PDA

View Full Version : x86 OS X Kernel Becomming Closed-Source?


MacBytes
May 17, 2006, 01:09 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Software
Link: Apple closes darwin - No longer open source. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060517140933)
Description:: Apple is closing the Mac OS X kernel, Darwin, so that the source code is no longer accessible to developers. The reason stated are the numerous hacker attacks to the Mac OS X system.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Mord
May 17, 2006, 01:14 PM
this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, a pretty massive one, this just means that apple is adding closed sections to the kernel to stop OSx86 hacks.

darwin will continue open source, however the version used in OS X will be modified.

greatdevourer
May 17, 2006, 01:29 PM
If Apple are to release source just for Server, I wouldn't be suprised if it'll've been modified to the point where it doesn't work with Client, thus letting those who want suped up kernels do as they wish without the same level fear of piracy

MacRumors
May 17, 2006, 01:43 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

According to an opinion piece by Tom Yager at Infoworld (http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/17/78300_21OPcurve_1.html), Apple has closed the source of the Intel version of the Mac OS X kernel (called XNU (http://guides.macrumors.com/XNU)) due to piracy concerns. While the rest of the underlying operating system of OS X (called Darwin (http://guides.macrumors.com/Darwin)) is still open-source, closing the kernel means less capability for pirates to hack OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, but also limits developers and power-users' ability to tweak their systems.

Apple's Open-Darwin mailing list (http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-dev/2006/May/index.html) has an ongoing discussion in which some users point out that Apple has actually not released the XNU source for Intel since 10.4.3 or perhaps earlier. Therefore, it appears as though the facts of the article are not new, but rather are just now gaining press attention.

Also has not officially commented on the future of XNU's source availability, and it appears most conclusions as to why the source has not been released is based on speculation rather than inside knowledge.

Spanky Deluxe
May 17, 2006, 01:46 PM
Hackers will still get around this somehow but it sure will make it harder for them. Besides which, how many 'power users' actually modify their kernel?? I mean seriously?

MrCrowbar
May 17, 2006, 01:46 PM
I though the Kernel was based on the opne FreeBSD...

yellow
May 17, 2006, 01:47 PM
I though the Kernel was based on the opne FreeBSD...

No. It's Mach, from NeXTSTEP. At least the OS X version of Mach. The dude from CMU who developed it was hired by SJ to develop it for Apple.

starflyer
May 17, 2006, 01:49 PM
Maybe this has to do with the rumor that they are dropping Mach support...just a thought

Warbrain
May 17, 2006, 01:52 PM
I find no problem with this. Apple wants to control their OS, which is their property. They don't want OS X to be run on non-Apple PCs, and that's fine.

Evangelion
May 17, 2006, 01:52 PM
No. It's Mach, from NeXTSTEP. At least the OS X version of Mach. The dude from CMU who developed it was hired by SJ to develop it for Apple.

No it's not. It's basically part Mach, part FreeBSD and part something else.

yellow
May 17, 2006, 01:54 PM
No it's not. It's basically part Mach, part FreeBSD and part something else.

Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

They borrowed pieces/parts from the Mach for BSD, but for the most part it's all Mach from NeXTSTEP.

budugu
May 17, 2006, 01:54 PM
No. It's Mach, from NeXTSTEP. At least the OS X version of Mach. The dude from CMU who developed it was hired by SJ to develop it for Apple.

It is some botched up version of both Mach and FreeBSD. The only thing this shows is that apple (other than it is a hypocrite) is sure that they cannot sell macs just based on coolness factor. What is the "remaining" if the whole line transitions to intel anyway! :eek:

yellow
May 17, 2006, 01:57 PM
The only thing this shows is that apple (other than it is a hypocrite) is sure that they cannot sell macs just based on coolness factor.

How is that any different than it was before?

budugu
May 17, 2006, 01:58 PM
I find no problem with this. Apple wants to control their OS, which is their property. They don't want OS X to be run on non-Apple PCs, and that's fine.

