST

...to get a whole bunch of angry slashdot users to pay the $5, right?
--
Subosc — free electronic music.
Yes. Rusty contracted me. (none / 0) (#74)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:18:40 PM EST



[ Parent ]
I like it. (3.00 / 4) (#21)
by GiTm on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 06:17:22 AM EST

I'd almost given up on Kuro5hin and then articles start turning up in my feed reader.

Despite what others have said, I liked the article. Interesting (if not detailed) history, some good reasoning and interesting links (even if most are not related to supporting the argument).

Please - keep posting.

PS: If anyone knows where to get a (working) NeXT cube or pizza box please pass it on.
--- I have nothing funny to say here.

Re: Please - keep posting. (3.00 / 5) (#30)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 07:53:03 PM EST

Oh, I intend to.

[ Parent ]
ZFS is not GPL. That seems like a pretty good... (none / 0) (#23)
by claes on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:23:44 AM EST

reason to me.

I used mklinux for a while (3.00 / 2) (#24)
by rabbits77 on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:46:51 PM EST

I ran mklinux on some old hardware for several years. I didn't care about performance at all since this was just for personal development and education. I still kind of wish that the project could be resuscitated somewhat but it is so far behind the curve it would require quite a bit of effort I believe. The main problem is that it is almost impossible to find anyone interested in working on Mach. Any development and enhancement of Mach would only come from academia at this point since industry doesn't care and open source volunteers aren't interested.

I also ran MkLinux. (3.00 / 2) (#25)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 01:52:07 PM EST

I ran MkLinux on a Power Macintosh 6100/66 and a Work Group Server 9150/120. It flew on the latter with 384 MB RAM. After Apple's R2, they more or less abandoned it and a third-party group of interested individuals banded together but only took it so far. I don't even think they got a major kernel update out. The usefulness of the project was indeed in academia and/or industrial R&D at the time, since Linux functionality was better served by the various native PowerPC ports of Linux appearing and maturing over time in the late Nineties and early Noughts.

[ Parent ]
I too am a victim of MACH (none / 0) (#39)
by Del Griffith on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:20:06 PM EST

I ran GNUMach with Lites.  Oh the horror of it... Well it was all microkernel cool, but when it came down to it, the bootstrapping was a motherfucker, and it was 500% SLOWER then NETBSD 1.1 ...

Clearly another Opensores winner!

Mach (pure mach) was too bogged down in port security, and checks... NeXT/Apple fixed that shit, just as L4 was on the way to fixing it...

But the research idea was the microkernel could execute in L1/L2 cache, but heh that didn't happen until now.

I've run NeXTSTEP 3.3 on a 2Ghz P4 (look for the boards with ISA slots) and it boots QUICK, runs stuff quick, but the 2gig filesystem limits are... annoying.

It's too bad Xnu can't load NS modules/exe's.

-------
I...I like me. My wife likes me. My customers like me. Because I'm the real article. What you see is what you get. - Me


[ Parent ]

These days... (none / 0) (#75)
by jd on Wed Jul 08, 2009 at 05:37:19 PM EST

...you would probably want to look at OsKit and the L4Linux project, which uses the L4 microkernel rather than the MACH microkernel. Apparently, the developers are getting better performance and better stability.

Personally, I like the idea of the microkernel, but the problems with many implementations seem to be because of poor implementation of the concept -- and poor implementation is usually a good indicator of bugs.


[ Parent ]

You seem to have forgotten GNUStep (2.00 / 3) (#26)
by Armstrong Hammer on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 05:53:11 PM EST

GNUStep was written to port the OpenStep API to Linux and other platforms. Right now it is based on the Apple Cocoa API.

Once finished it should be able to run some OSX Cocoa based applications with Linux. Of course OSX applications may need to be recompiled using the GNUStep libraries as Linux and OSX use different binary standards for executable files.

If fact, I think when Michael Crawford releases the OSX version of Ogg Frog, he can recompile it for GNUStep and it should work.

