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!

Mac OS X Kernel Source Now Closed

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the nice-while-it-lasted dept.

663

littleghoti writes "Macworld is reporting that "Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them, the Intel edition of Apple's OS X is now a proprietary operating system." Mac developers and power users no longer have the freedom to alter, rebuild, and replace the OS X kernel from source code."

cancel ×

663 comments

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

Great news! (2, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351021)

This is fantastic news! It means:

1) Whiney OS X Fanboys are no longer going to say "OS X is just as open as linux" (what a stupid argument that was anyway.

2) Whiney Anti-GPL Fanboys are no longer going to point at Darwin saying "see, Apple contributes back without being forced too - why does linux have to be GPLed?"

Me? I'm just going to wait and see how much the discussion changes from the rumour that Darwin was going to close source (see this guy [slashdot.org] for a typical example.

Mod Parent Up! plzkthx (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351107)

Thanks, you're 100% on target.

Re:Great news! (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351109)

There is no new news here.

The state of Darwin x86 hasn't changed since the day the Intel-based Macs shipped.

In fact, Apple's only action since then has been to release MORE source; APSL sources that correspond to the entire PPC Darwin tree with the exception of the kernel.

This has been discussed for MONTHS in other forums, has already been covered by slashdot, and has been beaten to death on Apple's mailing lists.

Darwin x86 *as an OS* is dead. The actual part of the Darwin strategy people cared about, i.e., the Darwin OS *components* being open, and all of the projects (like WebKit), etc., are all open, alive, and well on x86 and PPC. Apple releases parity Darwin source releases with each Mac OS X release.

See for yourself:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ [apple.com]

The only item of note not present is one thing: xnu (the kernel).

All of Apple's open source projects, all of the APSL-licensed projects - which Apple is under zero obligation to continue releasing - and all of the GPL-licensed projects (of course) are still there.

So, in sum, paint this as some kind of bad news if you want, but if anything, it's OLD news, and actually, the pieces of Darwin people actually care about and use - indeed, both of the things you allude to in your post - are still alive and well on x86.

The only thing you can't do is make a bootable Darwin OS for x86 any more. And if you can explain to me why anyone would want to do that for any useful purpose, well, I'm all ears.

Re:Great news! (0, Redundant)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351204)

There is no new news here.

I'm afraid its news to huge numbers of fanbois on /. who have been defending darwin x86 as being open source since its release?

Re:Great news! (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351292)

Darwin is, and has been, two things: a bootable OS, and Apple's open source strategy with all of the open source projects and components in general.

All of the "Darwin" pieces that have always been open on PowerPC are still open on x86 with the exception of one notable item: the kernel. Most people who leveraged "Darwin" never even touched the kernel. Almost all of our any many other enterprise customers' usefulness comes from the open source OS components of Mac OS X and projects like WebKit, Open Directory, Darwin Streaming Server, etc.

For a time it appeared Apple had killed off everything but the GPL pieces of Darwin x86. However, that was a delay resulting from the fact there's basically one person at Apple packaging and setting up the sources for distribution. Since the subsequent release of the rest of the sources, Apple has done parity releases of all traditional Darwin components and projects on PPC and x86 - with the exception of the kernel.

In other words, the actual usefulness of what the vast majority of Apple open source users actually used "Darwin" for is still there. If you want to argue that its usefulness is all of a sudden severely crippled because the kernel is gone, well, in the enterprise community, one we found out that the rest of the sources would continue to be released on x86 as normal, the kernel being gone was barely a blip on our radar.

But hey, if people want to make a big deal and say "Mac OS X is now closed!" (what does that even mean?), let them.

Re:Great news! (0, Troll)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351388)

But hey, if people want to make a big deal and say "Mac OS X is now closed!" (what does that even mean?), let them.

I agree "Mac OS X is now closed!" is stupid thing to say. OS X was always closed.

Parent is not redundant (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351271)

Idiotic moderation ... your comment was the best explanation I've gotten in this thread so far as to what's going on and what is and isn't closed.

I can't really think of why anyone would want to run Darwin x86 without OS X either; we've already established that it's a worse server platform than Linux for most tasks, especially database ones, and headless servers are really the only place I think there'd be a market for Darwin. And it's not like there's any dearth of server OSes and distos these days anyway. The only other people are those who want to create a platform on which to do unauthorized ports of OS X onto commodity hardware (say by hacking the kernel to remove the hardware verification portions, and creating a foundation on which to run the proprietary portions of the Mac OS).