They are free to do that! Like Microsoft ... the only thing that irritates me is how they act as if are all for the open source community and all that crap! They use a lot of opensource stuff ... it think it is basic courtesy to help them out... or create what ever you want and use it.

longofest
May 17, 2006, 02:01 PM
Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

They borrowed pieces/parts from the Mach for BSD, but for the most part it's all Mach from NeXTSTEP.

Dude, you just linked to an article that proves you wrong. XNU is a hybrid kernel. It uses Mach for some stuff and BSD for others. You can't say that it is just Mach.

yellow
May 17, 2006, 02:06 PM
Dude, you just linked to an article that proves you wrong. XNU is a hybrid kernel. It uses Mach for some stuff and BSD for others. You can't say that it is just Mach.

Dude.. Please read all the posts before posting. At no point did I write that it was "just Mach". Maybe that's how you interpreted it.

I though the Kernel was based on the opne FreeBSD...

To which I replied:

No.

Mach is MOST DEFINITELY NOT BASED ON BSD'S KERNEL.
It's BASED on the kernel from NeXTSTEP, and borrows from the BSD kernel.
There is a difference, as I view it.

Reading is fundamental.

Eraserhead
May 17, 2006, 02:08 PM
After reading about this to took a look at the hacker who originally hacked 10.4.4's website and he still doesn't seem to have hacked 10.4.6 also a search on [a pirating site] came up fruitless for Mac OS X 10.4.6, I think the hackers are having problems hacking OS X for Intel at the moment. I'm sure when Leapard comes out it'll be hacked but it seems unlikely that you'll be getting too many free updates of the software, which makes a real Apple Mac superior to any hacked x86 generic Mac.

arn
May 17, 2006, 02:09 PM
Interesting opinion post on slashdot about this topic:

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185992&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=15351035

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.

longofest
May 17, 2006, 02:17 PM
Dude.. Please read all the posts before posting. At no point did I write that it was "just Mach". Maybe that's how you interpreted it.

I was responding to this:

No. It's Mach, from NeXTSTEP. At least the OS X version of Mach. The dude from CMU who developed it was hired by SJ to develop it for Apple.

"It's Mach", and then arguing with someone when they say that it is actually a hybrid design makes me believe that you thought it was ONLY Mach.

After reading about this to took a look at the hacker who originally hacked 10.4.4's website and he still doesn't seem to have hacked 10.4.6 also a search on [a pirating site] came up fruitless for Mac OS X 10.4.6, I think the hackers are having problems hacking OS X for Intel at the moment. I'm sure when Leapard comes out it'll be hacked but it seems unlikely that you'll be getting too many free updates of the software, which makes a real Apple Mac superior to any hacked x86 generic Mac.

The guy who was the principle hacker (who shall remain nameless and shall not be linked to on this forum) has basically fallen off of the face of the earth. a lot of people have wondered where he went...

yellow
May 17, 2006, 02:18 PM
I don't want to argue with you about how you interprted my posts.

Pooldraft
May 17, 2006, 02:33 PM
Just another reason to stick with the PPC version of OSX. Also so much for the OSS community. Thanks Apple you just stated the obvious, money always comes first. :(

Sorry for agreeing with another human being. Next time I will not show my support.

yellow
May 17, 2006, 02:36 PM
Just another reason to stick with the PPC version of OSX. Also so much for the OSS community. Thanks Apple you just stated the obvious, money always comes first.

I thought Arn's post pretty much covered that..

Check it out, post #18.

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185992&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=15351035

ChrisA
May 17, 2006, 02:56 PM
I though the Kernel was based on the opne FreeBSD...

It is. BSD was ported by Next to use the Mach micro-kernel. Both Mach and BSD UNIX are open source. OSX uses both. However the license the BSD uses is not restrictive like GNU's GPL. A BSD style license allows any use whatsoever, even inclusion in comercial closed source software, just so long as the University of California gets credit and nt held liable for bugs. GPL required you to give away the source code in the same manner that you got it.

