Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Running Mac OS X Binaries With NetBSD

Hemos posted more than 11 years ago | from the making-it-work dept.

BSD 177

An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has an interesting article about an effort to add a Mach and Darwin binary compatibility layer to NetBSD. The project has evidently already made a fair amount of progress, currently working to stabilize the WindowServer emulation portion that will then allow NetBSD to run Mac OS X graphical applications."

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frstaa pknewst (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019727)

Foist postios! fuck allah and his punk bitch muhammad

+5 Patriotic (And +1 TRUE)!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019782)

Word up cuz

frist prost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019729)

post frist not prost last.

YOU ARE SO FIRED! (-1, Offtopic)

YOU ARE SO FIRED! (635925) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019928)

This doesn't look like a 'post frist' to me, sonny. Pack it up and get out, buddy. You're fired.

The shell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019731)

Will it be able to run the MacOS X shell, dock and finder?

FIRST FISH! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019732)

I AM A FISH!

Re:FIRST FISH! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019770)

I am a Tuna.

Re:FIRST FISH! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019954)

I am mayonnaise, pickles, and a hard-boiled egg. Between the two of us, we can make a great salad.

Fantastic (4, Funny)

Evil Adrian (253301) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019741)

That's great, really, but what is there to discuss? Now we can run apps from OS X on OS Y (my apologies), happy day. Next topic!

Re:Fantastic (1)

vesamies (240247) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020006)

I'm a bit lost too about what to say (say nothing :). I guess people want their OS to have all possible bells and whistles. All other (than mac) NetBSD's ppc ports seem to run on quite exotic hardware and if you have a mac you want macos-x too, right?

Great idea (1, Redundant)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019744)

Now one can run native Xapps, windows AND OSX apps on a unix box.. ( in theory at least )

Best of all the worlds combined. Run the app you need, on an OS you can trust.

Re:Great idea (3, Funny)

__past__ (542467) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019818)

... you only have to make sure both your windows and OS X binaries are for the same processor architecture.

Re:Great idea (1)

Pius II. (525191) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020059)

Which is possible: I have Windows NT 4.0 PPC and DevStudio 5.0 can compile with NT PPC as target. Of course, porting to BSD would probably be easier than using WinePPC (is there such a thing?). BTW, some old Mac programs are ported so badly that you could almost call them "windows binaries", too. E.g. C&C 1 uses DirectX, and I've still got a MFC 4.0 OLE library in my extension folder :-(

Re:Great idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020357)

WineLib can run on PPC fine. But I'm pretty sure you can't run an NT/PPC binary.

Re:Great idea (4, Informative)

AtATaddict (531517) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020348)

Umm.... you could just buy a Mac and VirtualPC, then install Xfree86 in rootless mode. Seems like a simpler means to the stated end, considering that a Mac running Mac OS X is a "unix box".

Re:Great idea (0)

bhawbaker (576764) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020418)

or just install XFree86 on Mac/OSX and run it rootless.. no need to emulate anything.

Re:Great idea (0)

bhawbaker (576764) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020438)

never mind.. misunderstood the msg.. your right, just use xfree86 and virtual ppc

Re:Great idea (2)

kraksmoka (561333) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020540)

i agree with you. however, some of us just can't wait for NetBSD to follow the largest and most popular BSD based *nix OS . . . . i can already do [grantstern.com] what they're just gettin runnin for NetBSD.

now i'm really lookin forward to installing NetBSD on my Quadra 660av [lowendmac.com] . kudos to NetBSD!

Neat but... (2)

MBCook (132727) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019747)

That's pretty cool, but personally I'd probably just run OS X, it's a very nice OS. I can see where this would be nice though. Now if they can make this run on x86s (I know, VERY though, that requires emulating a ton more stuff) then I'll rush to download it.

Re:Neat but... (2, Interesting)

fdisk3hs (513270) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019823)

The point is that you can run Mac OSX, Irix, Linux, Solaris, you-name-ix binary precompiled even commercial software on a PPC machine running NetBSD. EVEN machines that don't support OSX, like that iMac 233 or PowerMac 180 that you have sitting around... Sounds useful.

But, yes- you can only run PPC binaries. M68k or x86 will not work.

lr

Re:Neat but... (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019884)

EVEN machines that don't support OSX, like that iMac 233 or PowerMac 180 that you have sitting around... Sounds useful.
I don't know about the PowerMac, but: Since when does OSX not work on an iMac 233?

I'm running on an even older beige G3, no problem.

Re:Neat but... (2)

Octorian (14086) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020053)

Ok, so when did IRIX or Solaris run on PowerPC? Just because they provide binary cross-OS compatability, doesn't mean they also provide processor emulation. This emulation is probably just a system-call shim layer, like FreeBSD's Linux emulation. The code still runs native, but syscalls are translated and sometimes emulated.