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

I generally don't comment on piracy. (2.80 / 5) (#27)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 05:53:46 PM EST



[ Parent ]
It isn't piracy it is open source software (none / 0) (#31)
by Armstrong Hammer on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:23:42 PM EST

didn't you bother to read that web site?
Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
I did read the website. (1.50 / 2) (#32)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 09:39:22 PM EST

What they're doing is reverse-engineering Cocoa, which is illegal under the DCMA and which is tantamount to intellectual piracy.

[ Parent ]
Not so (none / 0) (#33)
by Armstrong Hammer on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:24:49 PM EST

because they aren't based in the USA. It is an International Project in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the globe.

How do you think Microsoft and PC Clone makers got so big? They reverse engineered IBM's BIOS, and Microsoft reverse engineered CP/M to make MS-DOS and IBM PC-DOS which was based on 86-DOS that was a reverse engineered CP/M-86 with some commands renamed and some other commands moved into memory and off the floppy disk.

Apple reverse engineered the Xerox PARC Star and Altos systems to make the Macintosh and Lisa for corn's sake.

Microsoft reversed engineered Wordperfect to make Word, reverse engineered Lotus 123 to make Excel, and reverse engineered Visio and the Macintosh to make Windows.

When Microsoft and IBM made OS/2, they reverse engineered the Amiga, later on IBM licensed the AmigaDOS/Workbench technology for OS/2 2.0 because OS/2 1.X had failed when Microsoft and IBM didn't reverse engineer enough of the Amiga to get it to work good enough.

When Microsoft made Windows NT it reverse engineered OS/2 2.0 from IBM, when it make Windows 95 it reverse engineered IBM OS/2 3.0 WARP, when Microsoft made Vista it reverse engineered OSX. Heck when Microsoft made Xenix it reverse engineered AT&T UNIX SYSTEM V, as did the BSD team reverse engineer AT&T UNIX, at least Linux was written from scratch.

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
Wrong. (none / 1) (#34)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:31:45 PM EST

First of all, you're confusing <i>reverse engineering</i> with making a workalike, which doesn't involve reverse engineering anything at all.

Now if a company has patents on a certain feature, that would be a patent violation, but one certainly doesn't need to figure out what APIs are being called in Word to make a text editor that can do some of the same things or a pretty GUI to run circles around command line geeks.

Second, the DCMA didn't exist back when people reverse engineered IBM's BIOS. It was a dark time, and people were willy-nilly using Open Source tools to hack one another's code left and right.

Primarily quit confusing "being inspired by" or "copying features" with reverse engineering. The latter is much more specific and much more illegal.

[ Parent ]

Wrong (none / 0) (#35)
by Armstrong Hammer on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:44:23 PM EST

the DMCA is Unconstitutional and it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court rules on it. For example there is no "Fair Use" clause in it, and Digital Rights Management violates the user's rights and freedoms, plus it does not allow such things as backing up or even ownership (the software and etc are the property of the company that made them, and the buyer is not allowed to own it) which counts as fraud in common law.

Apple itself has to reverse engineer Microsoft Windows to get the API calls to make Quicktime/iTunes, Safari, ClarisWorks, Filemaker, etc work with Windows, because Microsoft refuses to release undocumented API calls. OSX developers also have to reverse engineer OSX to use OSX undocumented API calls to make their programs work better. So don't tell me that reverse engineering is not being done anymore, because it is.

Take for example the WINE project, they have to reverse engineer Windows to make WINE run more Windows programs under Linux, BSD Unix, Mac OSX, etc. Apple had to reverse engineer Windows to learn how to make Bootcamp work to dual boot Windows on Intel Macs so they could dual boot OSX and Windows.

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
Even wronger. (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:47:46 PM EST

If the DCMA is unconstitutional, maybe you and Eric Raymond should go off somewhere together and talk about it.

Apple didn't revengineer anything in Windows; they used the legally obtained Win32 API from their abandoned Star Trek project and then ported the classic Mac Toolbox over to Windows using it. Yes, that means that QuickTime and iTunes and parts of Safari are running on pre-Carbon Mac APIs. But it's Windows anyway. Who'll notice if you spit on crap?