All open source licenses are not alike. BSD allows you to re-sell the software without giving out the source. I for one would never contribute un-paid work to a BSD project because it allows someone else to profet by my contribution. GPL requires that if I give it away free and you have it then you must also give it away free, Apple has avioded the GPL licenses where it can.

thejadedmonkey
May 17, 2006, 03:05 PM
Sure they can do what they want with it, but it just feels like...wrong, I couldn't explain it any better. It's like stealing candy from a baby. I'd never even bother hacking the kernel, or whatever it is that people do, but just knowing that I could if I needed to is nice to know.

ChrisA
May 17, 2006, 03:07 PM
Mach is MOST DEFINITELY NOT BASED ON BSD'S KERNEL.
It's BASED on the kernel from NeXTSTEP, and borrows from the BSD kernel.

The above timeline is "off". Mach is developed at CMU (carnigie melon university) and BSD was relesed by the University of California at Berkly and based on work done by AT&T's Bell Labs. Both Mach and BSD pre-date Next. The people at Next rounded up what they though were great ideas of the time, UNIX, Mach, Object oriented C (I think it predates C++) and Display Postscript and built a computer around these existing ideas. Eventually this morphed into Mac OSX.

As far as OS related code goes I don'tthink anyhting has moved out of Next/Apple and into other projects. The direction is the other way.

yellow
May 17, 2006, 03:08 PM
OK, I'm wrong. Everyone knows it but me.

I guess my point was that the Mach kernel as part of OS X was conceived from the already modified Mach kernel used by NeXTSTEP as a base, not directly from the BSD Mach kernel, which portions of which were then borrowed to form the Mach kernel that OS X uses today.

ChrisA
May 17, 2006, 03:12 PM
...I'd never even bother hacking the kernel, or whatever it is that people do, but just knowing that I could if I needed to is nice to know.

Get a Linux system. Linux "feels" quite a bit like Mac OX. Of course all the applications are different. You'd be using Gimp in place of Photoshop but Linux is completely open source and GPL'd.

I use both. Iused Linux for server and for day to day work developing software and Mac OSX for photo/video editing and related work.

j-a-x
May 17, 2006, 03:32 PM
This kinda sucks, but im not too surprised with all the piracy stuff going on (mac os x on generic intel). At least I think that's the cause of this...

backdraft
May 17, 2006, 03:34 PM
Well at least the PPC version of the kernel is still open. Pesky Intel...

milo
May 17, 2006, 04:09 PM
The only thing this shows is that apple (other than it is a hypocrite) is sure that they cannot sell macs just based on coolness factor.

That makes no sense at all. If OSX can be run on any box, you will have people building their own pc's and installing a copy of OSX for free. Apple can't compete with that, "coolness" has nothing to do with it.

Can you really blame them? With the PPC version, nobody else sells a hardware box that you could run it on as an alternative to mac hardware. If they released the PPC version, they just make it easier for the pirates to create install disks for bootleg copies that will run on any machine.

grockk
May 17, 2006, 04:28 PM
After reading about this to took a look at the hacker who originally hacked 10.4.4's website and he still doesn't seem to have hacked 10.4.6 also a search on [a pirating site] came up fruitless for Mac OS X 10.4.6, I think the hackers are having problems hacking OS X for Intel at the moment. I'm sure when Leapard comes out it'll be hacked but it seems unlikely that you'll be getting too many free updates of the software, which makes a real Apple Mac superior to any hacked x86 generic Mac.

Search harder. There are 10.4.6 install DVD's out there.

richat
May 17, 2006, 04:45 PM
Ok here's how I see it, maybe right, maybe wrong...

The only folks who may be interested in messing with the kernel are some serious power users who need to sacrifice one part of performance to enhance another part of performance, and ofcourse the hackers who want to steal the OS.

Apple closed the kernel not Darwin several revisions of OSX ago.

Apple is going to introduce the new version of OSX in August.

Apple has been rumored to be messing around with changing the kernel in order to allow new and improved functions. It is rumored also that in order to take advantage of some of the niceties Intel is bringing down the pike, a new kernel will be necessary.

Apple is going to be introducing the new PowerMacs or whatever your gonna call them in August.