Re:Neat but... (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020534)

Irix:No
Solaris:Yes

Solaris PPC [google.com]

Of course it runs NetBSD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019750)

NetBSD has conquored the Mac! ;)

Linux port? (1, Interesting)

Selanit (192811) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019751)

Very cool. I wonder if it could be ported to Linux once they've got working okay on FreeBSD. Then Linux would be able to run Mac OS X apps -- the Mac OS X versions of Photoshop and Word come to mind. One major barrier to the adoption of Linux on the desktop is the percieved lack of familiar applications, and Photoshop and Word are high on the list. Word has been pretty well taken care of by the Crossweaver WINE stuff, but Photoshop is still missing. Gimp is great and all, but most graphics professionals would rather keep using the package they're already familiar with than try to learn a whole new one, which is frankly often not as capable as Photoshop.

Re:Linux port? (1)

bconway (63464) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019838)

You realize this is only for NetBSD/PPC, right? I'm sure this would be great news for the Linux PPC users, but it won't affect most of us. Stick with WINE, I guess (CrossOver Office is very sweet, though).

Re:Linux port? (2)

jelle (14827) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019895)

Time for a PlexPPC, similar to Plex86...

Re:Linux port? (2, Informative)

KAMiKAZOW (455500) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020020)

It does alredy exsist. It called Mac-On-Linux [maconlinux.org] .

Re:Linux port? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019851)

PPC Linux maybe, but that wouldn't help on the desktop. x86 Linux would be much more difficult.

Re:Linux port? (2, Insightful)

damiam (409504) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019861)

Running Photoshop or Office would require a complete reimplimentation of Quartz, Aqua, Carbon, and quite a few other OS X technologies. Besides, even if successful, it would only work under LinuxPPC. The work necessary to get Wine to run Photoshop well is a small fraction of what would be needed to port all OSX API's to Linux.

Re:Linux port? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019934)

Why would you reimplement them when you could just run Apple's binaries?

(That was the whole point of TFA, BTW)

OK, but... (2)

caveat (26803) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019888)

why on earth would i want to kludge linux on a Mac to run OSX apps when I can just run OS X? you'll notice that the project is still only for ppc machines, and while LinuxPPC/YDL is nice, i really prefer X...it's just so much better a *nix on the Mac...

Re:OK, but... (1)

SubtleNuance (184325) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020043)

...because GNU/Linux is Free as in Freedom.

Re:OK, but... (1)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020137)

And most people want computers to be practical, as in paycheck.

I don't really give a whiz about freedom. I'll use the best tool for the job. Sometimes it's a Mac, sometimes it's Linux, sometimes (but not very often) it's Windows. If I can use something with a BSD license, I will, but that doesn't govern my decision. Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm starting to think of all of this push for GNU, the Green Party, and the like as simple immaturity on the part of people who don't have enough other things to do in the real world. Call that a troll if you like, but it's about how I feel.

Re:OK, but... (2)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020501)

Maybe I'm getting old, but I'm starting to think of all of this push for GNU, the Green Party, and the like as simple immaturity on the part of people who don't have enough other things to do in the real world.

Congratulations, and welcome to the real world. :)

Re:Linux port? (5, Interesting)

KAMiKAZOW (455500) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019920)

Mac-On-Linux [maconlinux.org]

What Is Mac On Linux?

Mac-on-Linux lets you run MacOS under Linux/ppc. MOL runs natively on the processor, i.e. it is very fast. Unlike most mac emulators, MOL can run MacOS 8.6 and later WITHOUT A ROM IMAGE.

Feature List

- Supports MacOS 7.5.2 to 9.2.2, 10.1 and 10.2
- Linux can be booted inside MOL
- Full screen video
- MMU accelereaded X video
- Audio support
- Block device support (Ide, Scsi, Zip, Jaz)
- ADB & USB support for mouse and keyboard
- Ethernet
- Runs natively - good speed!
- Very compatible
- Idle sleep (8.6 or later)
- Session save and restore (temporary unavailable)
- AltiVec support
- Multi-session support


OK, it's not binary compatibility, but unlike COMPAT_MACH and COMPAT_DARWIN it does already work. But COMPAT_MACH and COMPAT_DARWIN are very interesting and worth keeping an eye on it.


Oh, BTW.... From the MOL-FAQ:

Q: Does it run on i386 hardware?
A: No, MOL can only run on PowerPC hardware since no emulation is performed. However, adding a PowerPC emulator for x86 is under consideration.

Re:Linux port? (1)

Henk Poley (308046) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020580)

You forgot to mention this special fact from the Mac On Linux homepage.

"News Flash:
Sep 5: It is now possible to boot MacOS X in MOL."

Which links to..

"Hot News:
Sep 5: Boot MacOS X in MOL 0.9.65!

It is now possible to run MacOS X within MOL. Both MacOS 10.1 and 10.2 are supported. The new MOL version also contains support for little endian (remote) X displays. A couple of performance improvements have also gone into this release."

Q: Why don't they port this to BSD, instead of reinventing the wheel?
A: This is OpenSource dude, don't you get it?

Re:Linux port? (1)

MrWa (144753) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020024)

One major barrier to the adoption of Linux on the desktop is the percieved lack of familiar applications, and Photoshop and Word are high on the list.