I figured this was inevitable all along. In fact, back when people were cooing over how folks had gotten OS X to boot on commodity hardware, I speculated that it was going to drive Apple to close up more and more of its OS, and I think if it continues, we're going to see a lot of phone-home type registration systems. To be perfectly honest, as someone who's always appreciated the fact that Mac OS has never had copy protection (because it depends on having a rather largish dongle, called a Mac), I would rather see Apple do what it needs to do to head off commodity ports with licensing than have them start to include obnoxious copy-protection in the OS itself that bothers legitimate users, a la Microsoft.

Normally I'm all for technological solutions rather than legal ones, but in this case the technological ones are going to be much more of a pain in my ass, so I'd appreciate it if they didn't. The day I have to type a serial number into Mac OS X so that it can phone home to Apple, I'm going to be pretty annoyed.

Re:Great news! (1)

fastgood (714723) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351403)

"Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them..."

Yes, there is no new bogeyman so that 2006 is suddenly different than 2001 or 1999. MacWorld should know better than to state it as such.

Re:Great news! (0)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351454)

The only thing you can't do is make a bootable Darwin OS for x86 any more. And if you can explain to me why anyone would want to do that for any useful purpose, well, I'm all ears.

You're jocking, right?

(I'm being serious)

Does it also mean... (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351456)

Does it also mean that there is ONE LESS OS that can be cited in the 15-year long kernel dispute between Andy Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds?

Every little bit helps!

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

hotblack296 (318557) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351022)

FP?

Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351025)

Only niggers want to compile their own OSX kernel.

Re:Who cares? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351506)

and jews.

Duh! (4, Insightful)

SavoWood (650474) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351026)

It was only a matter of time before Apple got pissed. If you didn't see this coming, it's time for new glasses.

Re:Duh! (0, Offtopic)

Ithika (703697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351148)

Would they be orange sunglasses?

goggles (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351201)

"My eyes...the goggles do nothing!"

Well that sucks... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351030)

...for those 4 or 5 guys out there using Macs.

Re:Well that sucks... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351194)

Try to get out of your cave at least once every 5 years. It might prevent you from making stupid statements like that.

good (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351032)

This makes me happy.

Extremely old, and misleading, news (5, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351035)

*Extremely* old news.

Also, "Mac OS X" has ALWAYS been proprietary. It's sensationalistic and shoddy journalism to say that "Mac OS X is now closed". Mac OS X has ALWAYS been closed. It's Darwin that has been open. And "Darwin" is more than a bootable OS: Darwin is Apple's open source strategy AND an OS; but the usefulness has always come from the open source components of the OS, not the usefulness of Darwin as an OS itself. Darwin's usefulness as an OS is, shall we say, "limited" at best, and always has been.

This has been beaten to death on the darwin-dev list, and there is no new information. Apple has taken no new recent action whatsoever, and in fact, the most recent action is that it has opened up more source code in the x86 tree, not less. Indeed, all of the traditional Darwin source with the notable exception of the kernel itself:

The thing that's not open in the x86 tree is xnu (the kernel), and it's not possible to create a fully bootable binary x86 Darwin OS, as it is for PPC. In the Darwin/OpenDarwin community, this has been discussed for months.

In fact, this article by Rob Braun (formerly of Apple, and a member of the OpenDarwin core team) was published in February 2006: http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200602/apple.html [daemonnews.org] . This was then covered on slashdot, to which Rob issued this response: http://www.opendarwin.org/~bbraun/slashdot_respons e.html [opendarwin.org] . These two discussions cover the issues very well.

I predict, however, that this Macworld UK article will be seen as "new news", and will be picked up by the tech outlets, and trumpeted, exactly as the headline hopes, as "Apple closes down OS X", even though the source for pretty much everything (except the kernel and drivers) is still available. In other words, everything that a normal person needs Darwin sources for is available. In 5 years, I can think of ONE instance where I looked to the kernel source for confirmation of something, and that was only for *confirmation*, and only because it was convenient - not because I needed to rebuild the kernel. I know of no other non-developer/programmer Mac OS X adminisrators/system engineers/enterprise users who have ever had any reason to rebuild the kernel or any drivers.

If the kernel and driver source were available, it would, however, be used for one purpose: to churn out hacks to get OS X to run on non-Apple hardware in a much faster and higher-quality way than has been possible to date. Will OS X be hacked anyway to run on non-Apple hardware, and will it continue to be, regardless? Yes. If people are willing to replace enough of the OS with the ugliness they're using to get it to work, absolutely. But it will continue to be ugly. Releasing kernel and driver source for the current iterations of OS X on x86 will only make their jobs infinitely easier, while brining little to no benefit to conventional users, power users, and administrators of OS X.