Apple needs some performance changes in everything to make these new PowerMac's price closely equal value. In other words, something really cool has to be introduced in these puppy's in order to SELL them at all.

And I suppose lastly, Apple has a habbit of shutting things off quietly while noone's looking, only to reintroduce something better sometime later. I'm sure you guys have seen that move before...

Now feel free to tear into me for my observations...

bosrs1
May 17, 2006, 05:09 PM
I find no problem with this. Apple wants to control their OS, which is their property. They don't want OS X to be run on non-Apple PCs, and that's fine.
Yeah this is a great move by them. Notice that the last version they had out w/ the source was 10.4.3 which I believe was the last one OSX86 hacked. This should definitely put a hamper on those bozos.

yac_moda
May 17, 2006, 05:41 PM
I just saw the coolest commercial :D ;) :p

One guys was talking and said he was a Mac and ...


... the other talked a little bit and the FROZE, a couple of times, Oh he said he was a PC :eek: :eek: :eek:


Sounds like a GOOD reason to me to bring the cornel in, especially with all those hackers out there that could look at and use the open code to HACK :cool:

starflyer
May 17, 2006, 05:52 PM
Yeah this is a great move by them. Notice that the last version they had out w/ the source was 10.4.3 which I believe was the last one OSX86 hacked. This should definitely put a hamper on those bozos.

These "bozos" probably know more about OSX than we ever will...If you would read this thread and do a little research there are 10.4.6 Install DVD's out there...

jMini
May 17, 2006, 06:13 PM
I think os x has changed so much since it's open source routes, that it can be allowed to keep itself a bit secret; especially since the...
"Hi Iím a Mac, write a virus for me" advert (exaggerated),
not sure about the t&c&... that goes with open source oses.

[off topic again]love the fact that this box supports overwriting when your press the insert key. I miss that functionality in allot of programs :mad: [/off topic again sorry...]

toxicfreak
May 17, 2006, 06:32 PM
do they really beleave that this will stop hacker please .......
they just once again gave them a reason to prouve that i can be done doh.
in a few week/month will hear that they brake into it again .....



piracy cannot be stop period

sord
May 17, 2006, 06:49 PM
I though the Kernel was based on the opne FreeBSD...
Even if it was, FreeBSD is released under the BSD license. The only thing Apple would have to do is retain the copyright notice somewhere. The BSD license is nothing like GPL.

myamid
May 17, 2006, 07:27 PM
Linux "feels" quite a bit like Mac OX.

......?? Are you on acid?? :rolleyes:
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for what Linux has achieved, but it's light-years from being close to OSX in most regards... Most applications are either very crude (often very efficient, but crude...) or feel like they've been thrown together by the geek-squad to solve 1 problem (as opposed as being very flexible), preventing it from being Really good...

That being said, your point about it being all GPL is well taken, although I personally fail to see the insentive in that if the finished product makes for a poor workstation solution... Hackable? Yes. Better than closed-source software? In most cases, no.

jhu
May 17, 2006, 07:44 PM
speaking of the xnu kernel, i did compile my own xnu kernel a few times on my g3. my custom kernel turned out to be only several kb smaller than stock. well, it was fun at least.

MrCrowbar
May 17, 2006, 08:26 PM
I just saw the coolest commercial :D ;) :p

One guys was talking and said he was a Mac and ...


... the other talked a little bit and the FROZE, a couple of times, Oh he said he was a PC :eek: :eek: :eek:


Sounds like a GOOD reason to me to bring the cornel in, especially with all those hackers out there that could look at and use the open code to HACK :cool:

You can watch all the adds on Apple.com
Here's the one you're talking about in HD: http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/?networking_medium

theBB
May 17, 2006, 08:42 PM
From Tom Yager's opinion: "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. The availability of Intelís top-shelf compilers, debuggers, libraries, and profilers create unprecedented opportunities to optimize OS X for specific applications."