This is the most often reason for Linux not being adopted on the desktop that I see. Why does it matter? What would possess someone to switch OS's just to use the same program that has been shoehorned into a different OS? If something is working (i.e. Photoshop running on an Apple) there isn't a compelling reason to switch. The percieved lack of familiar programs is usually just preventing people that already using Linux from using it full time.

If Photoshop or Office was native to a Linux desktop then that may put a dent - but only a very small dent, look at Apple's success - in the desktop world. Why is it so hard for Linux advocates to accept that Linux belongs as a server, for now. Now that it has pretty, user-friendly UI's people want to force it on the desktop for everyone...maybe that isn't right, though.

It would take some killer app (or a significant outside influence) to get the regular Joe-user to switch from a system that works to the point they expect (i.e. Windows, with the occasional crash now in XP) to Linux.

Re:Linux port? (3, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020095)

Very cool. I wonder if it could be ported to Linux once they've got working okay on FreeBSD. Then Linux would be able to run Mac OS X apps

You're making a lot of assumptions. Firstly, that such an emulation system could be completed in any reasonable amount of time, and could keep up with Apple. Obviously, that isn't the same kind of issue as it is with Wine as Apple is a lot smaller, and to be frank, Windows has far more APIs and features to the developer than OS X does (at present).

Secondly, you're assuming Apple would let this happen. They can't stop a cleanroom implementation, but they can copyright the artwork which is a big deal to Mac users. Wine has to have its own artwork for instance (but not for the widget toolkit, as the Win98 L&F is so basic it can't really be copyrighted). Not that nice distinctions like code vs art would bother Apple, they have a long history of abusive lawsuits.

Finally you're assuming that such an emulator could emulate PPC opcodes at a reasonable speed, which is a) hard and b) unlikely.

Bear in mind that doesn't say "You can run MacOS apps on NetBSD", far from it, they have some of the basics of Mach IPC working. They haven't even started on graphics support. If there's something we've all learnt from Wine (which has 2 companies working on it as well as hundreds of volunteers), it's that cloning another OS's APIs is a lot of work, and as most of the MacOS APIs are not simply lifts of their UNIX equivalents, they are Apple proprietary (iokit/coreaudio etc), that's no less amount of work.

Re:Linux port? (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020558)

Please stop comparing COMPAT_MACH to WINE. The WINE project is attempting to build cleanroom implementations of the Win32 API. The COMPAT_MACH folks are working on binary compatibility. If you want to talk about APIs look up GNUStep which is an implementation of the OpenStep specification. That is a project more analguous to WINE because it is actually attemping API reimplementation. If this project gets everything working it could allow NetBSD to be a drop-in replacment for Darwin as a BSD subsystem and kernel. WINE and GNUStep on the otherhand would be drop-in replacements for application level APIs.

use MOL aka mac on linux! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020126)


use MOL aka mac on linux!

http://www.maconlinux.org/

Linux BSD and Darwin all being Nix brother
I am still wondering why there is so much money invested for Windows port when it would be probably easier to have port from those ...

Still wining about lack of Word?! (1)

Paulo Rocha (455361) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020177)

One major barrier to the adoption of Linux on the desktop is the percieved lack of familiar applications, and Photoshop and Word are high on the list
Already on 2003, and we still read people wining about the unavailability of Word on Linux. Jeez...
Me and my whole organization use StarOffice/OpenOffice for a long time ago, and we don't need MS Office. When we want to send a document outside the company, we convert it to PDF. Whenever we receive a MS Office document from outside, we open it it StarOffice/OpenOffice. When we need to check if the conversion was well done, we open the document in Microsoft Word Viewer, Excel Viewer and Powerpoint viewer, which:
  • Are freeware
  • Run fine under Wine
  • Open MS Office documents from versions 97 to XP

When will people realize that if compatibility was so crucial, then we would still be using Wordstar or an even older wordprocessor?

Regarding Photoshop, Corel Photopaint and Gimp are excellent replacements. I know they don't have all the prepress features of Photoshop. But most Photoshop users don't use prepress features!

Time to get a PPC computer (1, Redundant)

The_Mutato (631710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019752)

I was thinking of getting a PowerPC computer and install GNU Darwin on it, but unfortunately GNU Darwin is dropping PowerPC and Cocoa support, so it is kind of useless. Considering that NetBSD runs just about every computer out there, the ability to run OSX binaries is greatly appreciated. I really hopes this becomes popular and that is really DOES run OSX binaries well, cuz then I'll be VERY happy. Mmm. OSX compatiblilty...

NO MORE EXPENSIVE APPLE HARDWARE!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020384)

As I pointed it out on the subject - no need to buy that expensive Apple hardware any more! THAT is the really great thing about this.. open solutions, no proprietary shit.

This is excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019754)

Fuh-fh-finally, Mac OS X on the x86 platform! Initially I thought th-that it wasn't as good as that, since important parts like Cocoa, Aqua, and all the libraries wouldn't be ported.. besides, much of OS X is written in assembly language, but no.