I'm sure people will find a way to make a huge deal about this, though, even though a huge deal has already been made about it in various forums, including slashdot and other tech news outlets, and on several of Apple's mailing lists.

I'd like to point out that this was my initial reaction: http://listserv.cuny.edu/Scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0602 &L=macenterprise&T=0&P=58970 [cuny.edu]

Since then, Apple has posted all of the APSL sources, and it was just a legitimate, honest delay. The PPC and x86 trees are at virtual parity with the sole exception of the kernel and drivers. So I'd submit that "Apple closes down OS X" is highly inaccurate for two reasons:

- Most of OS X was never "open" to begin with; if he wants to say "Darwin", great, but I suppose "Apple closes down Darwin" wouldn't be as sensationalistic and guaranteed to get as many page views, including to his blog, which he pimps in his article

- All of the things that are open in Darwin PPC are still open in Darwin x86, with the exception of the kernel and drivers. He doesn't explain what this means to even sophisticated OS X users and administrators in his article; namely, that it means nothing.

Please note that I would indeed like Apple to actually *announce* major shifts in strategy like this, instead of just thinking it can do it silently. Apparently, it must think that posting the other sources, and Ernie's statements to various lists was "enough". But the bottom line is this "news" is over three months old, and most of us have already moved on. But hey, if someone can dredge it up again for pageviews, more power to them, I guess.

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1)

Medgur (172679) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351130)

The people pirating it often do not care that what they're using is a nasty hack. Esp. when the alternative is buying a new computer.

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351141)

Indeed. Then why give the x86 Mac OS X hacking community the tools they need to make a nice, polished release of Mac OS X for x86 for use on non-Apple hardware?

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351264)

I don't mean to flame, but I wasn't particulary impressed with the code availible already.

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1)

akulbe (625876) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351144)

Yes. It is. Too bad people won't want to take the time to figure that out... and would rather grab on to the sensationalistic crap. Nothing here, move along...

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351157)

In fact, this article by Rob Braun (formerly of Apple, and a member of the OpenDarwin core team) was published in February 2006: http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200602/apple.html [daemonnews.org] . This was then covered on slashdot, to which Rob issued this response: http://www.opendarwin.org/~bbraun/slashdot_respons [opendarwin.org] e.html. These two discussions cover the issues very well.

Yes, it was covered on slashdot at the time, [slashdot.org] so you're not telling us anything we don't know.

Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of the comments were "It's a mistake! Apple's not closing Darwin at all!!!" is what led to this being covered again?

- All of the things that are open in Darwin PPC are still open in Darwin x86, with the exception of the kernel and drivers. He doesn't explain what this means to even sophisticated OS X users and administrators in his article; namely, that it means nothing.

Perhaps you missed this part of the article:
Users in demanding fields such as biosciences or meteorology do hack OS kernels to slim them down, alter the balance between throughput and computing, and to open them to the resources of a massive grid.
Sounds pretty useful to sophisticated OS X users to me!

Please note that I would indeed like Apple to actually *announce* major shifts in strategy like this, instead of just thinking it can do it silently.

Me too - then we wouldn't have to get stories like this posted five times on /. before everyone believed them.

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (2, Insightful)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351219)

Perhaps you missed this part of the article:

Users in demanding fields such as biosciences or meteorology do hack OS kernels to slim them down, alter the balance between throughput and computing, and to open them to the resources of a massive grid.

Sounds pretty useful to sophisticated OS X users to me!


I saw that part, and my first thought was, is that really true? Many hack the OS as a whole, but not the kernal. Is there a single example of someone hacking the kernal in a "production" system?

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351227)

Users in demanding fields such as biosciences or meteorology do hack OS kernels to slim them down, alter the balance between throughput and computing, and to open them to the resources of a massive grid.

Sounds pretty useful to sophisticated OS X users to me!

To Apple, letting a relatively small population of niche scientific users "slim down" the Mac OS X kernel is massively outweighed by preventing the Mac OS X on x86 hacking community from being able to easily and quickly deliver an extremely polished distribution of Mac OS X for non-Apple Intel hardware, instead of the ugly hack they have now.

Most of the usefulness of "Darwin" in the enterprise, developer, and system administration communities has come mostly from the open source Darwin components and projects, period. Not the ability to rebuild or hack the kernel, and not the ability to build Darwin as a bootable OS.

Is it a loss? Sure.

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351427)

To Apple, letting a relatively small population of niche scientific users "slim down" the Mac OS X kernel is massively outweighed by preventing the Mac OS X on x86 hacking community from being able to easily and quickly deliver an extremely polished distribution of Mac OS X for non-Apple Intel hardware, instead of the ugly hack they have now.