I am surprised that Mac is considered a viable player in these areas in the first place. I'd say if you need such demanding and specific applications, Linux is a better choice. You don't need nice looking OSX GUI for these applications and you probably should not waste RAM or CPU resources by running a browser, a word processor etc. on such a server so that the machine just concentrates on your CAD tool, simulator, equation solver etc.

cybermiguel
May 17, 2006, 09:26 PM
Maybe this has to do with the rumor that they are dropping Mach support...just a thought

I just thought that too!!!!!

budugu
May 17, 2006, 09:32 PM
I am surprised that Mac is considered a viable player in these areas in the first place. I'd say if you need such demanding and specific applications, Linux is a better choice. You don't need nice looking OSX GUI for these applications and you probably should not waste RAM or CPU resources by running a browser, a word processor etc. on such a server so that the machine just concentrates on your CAD tool, simulator, equation solver etc.

Academics is the last strong hold of macs (save the lunatics) especially in life sciences that you mentioned. Engineers moved away from it long time ago. Every tested what is the computer skill of a bio-major? or infact most profs? Most of the stuff is taken care by some one else (computing services that charges a huge amount from the research grant). If it has a nice GUI these people will step forward and use it (like GUI wrappers on existing scripted/Unix code). CAD tools are hardly required in the demographic you presented.

Analog Kid
May 17, 2006, 09:46 PM
Maybe this has to do with the rumor that they are dropping Mach support...just a thought
Doesn't really explain why they've closed the source to OS versions that are Mach though...

theBB
May 17, 2006, 09:50 PM
Academics is the last strong hold of macs (save the lunatics) especially in life sciences that you mentioned. Engineers moved away from it long time ago. Every tested what is the computer skill of a bio-major? or infact most profs? Most of the stuff is taken care by some one else... ...If it has a nice GUI these people will step forward and use it (like GUI wrappers on existing scripted/Unix code).
I see what you are saying, but I don't think this demographic would be messing with the kernel in the first place. If they have a demanding computation that could benefit from optimized kernels, they will either submit the script to a supercomputer or a multiCPU server to be run. Thus, either no GUI interaction or no kernel modification.

Am I missing something?

boncellis
May 17, 2006, 10:08 PM
I remember quite a few people in this forum bashing Dr. Tevanian when he left Apple to "pursue other interests" earlier this year. Now with this development, what is the likelihood that the kernel gets revamped completely?

I don't know much about the pros and cons of the current system, but I always liked the philosophy of implementing open source componentry within OS X. Oh well, as long as it works like before...

yac_moda
May 17, 2006, 10:19 PM
You can watch all the adds on Apple.com
Here's the one you're talking about in HD: http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/?networking_medium

Thinks for the ethusiasm but its this one:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/restarting_480x376.mov

You have to control key, click, and "copy link" to make sure you get the one you want :eek: ;)

This one is the BEST though because does a HARD CRASH at the end :D :D :D
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac_ads1/viruses_480x376.mov

I still think the PC guy looks like the prefect cross between Billy G. and Balmer !!!

sdunlapa
May 17, 2006, 10:50 PM
Thanks Apple you just stated the obvious, money always comes first. :(


What's wrong with making money? That is why businesses are in business...to make money/profit. Why is that such a bad thing? Would you rather Apple give away everything for cost or a loss? Doing that means no more Apple.

The best thing a company can do is be profitable so that they are around in the future. That way you can always go back to that business and buy more things.

mambodancer
May 17, 2006, 11:35 PM
It's entirely possible that this move is to secure the OS for an eventual release by Apple of OS X for intel PC's.:rolleyes:

Lollypop
May 18, 2006, 12:11 AM
I think this is the first step from apple to change the kernel, secure and update it for the intel wonders that is apparenly on its way (hopefully still PPC compatible wonders). Just as long as apple doesnt go 100% closed source again im happy, they are profiting from open source, they will be stupid to close off that source of development!

Evangelion
May 18, 2006, 01:58 AM
Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

They borrowed pieces/parts from the Mach for BSD, but for the most part it's all Mach from NeXTSTEP.

Well, if it was Mach, then why do they call in XNU instead of Mach ;). As your link clearly states, besides Mach, there are part of BSD and then there's the IO Kit. So it's NOT mach. Based on Mach, yes, but not Mach.