I checked out the site:

The abstraction layer for running Darwin ports allows a drop-down parser to JIT any assembly language into a psuedo-C for emulation at the application level. OS X on x86 is definitely a reality.

Seems I was wrong. I can't wait to be running OS X and all my favorite apps on my PC. This is just what we needed.

Re:This is excellent news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019780)

Yeah, and once we've IPO'd the API's and cross-compiled the mux subsystems for the TRX's, we'll be able to drill down to the C library layer and open a port for the worm.

I think I just soiled myself.

Oh no, that was you. You dirty fucking faggot.

That's great news but... (5, Insightful)

guroove (231050) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019755)

It's only the NetBSD/powerpc port. The biggest problem with MacOSX is that it only runs on Macs. If I'm going to pay all that money for a shiny new Mac, I'm going to run Apple's shiny new operating system.

Re:That's great news but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019981)

...You have Genesi's Pegasos, and the Teron CX design packaged as Eyetech's AmigaOne (with decryption 'dongle' for AmigaOS4), and Terrasoft's Boxer to choose from.

Plus, the upcoming Barbie board (LinuxPPC.org, is it?), and probably a host of other MAI-based solutions on the horizon.

The upcoming Teron PX/"AmigaOne G3-XE" should accept standard Mac "MegArray" accellerator modules, so G4s (and dual G4s) shouldn't be out of the question on an Apple-free solution... IBM's upcoming 970 will need a new generation of chipset, but I imagine both IBM(/ATI?) and MAI have things up their sleeves for that.

Re:That's great news but... (1)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020145)

And all of those words describe like fifteen boxes that actually exist on desks somewhere.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019757)

Mac OS X Binaries run YOU!

That's awesome (5, Insightful)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019760)

But one question: is there anything Apple can do to stop this?

If you remember, they've been *very* anal in the past about some things they consider to be "their stuff", such as the look and feel of the OS. I can't see them just sitting around and watching while all their OS capabilities are matched (or, for that matter, exceeded).

If they sent C&D letters for freakin' themes, I doubt they'll just sit around while their API is emulated. They've show themselves to be rather devious, and I'd be a little worried if I was a NetBSD developer.

Re:That's awesome (2)

Doktor Memory (237313) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020019)

Note that this only appears to be working in the PowerPC port. Apple has been, so far, pretty laid back about the MacOnLinux project, which emulates classic MacOS on top of LinuxPPC boxes -- after all, you have to buy their hardware either way.

We'll see if they start "Thinking Differently" about that approach now that it's OSX involved instead of Classic, but I'd be at least slightly optimistic: they haven't tried to shut down the GnuStep projet recently, and that's much more of a danger to them than this.

Re:That's awesome (2)

Ponty (15710) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020158)

Isn't that because GNUStep is working on the open OpenStep specification?

Re:That's awesome (3, Informative)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020461)

Most of Cocoa that doesn't deal directly with Darwin/OSX related functions is basically a strait reimplementation of OpenStep. IIRC the Building Cocoa Applications: A Step-byStep Guide by Simson Garfinkle and Mike Mahoney is pretty much code identical to what was in NeXTStep Programming: Step One: Object oriented Applications.

A GNUStep application if binary compatible with Mach/Darwin would run without recompilation or localization.

Re:That's awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020189)

I hate to interrupt your grassy knoll studies...
but Apple is supporting the effort. Their
new OS runs on bsd internals. And they've
opened up large portions of source code for
others to use. Perhaps you've heard of
Darwin? It's an OS you can download for
free.

Re:That's awesome (3, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020347)

If they sent C&D letters for freakin' themes, I doubt they'll just sit around while their API is emulated.

This project isn't emulating the MacOS APIs, they're getting the basics up and running so they can drop in actual code libraries from OS X. Unlike Wine which is actually recreating all the APIs, this is just a fun hack basically, no danger to Apple as you still need a Mac and a copy of MacOS for it to work.

I seriously doubt we'll see a Mac equivalent of Wine for a very long time, the amount of effort it takes is just too huge given the absence of any must have apps on the Mac (apps with no equivalent on other platforms). Wine is essential because of the huge amount of software that simply doesn't have Linux equivalents (or not very good ones) and probably never will, ie Lightwave, DreamWeaver, Flash and so on, and of course huge numbers of custom business apps. The Mac doesn't really have any such apps, the closest I can think of are the iApps, but there are lots of equivalents for them even on the Mac itself, and I don't know of any custom business apps that are Mac only.

Now look what you did (5, Funny)

eyeball (17206) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019762)

Oh now look what you did: You woke the swarming team of Apple lawers on a beautiful sunday morning. They're going to be extra pissed.

Of course it runs NetBSD! (4, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019763)

Or should that me...of course NetBSD runs it? Whew...imagine the possibilities. NetBSD runs on next to anything, and can run binaries in all those formats. /me installs NetBSD on his watch and tries to load Mail.app Dangit! Doesn't work. What crap is this???