I guess so. FreeBSD & Linux are crushing Apple in the markets where it's useful to have an open kernel anyway.

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1)

arodland (127775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351304)


Perhaps you missed this part of the article:

Users in demanding fields such as biosciences or meteorology do hack OS kernels to slim them down, alter the balance between throughput and computing, and to open them to the resources of a massive grid.

Sounds pretty useful to sophisticated OS X users to me!


Why were they running things on OS X again? I've run some heavy compute tasks on OS X, and darwin is just not meant for this crap. IPC is slooow, and fork takes ages compared to other systems. Why not choose one of the BSDs or Linux? Is it because these scientific apps won't work without Aqua? ;)

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (4, Informative)

elventear (868128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351397)

Perhaps you missed this part of the article:
Users in demanding fields such as biosciences or meteorology do hack OS kernels to slim them down, alter the balance between throughput and computing, and to open them to the resources of a massive grid.
Sounds pretty useful to sophisticated OS X users to me!

I use a Mac for my research because it is a great desktop and it has a unixy feeling (I say feeling because it is still a headache to get some programs installed/compiled which are a breeze in any other of the more traditional flavors; especially with the Intel transition, there are some things that do not compile).

But besides that, I have to say, it's been proven with hard facts and my own experience that MacOSX is not an efficient OS. I don't know why they would even want to spend time hacking the kernel, or use MacOSX for a massive grid. Use Linux, FreeBSD or anything else more efficient, and hack it to improve it even further.

I am not trying to give an excuse for Apple, but it is just clear that Scientific computing is not the forte os MacOSX, even though Apple might market it as a strong point.

so what you're really sayiing is... (1)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351462)

So what you're really saying, based on all your comments attached to this story, is that OS X was never really suited to high-performance/server/scientific computing?

Yeah, I agree =P

More seriously, I work for a really small shop and have had reason to patch/tweak by hand the Linux and BSD kernel on occasion. It's been several years since I've had the necessity, but anyway... FWIW. In more serious shops that do real scientific computing and whatnot(or a place like Google), this does potentially eliminate OS X as a candidate for their datacenters.

Re:Extremely old, and misleading, news (1, Insightful)

Cally (10873) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351472)

Right. OS X is closed, proprietary, non-Free, whatever you want to call it. Jobs' brief reign as the posterchild for the "open source business" crowd is hopefully now over. Those of us more interested in Freedom than eye candy will smile and grin and the change everywhere, pick up our computers and play... just like yesterday... ;)

(For those who don't recognise it that's from "Won't Get Fooled Again" [thewho.net] by The (Mighty) Who. Very, very apposite on this story I feel...

Big deal (2, Informative)

davidoff404 (764733) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351039)

It really isn't that big of a deal. Trying to compile the kernel even on PPC was a nightmare anyway so it was, in effect, already closed.

Re:Big deal (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351216)

total agreement. Saying it was 'open source' was like saying "yes, the source code is written on a paper bag in pale brown ink. The last time anyone saw it, it was somewhere in Florida. So, you know, it's totally open."

Re:Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351240)

and then there's obviously the license under which it was available, OSX has never been OSI style Open Source software, you would never have been allowed to do anything much with the thing anyway.

Apple might be worse than MS. (1, Insightful)

crimguy (563504) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351040)

I like macs, but I now kinda hope that someone figures out how to prevent Apple from taking advantage of open source products like CUPS and Samba. F** them.

Re:Apple might be worse than MS. (3, Interesting)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351173)

So you really do believe that open source software should be viral in that anyone who uses it should be forced to open up all their code?

Not that there's anything wrong with that -there are good arguments in favor of that view. The problem is that corporate reality sucks sometimes.

Re:Apple might be worse than MS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351353)

If it's your software that's being taken advantage of then why didn't you choose a more restrictive license?

And if it's not your software then fuck you. You have no more or less right to it than Apple does.

Good one Apple ... (0, Troll)

jhill (446614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351041)

So, basically, without the spin.

Apple: We can't seem to figure out how to stop people from taking our code and running it on none apple hardware ... we suck.

So, they close it up.

Awesome ... didn't want to run OS X anyway :-\

Re:Good one Apple ... (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351135)

Awesome ... didn't want to run OS X anyway :-\

Sounds like sour grapes to me...=) I've never met anyone that *didn't* want to run OS X.

Re:Good one Apple ... (1)

nuclearpenguins (907128) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351159)

I've never met anyone that *didn't* want to run OS X *Raises hand* I have no desire to. But then again I hate anything that has to do with Apple.