Boot camp uses nothing more than publicly available information, sir. You are dead wrong.

[ Parent ]

Even wronger still (none / 0) (#37)
by Armstrong Hammer on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 10:57:42 PM EST

Microsoft Windows APIs changed since the Star Trek project, the classic Mac Toolbox that you claim is based on the old Yellowbox project for Windows that had to reverse engineer Windows API calls in order to get it working on top of Windows.

Boot Camp uses undocumented API calls to the Windows boot sector, try booting Windows on an Intel Mac without those undocumented API calls, that is how it can switch to a Windows boot. The Intel Mac is non-standard PC using EFI BIOS that is incompatible with Windows and Apple had to work around that by reverse engineering Microsoft's WINBIOS that overlays the PC's BIOS that is made up of undocumented API calls to that WINBIOS that bootstraps Windows.

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
HIRES PROOF OF APPLE YELLOWBOX ON WINDOWS (none / 0) (#38)
by Armstrong Hammer on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:04:51 PM EST

Apple still uses Yellowbox for Windows to run Safari and those DLL files use undocumented Windows API calls in order to work.

Check and mate, sucker!

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
You didn't read long enough. (none / 0) (#40)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:45:02 PM EST

The bottom of your "proof" blows your theory. I have to admire your tenacity, but I think you might have less-than-stellar reasoning skills.

[ Parent ]
Those DLL files (none / 0) (#41)
by Armstrong Hammer on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 12:27:29 AM EST

use Undocumented API calls to Microsoft's DLL files that control video, sound, and other things.

I've used Microsoft's API calls for 17 years now in my programming, I know how they change and I know in order to work better in Windows one has to use Undocumented API calls or else Safari, Quicktime/iTunes, etc would not run as fast if they used documented API calls. Microsoft does this to gain an unfair advantage over other software companies. Real Networks had to reverse engineer Windows to get their video player working faster as well.

You are talking to a Windows application programmer here with more experience at it than you.

Don't believe me, well prove it or shut up by unassembling those Apple DLLs and then compare each API call they make to a list of documented API calls and see if any of them don't appear on that list. I know people who have done that, and found out that they use undocumented Windows API calls in those DLL files.

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
But that would be reverse engineering... (none / 0) (#42)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 08:51:30 AM EST

And I'm not breaking the law to win some online argument with you.

So where can I download the latest versions of your works?

[ Parent ]

Then you admit defeat (none / 0) (#43)
by Armstrong Hammer on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 12:23:35 PM EST

and that I win, because you cannot prove your side of the argument.
Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
I would suggest the burden of proof is on you. (none / 0) (#44)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 12:31:55 PM EST

But I somehow think you'd disagree, and disagreeing with you does not write articles and post them to the queue.

[ Parent ]
No you are the one who claimed (none / 1) (#49)
by Armstrong Hammer on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:41:10 PM EST

Apple didn't do reverse engineering. I said they did. I even proved that Apple hires reverse engineering experts and you ignored that link.

You have not proven your claim that Apple does not do reverse engineering, and faced with the job listing Apple had for reverse engineering experts, I say you lost the argument and the debate.

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
Not so. (none / 0) (#51)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:44:08 PM EST

That link is Apple hiring someone to do reverse engineering on their own products, something that is not illegal and is not the same sense of reverse engineering we've both discussed.

Also, I claimed Apple didn't do something illegal. That's assuming innocence. You were the one with the accusations, ergo the burden of proof is on you.

[ Parent ]

Reverse Engineering (none / 0) (#61)
by Armstrong Hammer on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:05:46 AM EST

is against the DMCA even if it is your own product, moron! Apple also reverse engineers other software like iPhone apps to see if they use any undocumented API calls, iPhone and OSX apps not written by Apple get reverse engineered and then Apple removes them from their app store or tries to sue the company that made them.
Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
Tsk tsk tsk (none / 1) (#53)
by kentrak on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:53:46 PM EST

I understand you may be trying to bait the troll, but considering the article itself is a troll, you've already lost.  Just accept it.