Is this a de facto x86 OSX? (2)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019769)

Taken to its logical extreme, it appears that these guys would create a de facto x86 OSX. What would be missing? Obviously the OSX UI (could easily be cloned)...and some multimedia stuff. What else?

Re:Is this a de facto x86 OSX? (5, Informative)

kakos (610660) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019790)

Quite wrong. These guys are making a binary compatability layer, not emulation. You will not be able to run OS X applications on an x86 box running NetBSD, only a PPC box running NetBSD.

I stand corrected, thanks! (1)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019821)

(No need for a hundred other people to tell me it is not an emulator)

Re:Is this a de facto x86 OSX? (2)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019918)

Obviously the OSX UI (could easily be cloned)...and some multimedia stuff. What else?

What else? I shit load of cash in lawyer fees, that's what.

I've only "used" OS-X at a Mac Store a couple of times, but REALLY liked it. Like I'd even go so far as to dump all this OSS/Linux/M$/whatever stuff to have one Mac box. It left that great of an impression on me. But what you are suggesting is pure suicide. I would LOVE for Apple (read as: Steve Jobs...) to release an x86 version of OS-X. I'd buy it in a heart beat (I love KDE3.1, but OS-X... mmmm...). But I just don't see that happening. There's FAR too many hardware configs to consider. Apple as only one hardware config to think about: Apple's Hardware. That's REALLY easy to program for.

Aside, take a look at KDE-Look [kde-look.org] . There's a couple Window Decrations that are basically OS-X, and then there's Mosfet's widget set. OK, OK, there's more to OS-X than the look of it, I know. I'm just saying that there's MUCH cheaper ways to achive the same goal.

KDE3.1 + Aqua WD (I forget the exact name, I don't use it) + Mosfest's Liquid Widgets + CodeWeaver's Crossover + the dirt cheap prices of x86 hardware == Heaven (if it's a Mac you're looking for). Just thought I'd say it. We already have most of the parts available to us. It's just the matter of doing it...

The hardest part to imitate... (2, Insightful)

Judge_Fire (411911) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020127)

IMHO, the hardest part to copy, clone or imitate in Mac OS is the way the OS extends outside the Apple software.

The much appraised Mac 'look & feel' bases itself on all developers sticking to the UI conventions and guidelines, nicely outlined in this guide [apple.com] for porting over Win32 apps.

The longer you use Mac OS, the more you'll appreciate this 'cultural' aspect of the OS.

Having used Windows XP a lot lately, I've been quite happy with the OS and 'Window Manager' itself, but as soon as I actually use an other app, the whole experience breaks down.

Keyboard shortcuts vary, widget placement is random, the tone of dialog varies and in general, application interoperability seems harder.

Funny how so many people lust after the visual aspect of the UI, risking lawsuits from Apple, while the 'feel' part - the real magic of Mac OS - is quite publicly available AND applicable in form of UI guidelines [apple.com] .

It won't hurt your Win/Linux app to apply some/all of these guidelines instead of no guidelines at all.

J

Wrong. (1)

Pius II. (525191) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020144)

KDE3.1 + Aqua WD (I forget the exact name, I don't use it) + Mosfest's Liquid Widgets + CodeWeaver's Crossover + the dirt cheap prices of x86 hardware == Hell

- No self contained applications. Installation process is _not_ "grab the app and drag it to your favourite place"
- No intelligent framework system. Try to use a KDE 1.0 app with your KDE 3.1 libraries. It breaks, because the goddamned _size_ of the _classes_ in fucking _C++_ has changed. Even if it were _source_compatible_ it wouldn't work, because of C++'s stupit ABI. (Note: Objective C doesn't have this problem :-)
- No Project Builder. Use it, then you'll understand.


Those are only a few, but I'll stop here. It's indeed a Mac I'm looking for, and that's because it's thought out. It's not because I like the _look_ of the GUI. In fact, if you choose your tools by their looks, you probably have a larger problem than not having a Mac...

Re:Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020182)

It breaks, because the goddamned _size_ of the _classes_ in fucking _C++_ has changed. Even if it were _source_compatible_ it wouldn't work, because of C++'s stupit ABI. (Note: Objective C doesn't have this problem :-)

Coders have been quite able of creating backward compatable C++ libraries for ages. When you know what you're doing, and the OS you're on has proper library versioning, and you use it, then you don't have break binary compatability every five seconds.

Sadly, it seems that Linux and KDE developers either don't understand what they're doing, or don't give a shit. Because you're quite right, trying to use older KDE apps on newer versions of KDE is a fucking nightmare. If the Qt and KDE developers got a clue and read up on vtables, they might be dangerous. Until that happens, application installation on Linux will continue to one big joke.

P.S: While I'm at it, KWord is a crash happy bag O'shite which doesn't deserve to be 0.1alpha, let alone 1.x. OOo doesn't crash nearly as much, but then it is horribly ugly (So much so it hurts my eyes).

Re:Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020464)

Coders have been quite able of creating backward compatable C++ libraries for ages. When you know what you're doing, and the OS you're on has proper library versioning, and you use it, then you don't have break binary compatability every five seconds.