Evangelion
May 18, 2006, 02:09 AM
Mach is MOST DEFINITELY NOT BASED ON BSD'S KERNEL.
It's BASED on the kernel from NeXTSTEP, and borrows from the BSD kernel.
There is a difference, as I view it.

I think you are confused. Mach is not based on BSD, true. It's an independent kernel. But the kernel in OS X is not Mach. The kernel in OS X is called XNU, it's based on Mach, and it also has pieces developed by Apple (IO-kit) and BSD. And besides: Mach is NOT based on NeXTSTEP-kernel, rather, NeXTSTEP-kernel is based on Mach.

Evangelion
May 18, 2006, 02:15 AM
......?? Are you on acid?? :rolleyes:
Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for what Linux has achieved, but it's light-years from being close to OSX in most regards... Most applications are either very crude (often very efficient, but crude...) or feel like they've been thrown together by the geek-squad to solve 1 problem (as opposed as being very flexible), preventing it from being Really good...

Well, I used OS X for close to a year, and then I went back to Linux (as did my wife). To me, Linux IS "Really Good", whereas OS X is less so (it's still miles ahead of Windows though). So it all depends on the person.

And I would rather have an app that solves one problem really, really well, than having an app that does zillion things, but none of them well.

That said, I still love Apple-hardware.

Lollypop
May 18, 2006, 02:33 AM
Well, I used OS X for close to a year, and then I went back to Linux (as did my wife). To me, Linux IS "Really Good", whereas OS X is less so (it's still miles ahead of Windows though). So it all depends on the person.

And I would rather have an app that solves one problem really, really well, than having an app that does zillion things, but none of them well.

That said, I still love Apple-hardware.

Way off topic but why did you go back to linux? What was the alure?

Evangelion
May 18, 2006, 06:11 AM
Way off topic but why did you go back to linux? What was the alure?

Well, I was a Linux-user before I tried out OS X. I bought a Mac Mini a bit over year ago to personally check out OS X that everyone was talking about. I instantly fell in love with the Mini (although I had looked other pieces of Mac-hardware for quite a while in stores). I just LOVE the look 'n feel of it!

I did also enjoy OS X. Sure enough, it was VERY polished, and it had those "nice touches" (genie-effects etc.). And I had no real problems using it at first. But as time progressed, I noticed that I slowly started moving back to Linux. I have tried identifying why that is. For starters, filemanagement (Konqueror in KDE at the time) was clearly superior to Finder in OS X. And I also disliked the Dock. Then there were those cases where I wanted to do something a bit differently, only to notice that OS X does not really allow me to make those changes. It was the "OS X-way, or the highway". I also missed the virtual desktops I had in Linux. I also found that installation and removal of apps is more pleasant in Linux.

Besides those, there were other things as well.... In Linux I had a wonderful community that churned out improvements for the system and shared them with everyone else. I found more or less similar improvements available for OS X as well, but they were usually sold, not shared. Then there was the fact that I believe in free software. Linux is free, OS X is not. But my "re-switch" was not solely due to ideological reasons, it was started by actual problems with the OS.

After I had mostly switched back to Linux, I did keep on using OS X, mostly to manage my iPod and camera. Then I noticed that I can manage my iPod in Linux as well, so I had one less reason to use OS X. Then I decided to try plugging in my digital camera to my Linux-box (I hadn't actually tried it before). I got a nice dialog-box asking me "Would you like to import photos from this camera?". At that point I had no real reason to use OS X anymore. And my wife was happily using Linux as well, so there was no problems expected from that front either.

I planned to sell the Mini, but in the end I decided to install Fedora Core 5 on it, and turn in in to server. And that's where I am today :).

Lollypop
May 18, 2006, 06:45 AM
Well, I was a Linux-user before I tried out OS X. I bought a Mac Mini a bit over year ago to personally check out OS X that everyone was talking about. I instantly fell in love with the Mini (although I had looked other pieces of Mac-hardware for quite a while in stores). I just LOVE the look 'n feel of it!