**raises hand** (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351188)

I've never found the attraction of Apple. Maybe for grandma or something (Then again, my grandmothers - both of them - have had windows laptops for 3 years now, haven't had an incident yet) But then again I'm the type that likes to build the computer from parts and triple boot and all else.

Re:Good one Apple ... (2, Interesting)

goofyheadedpunk (807517) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351327)

Even though I own an iBook G4 I don't want to!

I don't like closed systems. I don't like being given the One Way to Do Things, even if that One Way has obviously been well thought out. I don't like farting around the internet looking for software. I don't like installing all of the cruft that comes with Xcode just to get gcc. I don't like being unable to link the command line with the GUI.

I like my Freedom. I like being able to dick around with my system (at any level) when I'm bored if I feel like it. I like the feeling of doing clever things with source code. I like having centralized repositories of software. I like using a system that's been designed for ease of development.

I like GNU, I like Linux and I like being in control of _my_ computer. Granted I'm not a typical user by far, but we're out there.

Re:Good one Apple ... (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351421)

I suppose it's a question of whether a person values philosophy over functionality, or vice versa.

*raises hand too* (1)

i_should_be_working (720372) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351347)

I've never met anyone that *didn't* want to run OS X

One more here. Let's see how long we can get this list...

Re:Good one Apple ... (1)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351375)

Me and most people I know. They may not like windows, but they dont like Mac OSX either.

Re:Good one Apple ... (1)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351490)

Hi, I'm Matt. I don't have any particular interest in Mac OS X. I'm sure it's nice and all, but I'm comfortable with my current platform choices.

Re:Good one Apple ... (0)

MoxFulder (159829) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351152)

My thoughts exactly!

I didn't think OS X was anything great to begin with. I didn't like how an amorphous, ever-changing subset of it was open source and the rest closed. I didn't like the graphics when it came to actually doing stuff.

I don't want to run OS X on my white box x86, but I sure *do* enjoy watching others do so despite Apple's misguided attempts to prevent it :-)

Re:Good one Apple ... (2, Insightful)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351242)

So, basically, without the spin.

Apple: We can't seem to figure out how to stop people from taking our code and running it on none apple hardware ... we suck.

So, they close it up.

Awesome ... didn't want to run OS X anyway :-\


With that attitude, you probably weren't going to legally anyway.

TPM (2, Insightful)

Psionicist (561330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351044)

Well, as most new Macs have a Treacherous Computing Module installed and Apple sure will use it to restrict their OS from being installed in generic boxes, this doesn't surprise me the least. It's only a matter of time before the TPM is used for other purposes, such as userland DRM.

Re:TPM (1)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351423)

Tell that to the hackers running OS X on ECS Motherboards from Fry's. Apple will continue to slow down the hackers, and the hackers will continue to do their thing. It's all good for Apple anyway: Spend 25 hours getting OS X to work like on a real Mac, or just fork over the $599 for a Mac Mini?

Re:TPM (2, Interesting)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351469)

A link to them having included TPM would be helpful. I was under the impression that Apple didn't include TPM in the new Intel Mac's.

AAAARRRRGGGHH! How could they be so stupid! (-1, Flamebait)

Chaset (552418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351045)

Being able to claim openness was one of the things I can tell the open source bigots about the Apple OS. (yes, it still wasn't open enough for some, but better than many other commercial competitors.) Just dumping that advantage wholesale seems silly to me.

Re:AAAARRRRGGGHH! How could they be so stupid! (4, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351177)

Darwin is as open as it ever was, minus the kernel - and the kernel is only required if you want to make Darwin a bootable OS.

Which is pretty much useless, and always has been.

Apple can still claim the same level of openness it always has, because all of Apple's open source Darwin components and projects (things like WebKit, etc.) are still open on x86 and PPC.

Take a look:

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/ [apple.com]
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/ [apple.com]

See my post here for details:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185992&cid=153 51035 [slashdot.org]

THANK YOU (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351050)

I'm glad to hear it. I'm tired of hearing Apple's base is open source and that Linux should give up and other BS. This makes it much more clear. THANK YOU APPLE!

But why is the rum gone? (5, Funny)

Tyrun (944761) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351057)

Pirates: Arrrrr! We'll be havin' your operating system now matey...

Re:But why is the rum gone? (5, Funny)

Mayhem178 (920970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351128)

Software Pirates: Awwww, please let it stay open!

Apple Pirates: We are disinclined to acquiesce to your request.

Software Pirates: ???

Apple Pirates: Means no.