No, he said ABI, not API, and they mean different things.

You still need a PowerPC machine (5, Informative)

zubernerd (518077) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019778)

to use this, since it is only binary compatability. So You will still need to buy PowerPC based computers. And who is one of the largest and most noted for selling powerPC based PCs... Apple Computer; so why not just run MacOS X?
I know you can buy third party PowerPC computer, but they are more expense than Apple's machines.
I do appricated their effort, it is probably a good exercise in programming skill.
It would be useful if it was on x86, but there are plenty of problems with that; see
http://www.emaculation.com/ppc.shtml [emaculation.com]


(This is not a flame, just an observation)

Re:You still need a PowerPC machine (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019814)

to use this ... You will still need to buy PowerPC based computers. And who is one of the largest and most noted for selling powerPC based PCs... Apple Computer; so why not just run MacOS X?

Buying an Apple computer complete with operating system means you're unlikely to want to install NetBSD if your already happy with MacOS X. However, have you seen the cost of MacOS X "upgrades"? £100+ in the UK for what is essentially bugfixes and performance improvements in the VM system. Then NetBSD in the long term starts to look very affordable, ignoring the fact that it outperforms MacOS X on the same hardware (quite remarkable until you consider how fundamentally poor Mach is as a desktop OS kernel).

Chris

Re:You still need a PowerPC machine (1)

damiam (409504) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019876)

100+ in the UK for what is essentially bugfixes and performance improvements in the VM system.

I'll bet you anything that OSX apps under NetBSD will be significantly buggier and worse performing than under OSX, even unupgraded versions. This looks a lot like Wine for PPC, and we all know how reliable Wine is, even after ten years of development.

Re:You still need a PowerPC machine (2)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020180)

I'll bet you anything that OSX apps under NetBSD will be significantly buggier and worse performing than under OSX

If, and that's a big "if" at the moment, this compatability layer gets completed then expect OSX aps to run faster and as stable under NetBSD. Why? Well unlike Wine or GNUStep, NetBSD compatability layers don't emulate an environment like Win32 or OpenStep, but a Unix-like kernel. Look at the Linux or Irix compatability layers in NetBSD as an example. By enabling Linux compatability in my kernel, and installing a few application level libraries from SuSE Linux, I can run most Linux binaries on the same architecture.

So to be frank, you may still need a copy of OSX lying around from which to get those application level libraries (although GNUStep is fast approaching a state where that wont be necessary). On the performance and stability front, look to the glowing reputation of existing compatability layers in all three of the *BSD's.

Chris

Re:You still need a PowerPC machine (1)

markjugg (21992) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020039)

There are still a whole lot of people, like myself, that already own Apple hardware,but are ready to make a switch to a maximally open source solution. This would be ideal for me. I have a G3 300hz PPC, and would like run primarily Linux or {Net,Free}BSD but would still need to use Dreamweaver for my work sometimes.

Doing the reverse-- running X11 inside of OS X feels like too much overhead and complexity. Typing in X11 applications is often slow this way. Plus, OS X isn't completely open source, so it's hard to tinker with and debug.

Re:You still need a PowerPC machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020125)

"so why not just run MacOS X? "

The same reason you run Wine under Linux instead of just running XP. =) XP comes with most store-bought computers, and before, almost ALL store-bought computers. But instead we do Wine and WineX, as well as Bochs and VMWare.

Re:You still need a PowerPC machine (3, Troll)

Arandir (19206) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020592)

WINE offers binary compatibility. So you need to buy a PC pased computer running Windows. And who is the largest seller of Windows for PCs... Microsoft; so why not just Windows?

Nifty. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019786)

Which will come first - Apple cracking down or them getting WindowServer to run on i386? Some info from http://hcpnet.free.fr/applebsd.html [hcpnet.free.fr]

What works?

On NetBSD/i386: nothing. On NetBSD/powerpc, most UNIX binaries, such as ls, sh, or vi will work. No Graphical User Interface (GUI) based program will work for now. We are able to startup WindowServer up to the first attemps to use the IOKit. See the kernel traces for WindowServer and for mach_init to discover how far we have been.

Here is what have been implemented so far:

Mach-O binaries loading

Mach system calls handling

Minimal Mach ports, messages and rights support, so that simple program are able to link and run.

Signals handling (except for siginfo) Minimal multithreading support

Support in ktrace/kdump to display Mach messages (useful for debugging)

Hacks to get mach_init starting (and to get it behaving as bootstrap mach_init)

Support for port rights carried by Mach messages
Here is what is in the TODO list:

Implement Mach notifications for destroyed ports, dead names, and no sender ports

Re-implement enough of Darwin's IOKit to get

WindowServer actually displaying something.

Use COMPAT_MACH for COMPAT_OSF1 (Tru64 binary emulation on NetBSD/alpha), to get multithreading working.