Besides, it wasn't very subtle in the first place, you should feel ashamed for being sucked in.  There's plenty of bridges for you both to hide under.  No need to fight over this rickety one.


[ Parent ]

Assailing me is one thing. (none / 1) (#54)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:00:43 PM EST

Steve Jobs is another.

[ Parent ]
So you're OK with Steve Jobs assailing you? (none / 0) (#56)
by it certainly is on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:08:32 PM EST

I'd expect no less.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Ok, I'll bite (none / 0) (#57)
by kentrak on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:09:41 PM EST

You've piqued my interest.  How am I assailing Steve Jobs?

And please, make this good, your reputation is on the line.  If you turn out to just be an ankle biter, I won't have any reason to respond to you in the future, and then we'll BOTH be a little more bored.

[ Parent ]

Steve Jobs now has an iLiver (none / 0) (#62)
by Armstrong Hammer on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:07:59 AM EST

after his old iLiver went bad.

I ain't afraid of Steve Jobs, and I ain't afraid of you.

You are wrong now and ever have been wrong, Apple et al always do reverse engineering, even if they don't make that fact public.

Learn about the true liberal agenda in the United States of America.

[ Parent ]
what about wine? (none / 0) (#63)
by rhiannon on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:41:41 PM EST

Isn't that the same thing?

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]
No, they are not reverse engineering... (none / 0) (#69)
by ckm on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 03:12:53 AM EST

Where do you get this stuff?  

NeXT and SUN documented all of the OpenStep interfaces SPECIFICALLY so that people could replicate them.  It's these interfaces that GNUStep is replicating, they are NOT cloning the code behind them.

I actually have two NeXTs in my back office, as well as all the developer docs from when I used to code on them.  

Chris.

[ Parent ]

IGTT 9/10 (3.00 / 3) (#28)
by rhiannon on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 06:21:07 PM EST

1 point off because it's not really going to get the proper exposure here, this would be better posted on a linux advocacy site or mailing list.

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
That's not the point. (2.80 / 5) (#29)
by Trollaxor on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 06:52:27 PM EST

Kuro5hin isn't meant to get bites, it's meant as a neutral launching ground that sits in a lot of sites' newsfeeds.

[ Parent ]
I love it (none / 1) (#45)
by it certainly is on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:08:19 PM EST

but I feel like commenting on this part:

You know how Snow Leopard is going to weigh five gigs instead of Leopard's eleven? We'd be talking dozens of gigabytes today if Apple used GNU.

This is not the case. The reason Snow Leopard will be smaller is because Apple will switch from Universion binaries (PPC + X86 in one file) to just X86, jettisoning the bulky PowerPC code.

The GPL's source code requirement does not demand you install the source code with the binaries, but that you distribute them together, i.e. on the same media like a DVD, or provide a guarantee that the user can download them. For example, all the code could be in Developer.mpkg and there wouldn't be a problem.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

That's utterly, utterly wrong. (none / 0) (#46)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:09:47 PM EST

Apple is zipping most system files. Since they only need unzipped once, and processors are fast enough to make it transparent, it works.

[ Parent ]
Wide of the mark (none / 1) (#50)
by it certainly is on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:42:52 PM EST

http://www.pipian.com/hacking/explaining_snow_leopard_app_sizes.html

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Some guy who misunderstands posts a blog, (none / 0) (#52)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:47:08 PM EST

and that's proof? Sorry. I have links from Apple and Apple developer mailing list archives that say otherwise.

[ Parent ]
Why not post them then? (none / 1) (#55)
by it certainly is on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:06:33 PM EST

Or is it from your private "mwah mwah steve oh please stop steve unf unf unf" list?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I'm busy writing more content for the front page. (2.00 / 2) (#58)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:11:31 PM EST

And posting links on K5 is tedious.

[ Parent ]
I think you trade in filthy lies (none / 1) (#59)
by it certainly is on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:47:37 PM EST

and there are no such links for you to post.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Oh and GPL 3... (none / 0) (#47)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:10:19 PM EST

...requires that source be included with or installed alongside binary.