Software Pirates: :(

Re:But why is the rum gone? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351395)

Hehehe. I recently rewatched Amazon Women on the Moon. [imdb.com] The video pirates skit is classic...

Pirate 1: Help yourself, mates. A chest full of video discs.
Pirate 2: No!
Pirate 3: What good are they?
Pirate 4: Can't record on 'em.
Pirate 2: They're not compatible with my system.

The final straw... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351058)

...was when those Somalis attacked that cruise liner.

Guess we now know (1)

uncreativ (793402) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351063)

...we now know for sure that Apple isn;t going to make it's OS available for other hardware even if unsupported. Not that I can blame them--them being a hardware vendor and all--but it would have been cool if it was a more widely available OS choice.

source availability (1, Informative)

kris_lang (466170) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351065)

At least it seemed it was more available than the so called "already open source" JAVA was.

Sigh.

Alas.

Can it be forked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351106)

This seems a little narrow minded. I've always felt one of the strengths of *nix like operating systems is that ability to recompile for performance enhancements. Any chance of forking the code?

Apple (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351108)

It's almost as though Apple are losing their relatively unique corporate personality. They have gone from their signature style on the Power architecture to a "plain" black Intel notebook computer. Their product names (MacBook vs. PowerBook) no longer roll off of the tongue.

Now they're beginning to alienate even their loyalists. If you aren't careful, Apple, people will begin to realize that you aren't a friendly, hip 23-year-old that talks to an aging man in a suit. They will know that you're just out to make money like the rest of the corporations.

(I love my G5 hardware.)

Re:Apple (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351267)

Apple makes good hardware. But they don't make it because they love people and want to bring computers to the world. If they did it would be appel.org, and they would have a lot lower prices. Apple makes good hardware because they can sell it, and they code good software to run on good hardware because that way they can sell more. Any image of 'sleek' and 'cool' is all about getting us to give them our money.

Proof that Apple is turning fascist! (-1, Troll)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351111)

Yesterday Apple Security Guards treated a customer like Rodney King [com.com] today they close the source to OSX.

Re:Proof that Apple is turning fascist! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351223)

well, atleas the guards are stylish and sleek. not like those bloated guys in ill fitting uniforms at compUSA...

Re:Proof that Apple is turning fascist! (1)

Dan93 (222999) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351250)

A man tried to steal products from an apple store, and was apprehended by security. I don't see how this is unexpected behavior.

Who cares, really? (4, Insightful)

Jay Maynard (54798) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351118)

Does anyone out there aside from free software zealots truly care about this? I don't, and I do use and customize Linux kernels on other systems.

I want my desktop and laptop to work, period. Keeping them that way is Apple's problem. I pay the (really, not all that much once you compare apples to apples, so to speak) premium in price to get a system that I can plop on my desk and run without having to be constantly tweaking and hacking on it.

This might make a big splash here, but in the real world, nobody will truly care.

Like Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351119)

What a great idea, closed source. Same thing that stoped Windows from being pirated.

Software pirates won't care (2, Interesting)

Myria (562655) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351120)

Software pirates will just use IDA Pro [datarescue.com] instead of GCC to get the job done. The part they've always cared about (Don't Steal Mac OS.kext) was never open source anyway.

If Apple says that software pirates are the only reason, don't believe them.

Melissa

Re:Software pirates won't care (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351282)

Female /.'er? Umm...marry me?

Re:Software pirates won't care (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351330)

One word: Fatty.

BSD vs GPL (2, Interesting)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351131)

And now we know (well, we always knew) why Apple chose to use BSD
userland vs a GPL userland.

This should add more fuel to the debate of the merits of BSD vs GPL
lisencing.

Re:BSD vs GPL (1, Informative)

shawnce (146129) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351244)

Why not get informed first before speculating...

Apple continues to make available the BSD userland and tool chain [apple.com] for each point release of Mac OS X via releasing the related Darwin source tree (both PowerPC and Intel).

Also Apple has many active open source projects using BSD, LGPL, and their own APSL that they either wholly developed or have greatly enhanced.

Apple WebKit [apple.com] && Offical WebKit [opendarwin.org]
Darwin Streaming Server [apple.com]

Wrong; thanks for trolling (2, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351246)

The userland has nothing to do with it; people have been running GPL userland on proprietary kernels for years (decades?).

Re:BSD vs GPL (1)

bahwi (43111) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351273)

No, it won't add much fuel if any, other than some GPL zealots trying to convert. I see it as one of the high points of BSD licensing.