Get Darwin binaries to link and run on NetBSD/i386

Re:Missing Apple libraries (3, Insightful)

jaoswald (63789) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020240)

Notice the part you didn't quote:

"Once we will have a fully functionnal Darwin binary compatibility on NetBSD/powerpc (if that happens some day), we will just have to grab Mac OS X libraries to run any MacOS X program"

I.e. you would still have to have the whole Mac OS windowing, graphical, and multimedia (QuickTime) environment for something like Photoshop to run. That's a far cry from just getting Darwin running.

The only legal way to get the Mac OS libraries is to buy Mac OS from Apple. Or reimplement them in a legally defensible way. Good freaking luck.

What about... (2, Insightful)

Squidgee (565373) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019800)

Running Gnustep [gnustep.org] on NetBSD? It has most of the NEXTStep/OS X libs already ported over to Linux (And therefore easily ported to NetBSD)...

Re:What about... (4, Interesting)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019826)

Running Gnustep on NetBSD? It has most of the NEXTStep/OS X libs already ported over to Linux (And therefore easily ported to NetBSD)...

GNUStep is already in the NetBSD packages collection, in several packages split across devel and x11. Install it along with WindowMaker and you've got a convincing NeXT clone ...

Chris

Re:What about... (5, Informative)

SiMac (409541) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019941)

GNUStep allows for source-level compatibility. This is good for people who plan on targeting Mac OS X as well as Linux, but it's not good for people who want to run Mac OS X apps that run on Mac OS X but not on Linux, such as the Mac OS X window server and Finder. These applications would never be ported to GNUStep, as easy as it is, because Apple wouldn't do it. In addition, this should allow Carbon applications as well as Cocoa applications to run on NetBSD.

Re:What about... (1)

Pius II. (525191) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020184)

With binary compatibility in the applications objects, it should be trivial to build plug-in replacements for Apple's frameworks. GNUstep and Cocoa both use Objective C, which does not care about an objects structure, only about exported methods (contrary to C++). That means that it could indeed be possible to run Cocoa applications natively on NetBSD using GNUstep: after all, the Cocoa applications are completely isolated from the implementation of their window/GUI server.

I wonder if it will look as good as Aqua? (2)

Znonymous Coward (615009) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019810)

This is a very cool idea. However, I'm willing to bet it won't look as nice as this [apple.com] .

This will be one of those things where it's cool because you can do it, but is there really any reason to do it? Kinda like Mac on Linux [maconlinux.org] .

MOL (4, Interesting)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019955)

Um...I use MOL and have found it to be far from pointless. I use MOL mostly to run a FirstClass groupware client. The reason why I run Linux on a Pismo Powerbook is that I have an environment mostly identical to my x86 Linux machine at home. This means Linux largely frees me from worrying about underlying architecture (Wine and so forth aside). I have not found OSX to be so insanely great that I should blow away my Linux partition. Believe it or not there are good reasons to prefer Linux over OSX.

I have also found MOL to be far more reliable than Classic on OSX. Classic is much slicker in that OS 9 apps run directly on the Quartz desktop and one can cut and paste between apps. This also means it is more complex and therefore failure prone. My boss has no end of trouble with it. Classic icons go missing or change themselves into another apps icons. Some Classic apps will lock and won't release control to the Aqua UI. This means the machine is locked up for end user intents and purposes. Classic inflicts HFS metadata problems and some instability on OS X and kills much of OS X advantages if one has to make heavy use of OS <=9 apps. On the other hand if the OS 9 in my MOL sessions screws up then I can kill it and restart without affecting my Linux session. Since I boot my MOL session from an image I have an advantage normally only associated with virtual PC. If that boot image gets messed up, I can replace it from a backup quickly. Incidentally, MOL is very close to running OS X acceptably...eye candy and all.

MOL is can also be used as a user mode Linux. One can boot another acceptably fast Linux inside a virtual machine. This is useful for things like kernel development. MOL is far from pointless.

Re:MOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020139)

> I have not found OSX to be so insanely great that I should blow away my Linux partition. Believe it or not there are good reasons to prefer Linux over OSX.

Sounds interesting; your reasons are?..

Re:MOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020598)

Speed, flexibility, ease of use, I'd imagine.

Re:I wonder if it will look as good as Aqua? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019958)

IT'D BE THE SAME. They're the same goddamned binaries. Read the fucking article.

Re:I wonder if it will look as good as Aqua? (2, Interesting)

killerc (462845) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019985)

Actually, I use Mac-on-Linux pretty frequently. Linux has pretty weak support for HFS+ partitions -- even with the hfstools package. If I ever need to access a HFS+ formatted CD, I fire up MOL, mount my linux Home directory via netatalk, pop in the CD, and copy the needed files.

Re:I wonder if it will look as good as Aqua? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5019992)

By all means, correct me on this- but wouldn't WindowServer + the libs be what provides the Quartz/QuartzExtreme functionality?

Re:I wonder if it will look as good as Aqua? (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020123)

They aren't intending to recreate OS X bear in mind, it's merely a fun hack.

In particular they aren't intending to recreate the widget toolkit it seems, or indeed, many of the libs at all, they just want Mach/Darwin compatability in NetBSD. You'd still need to buy a Mac with an OS X license for it to work.