[ Parent ]
'included with' != 'installed alongside' (none / 0) (#48)
by it certainly is on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 01:36:13 PM EST

As I already covered in my comment. You fail at reading comprehension. The GPL 3 makes it very clear; section 6a says "it's OK just to include the source code on the install DVD" in legalese.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Both you & the original poster are wrong... (none / 0) (#68)
by ckm on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 03:04:59 AM EST

... both the GPLv2 and GPLv3 specify that you make the code 'available', which can take a lot of forms.

It's useful to both read AND understand the licenses before trying to comment authoritatively on them....

Here is the actual text from GPLv2:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

And from GPLv3:


    * a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
    * b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
    * c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
    * d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
    * e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.

Neither of these require to distribute source concurrently with the binary, even if that's the most desirable way to do it.

Chris.

[ Parent ]

That's the most desirable way to do it? Really? (none / 0) (#71)
by Trollaxor on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 09:43:11 AM EST

Why would that be?

[ Parent ]
snow leopard is smaller because they want it small (none / 0) (#64)
by rhiannon on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 05:42:52 PM EST

not because of any single thing they've done, apple has made size a priority and everyone is working towards that goal.

-----------------------------------------
I continued to rebuff the advances... so many advances... of so many attractive women. -MC
[ Parent ]
Of course. (none / 0) (#73)
by Trollaxor on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 01:18:18 PM EST

And this is one way they're working toward that goal. Duh.

[ Parent ]
You don't have to distribute them together, just.. (none / 0) (#66)
by ckm on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 02:30:31 AM EST

... make the source available (e.g. online, via mail, etc).  I know you will want to disagree, but I was actually chief strategist at the Linux Foundation's precursor (along with a lot of other things), so I know a little about this....

Oh, and the GPLv3 has little impact on this.  It mostly clears up patents and covers DRM.

Chris.
P.S. Haven't posted in a while, but you made me do it...

[ Parent ]

Oh man (3.00 / 4) (#60)
by Vampire Zombie Abu Musab al Zarqawi on Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 06:43:13 PM EST

http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-06-30-028-35-OP-SW-DV

LAWL (none / 0) (#65)
by Strom Thurmond on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 06:06:25 PM EST

Done for the LULZ.

VEGETARIAN: An Indian word meaning "lousy hunter"
[ Parent ]

Apple not using Linux because there is no need (none / 1) (#67)
by ckm on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 02:53:53 AM EST

This article is largely written by someone who has not examined the business dynamics involved.  Apple's decision has zero to do with technology and everything to do with business risk.  And switching is ALL business risk, there is zero upside for Apple, or it's shareholders and users for that matter.

Besides, all of the technology in Linux distributions is fully available to Apple.  It already makes up around 25% of their core OS (according to this page http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1057/) and there is even more in Xcode.

Finally, if Apple wanted to switch to Linux, it could just switch the licensing on the microkernel and merge it with the Linux kernel (or take a shim approach like Xen).  That's what Sun should have done with Solaris....

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Linux fan.  I been using it for 15 years and have spent the last 8 years helping close to 300 companies, including 30 Global 500's & over 70 startups, to use more Linux and open source.  But sometimes you have to know when it's a stupid idea, and Apple is a good example of that.

Chris.

Clarification: GPL is 25% of OSX base (aka.darwin) (none / 0) (#70)
by ckm on Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 03:17:54 AM EST

Since I can't edit...

[ Parent ]
An exercise in stating the obvious /nt (none / 0) (#72)
by Zombie Gautama Buddha on Tue Jul 07, 2009 at 06:21:09 AM EST



BSD vs SysV ... (none / 0) (#76)
by dougmc on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 01:33:23 AM EST

Solaris is basically SysV with some BSD commands thrown into the mix.  (I'm talking about Solaris 2 amd later here, not SunOS, which was BSD.)

Irix is/was very much SysV, not BSD.

AIX is based on SysV, with some BSD-ish commands thrown into the mix.

HPUX is based on SysV as well.

Really, it's hard to put Linux into either camp.  For starters, it depends a lot on which distribution you're looking at.

Apple Will Never Replace Darwin With Linux | 76 comments (65 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!