Re:BSD vs GPL (4, Interesting)

alistair (31390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351306)

I'm no expert, but I'm not sure this is true. The kernel for Macs and BSD is very different, the MACH Kernel is no BSD kernel. The parts Apple took from BSD relate to Networking and the user tools we often use from a shell, i.e. the shell and common unix commands most Mac users play with from time to time. The diaply code (Quartz, Aqua etc.) was their own and I think they have kept this closed.

For the BSD stuff they took, they wern't required to post anything back to the BSD communitity but my imprssion is that they have in every case. I don't think this would have been any different if they had taken a GPL equivelent, unless the GPL prevented them linking to a closed source kernel.

The code they have taken for Safari was GPL and I think they have contributed back to this. There have been numerous discussions around this as they did make huge changes optimed for Power PC which they contributed back but were of very little use to Linux on Intel and I would be interested to hear what people think now they have contributed back their Intel code.

I have to say that I am no expert in this, working mainly in the identity and directory field. However Apple's work with Directory Servers and Clients [apple.com] is on a par with the open source contributions of SUN, Novell and OpenDirectory and something I watch with great interest (and far beyond what I would expect from a company which mainly makes home based Macs and iPods.

The actual options: BSD vs 100% Proprietary (1)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351461)

Yeh, without BSD licensing they'd probably have had to go with something like BeOS for the kernel, or just keep using the NeXTstep kernel they already had an irrevocable license from AT&T for. It's not like the only alternatives were ever FreeBSD or Linux.

Sad day (3, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351136)

But at the end of the day, Apple is a proprietary software vendor. Apple never was an open source company. But they did grasp how to utilize open source to their advantage, but it was always in a way that was really not quite in the spirit of the open source community. Yes the source code was always available for Darwin and the pieces of OS X. But rarely in patch form and often not buildable without tracking down internal header files. Working with Apple's build of OpenLDAP in Panther Server really soured me to Apple's commitment to Open Source. While the code was there, it was difficult to see just what they had changed and very hard to take their changes and apply them to the newer version of OpenLDAP. A great example of how you can use open source in a very closed way.

So this doesn't come as any surprise to me. And I really don't have any ill will towards Apple, as I understand their position they are in. But I don't agree with the position they have taken but that is their perogative.

Re:Sad day (4, Interesting)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351335)

The deal here is that Apple is a company, not a bunch of (talented) hackers. They're here to make money, pay employees and execs, and (hopefully, 'cos I'm one) raise value for their shareholders. They're not a charity and they're not there to make the world a better place (well, Steve may disagree... let me rephrase: they're not there to make the world a better place for free).

The reason I'm replying to you is that you say "But they did grasp how to utilize open source to their advantage, but it was always in a way that was really not quite in the spirit of the open source community". I think that's unfair. Just because they don't want to lose control over *one* piece of s/w doesn't mean they don't get it - indeed they may "get it" all too well, if they're planning on releasing server-based machines in the near future... you don't really need much more than Darwin to have a server, so they probably would lose money to people self-building and self-installing "clone" machines...

Where they see there is an upside for them, I think they've been reasonably generous - Webkit (despite some initial negative feedback, they responded and made things better); there's a story about how to use Quicktime Streaming Server to get MythTV on your cellphone elsewhere on the main page; they put a lot of effort into gcc; etc. etc.

I don't think you can expect much more from a company - so it's not a 'sad day', they do indeed 'get it', and as you say - it's their right to do things as they see fit. I think they do more than most...

Simon

Closed source software stops piracy! (5, Funny)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351168)

Because as we all know, closed source software prevents piracy!

Well, open source surely does. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351408)

I've never seen anyone run a pirated version of Linux...

devil's advocate (0, Troll)

eclectic4 (665330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351180)

Hello? Hi there. I'm 99% of the computer using market. I was just wondering why I should care about this.

And to the article sumbitter, I also do not care about your blog or how many "hits" you get so I will not click on your link. While I realize that this is /., and that /. is "supposed" to be for that 1% of the computer using market that speaks in lanquage the "norms" can't understand, but seriously would like to know why should I care? Thank you for the explanation.

Re:devil's advocate (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351366)

Hello? Hi there. I'm 99% of the computer using market.

No, your about 2%. Embedded processors are in everything.

I was just wondering why I should care about this.

The same reason that 99% of all automobile drivers like the fact that they can access the engine if they wanted too.

Enjoy,

Obligatory: Will someone fork the last open code? (3, Interesting)

multiOSfreak (551711) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351187)

I have to wonder if some group or other won't go back to the last open version of the kernel code and fork it into a new project or maybe some alternative to Darwin? Also, what does this mean for the Darwin project?