That makes it fundamentally different to Wine by the way for those who are wondering - wine is a complete reimplementation of the Windows APIs so you can run Windows apps without buying Windows. This is just letting NetBSD use some OS X code, not quite the same thing.

Would It Be Faster Than OS X? (2, Interesting)

Bones3D_mac (324952) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019825)

I wonder if this could be used to get an increase in speed for running OS X apps without the overhead of the OS X GUI? If it eliminates the eye candy effects, I'd bet it'd be noticeably faster.

Re:Would It Be Faster Than OS X? (3, Interesting)

KAMiKAZOW (455500) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019986)

No, from the page:

Once we will have a fully functionnal Darwin binary compatibility on NetBSD/powerpc (if that happens some day), we will just have to grab MacOS X libraries to run any MacOS X program

This means, NetBSD might have the original OS X GUI (including overhead and eye candy effects ^_^) in the future.
Making GNUstep [gnustep.org] binary compatibe with Quartz should be the solution you're looking for (in that case, it would also work with the original Darwin).

Re:Would It Be Faster Than OS X? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020215)

Hmm. Would OSX, which is a bsd, be faster
than NetBSD, which is a bsd.

I wonder if x86 SuSE Linux is faster than
x86 RedHat Linux.

Re:Would It Be Faster Than OS X? (2)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020299)

No way!!! OS X is the best OS in existence!!! Because all the 520 Slashdot posters say so in their "Linux sucks OS X rules" posts!
OS X's GUI slow? Are you out of your mind? Of course it's not slow! The highly advanced Aqua GUI is the fastest GUI in existence because of OpenGL acceleration! I don't have a Mac but Slashdot says so so it must be true!

Memories of Bad Hangovers (0, Troll)

donpardo (128815) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019839)

Boone's Farm Apple Wine.

The Coolness (1)

Jeedo (624414) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019859)

If they'd get it running on x86 the slowness would most certanly be outweighted by the coolness.

Apple is going to crap in its pants (-1)

Cryptopotamus (460702) | more than 11 years ago | (#5019878)

Apple isn't going to like this.

Not what Apple wanted (2, Interesting)

porkface (562081) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020074)

I get the feeling this isn't the direction Apple had in mind when they released all that code. I got the feeling they wanted people working on compatibility layers for Darwin, not for non-Apple OSes. I think Apple has the ability to pull the plug at any time, so it might be nice to see some of this work going both ways.

Most FreeBSD users I know have no interest in Photoshop or Office anymore now that the alternatives are as mature as they are. I think users of any BSD would enjoy this new compatibility, but I think it could be just as valuable to everyone (except MS) if MacOS X gained some compatibility layers.

iTunes? (1)

gh0ul (71352) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020122)

What about apps like iTunes, or iCal... wonder if those will work.. if it can do graphical apps, keep in mind there is Office v.X for MacOS X.. does this mean Word on BSD?!

ah How DUMB are slashdoters? (4, Insightful)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020263)

A question..

The status report link is from 1/2002...

Did anybody bother to read it before posting?

70 people so far did not..

The actual project ot watch is not NetBSd..in that they don't have the nice Apple relationship like Darwin does..

In fact if my memory is right the proejct was stopped because they were duplicating Darwin's efforts..

To see if MacOSx will run under intel machines check Darwin porject site not NetBSD!

Come on People read once in awhile ..it will not harm you!

Show yourself to better than those wintel geeks who don't even read but jsut spout what MS Gates wants..

Re:ah How DUMB are slashdoters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5020525)

Slashdotters are indeed pretty damned stupid, judging by your post.

maybe the way to a cheap mac? (2)

SKicker (27704) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020528)

OK, this is probably a stupid idea but..

Anyone know what kind of speed a powerpc emulator running on a x86 would get?

If this OSX apps on BSD/PowerPC jazz works, what would you get if you coupled it to a powerpc to x86 emulator and had OSX running on a x86?

Even if it ran at half the speed you might end up getting a cheaper 'mac' because x86 hardware is cheaper?

If i only had more time. (2)

GiMP (10923) | more than 11 years ago | (#5020547)

Realizing the 'open source' (sort of) nature of Darwin, I've thought of doing this myself (for linux).. but just didn't have them time.

For those who think this is a dumb idea.. you're not seeing the bigger picture. Currently, MacOS X only runs on G3 and G4 apple machines designated by Apple unless you boot Linux and install Mac On Linux (similiar to Plex86 for PPC). If you can run OSX applications on Linux, NetBSD, etc.. then you wouldn't need the overhead of a VM. Your RS6000 could run OSX with minimum overhead. From NetBSD you could run from the same machine, binaries compiled for: OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.

Personally, I don't like OSX; However, I wouldn't mind being able to run natively on Linux: Internet Explorer, Quarx Express, etc.. Not to mention that Quartz is a pretty neat looking, X11 compatable (with Xfree86-rootless) windowing system.

This is more important for Linux than NetBSD, only because NetBSD currently has poor support for devices on many PowerPC machines (compared to Linux), especially laptops.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>