Would something like that even be worth it without some vendor support or tie-in? It seems a shame to let such a nice chunk of code go to waste.

I don't believe this is because of pirates... (5, Insightful)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351213)

This development just reinforces the likelihood that the Mach(-ish) kernel is going away in 10.5. If I were Apple and planning on switching to a new in-house developed kernel, I'd most definitely want to clear myself of obligations of showing it to the world... at least at first until it's clear that the code is mostly clean, by which I mean fairly efficient and exploit/bug-free.

This is an awful lot of drama though if that were the case but trying to figure out Apple's true motivations is always a crap shoot.

Initial impression (5, Interesting)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351214)

Mac developers and power users no longer have the freedom to alter, rebuild, and replace the OS X kernel from source code
Good, because we know how that's helped Windows reach it's apex of security.

"If your OS is secured by keeping the code private, pray it's never, ever, released." Only takes one slip into the public to break that "security model."

Then there's those OSes that *assume* publicity of the source code and have different expectations for ensuring security. These "published" OSes also happen to be the "more secure" OSes available.

Go figure.


P.S. I'm not only referring to GPL'ed and BSD'ed OSes. There are other published OSes, the source of which are publicly accessible.


Disclosure: Mac OS X user here. Linux user here. Reluctant Windows user here.

:'( no (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351234)

:'(

me no want this

Yes! Blame it on them pirates!!!111!!111 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15351236)

After all, that's the only way not to blame it on Apple and as we all know, Apple can't be wrong.

Hey, Open Source. Give it a rest. (0, Flamebait)

Hitchcock_Blonde (717330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351270)

Open source may look "great on paper", but in reality, it's mostly a kludge. Sometimes, you get what you pay for.

This is speculation. (0, Troll)

mattboy99 (637246) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351290)

This is speculation and until I hear an official quote from inside the loop, it's just not true. Apple might not be releasing XNU until they figure out EFI licensning issues or until they clean it up enough not to look like it was thrown together in 2 seconds. Who knows!?

Oh Snap (5, Funny)

Kuku_monroe (753761) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351320)

And this had to happen the very same day i was planning to alter, rebuild, and replace the OS X kernel from source code, oh well..

This fucking pisses me off .. (3, Interesting)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351336)

I know I'm in a minority, but I used Darwin/x86 quite a bit since it had NetInfo support so I could use it for shared login, and while I could switch to everything to LDAP, it wasn't worth the effort. I currently got an Intel Macintosh, but maybe my next purchase won't be a Mac, because I do/did use Darwin quite a bit. That being said, the Macworld UK article doesn't cite sources, so where is it getting this info? I still see the xnu sources on OpenDarwin's site:

http://darwinsource.opendarwin.org/10.4.6.ppc/ [opendarwin.org]

Re:This fucking pisses me off .. (5, Informative)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351405)

I hate to reply to myself, but checking Apple's offical Darwin site, XNU's sources are still posted. The only thing that could even suggest Apple's going to stop releasing the XNU sources is that if you go into Sources (X86), XNU is not shown, but to my knowledge, those sources are just for packages that are different or not included in the PPC version.

Thumbing through the XNU source, all the assembler and C sources for the Intel platform is still there ...

I don't know about everyone else, but... (0, Flamebait)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351362)

this sounds like the work of Microsoft!

Yes but... (-1, Offtopic)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351382)

Does it run Linux?

Yes, I do know the answer to that one:
if you can get the drivers.

GPL vs BSD (3, Informative)

towsonu2003 (928663) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351415)

IMHO, this puts an end to the GPL vs BDS license flamewars.

The Emperor Has No ... (1, Insightful)

SandBender (255049) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351436)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Ain't nothing special about Apple products beyond a cute case and a marketed "cool" factor which for me personally are just two more reasons not to buy Apple. Apple doesn't stand for anything more than a healthy bottom line. It's all smoke and mirrors folks! And just for the record Steve Jobs isn't a revolutionary, he's a dick. Always has been always will be. Woz was the revolutionary if there was one and he left...why? Cause Steve Jobs is a meglomaniacle asshole. Mark this as a troll all you want. It just proves taht your are an Apple Fanboy.

and somewhere in the distance... (0)

slashdotnickname (882178) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351444)

...Steve Ballmer is picking up a chair and smiling.

Maybe a change to solaris eventually? (3, Interesting)

Master Of Ninja (521917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15351487)

If they are locking the source down, I for one would hope that it might indicate making a move to solaris. Especially after the recent news that they were porting some of Solaris' file system over to MacOS, moving over to full solaris may leverage the best of unix and the mac os GUI system.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>