I did also enjoy OS X. Sure enough, it was VERY polished, and it had those "nice touches" (genie-effects etc.). And I had no real problems using it at first. But as time progressed, I noticed that I slowly started moving back to Linux. I have tried identifying why that is. For starters, filemanagement (Konqueror in KDE at the time) was clearly superior to Finder in OS X. And I also disliked the Dock. Then there were those cases where I wanted to do something a bit differently, only to notice that OS X does not really allow me to make those changes. It was the "OS X-way, or the highway". I also missed the virtual desktops I had in Linux. I also found that installation and removal of apps is more pleasant in Linux.

Besides those, there were other things as well.... In Linux I had a wonderful community that churned out improvements for the system and shared them with everyone else. I found more or less similar improvements available for OS X as well, but they were usually sold, not shared. Then there was the fact that I believe in free software. Linux is free, OS X is not. But my "re-switch" was not solely due to ideological reasons, it was started by actual problems with the OS.

After I had mostly switched back to Linux, I did keep on using OS X, mostly to manage my iPod and camera. Then I noticed that I can manage my iPod in Linux as well, so I had one less reason to use OS X. Then I decided to try plugging in my digital camera to my Linux-box (I hadn't actually tried it before). I got a nice dialog-box asking me "Would you like to import photos from this camera?". At that point I had no real reason to use OS X anymore. And my wife was happily using Linux as well, so there was no problems expected from that front either.

I planned to sell the Mini, but in the end I decided to install Fedora Core 5 on it, and turn in in to server. And that's where I am today :).

Wow, I respect you man. At least you were willing to try out something different, I think if more and more people think like you the mac as well as linux world will be much bigger!

I personally found that there are a ton of opensource stuff for the mac, the only real things I had to buy was MS office and the few more "pro app" kind of things, the rest was all opensource. Thats in my mind the strength of OS X, it has a ton of open parts, while having the quality and supportability of the closed OSes. <attempt to get back to topic> While I know the closure of the kernel will deter a few developers from going the OS X root, the fact that there is still so much thats is open source will mean we still see a lot of neat opnesource stuff like aduim and virtua (a virtual desktop manager btw) </attempt to get back on topic>

eSnow
May 18, 2006, 07:20 AM
I think os x has changed so much since it's open source routes, that it can be allowed to keep itself a bit secret; especially since the...
"Hi Iím a Mac, write a virus for me" advert (exaggerated),
not sure about the t&c&... that goes with open source oses.

Uhm, you do understand that Windows, the platform with the most virii is not exactly open source, right?

Lollypop
May 18, 2006, 07:40 AM
Uhm, you do understand that Windows, the platform with the most virii is not exactly open source, right? Well the virus argument can be argued either way! If it is closed source people cant easily just scan the code and find a potential bug for a virus to exploit. On the other hand if the source is open its easy for someone to scan the code for bugs that can then be easily fixed.

Its not about the nature of the code, its the nature of the virus writer and their mindset. If Linux had a huge market and was as unpopular as MS then there might even be a few virii for linux. <My own opinion anyway>

peharri
May 18, 2006, 08:02 AM
I just saw the coolest commercial :D ;) :p

One guys was talking and said he was a Mac and ...


... the other talked a little bit and the FROZE, a couple of times, Oh he said he was a PC :eek: :eek: :eek:


Sounds like a GOOD reason to me to bring the cornel in, especially with all those hackers out there that could look at and use the open code to HACK :cool:

Yeah, that's right, because the most hacked operating system in the world is well known for its open source code. Why I was just downloading winxp-ntkrnl51-src.tgz only the other day...

Seriously, there's only one way to comment on this, and that's negatively. There's no full explanation for why Apple has abandoned "open source" XNU for Intel, but the "speculation" Arn talks about is about as close as we're going to get, and it does reek of PHBish reasoning.

Here's what's going on. Apple has launched Mac OS X for Intel. It doesn't want people porting OS X to Beige Box PCs. It appears to believe it's "helping" hackers by releasing source code. It's arguable that there's any truth to this, hackers have a long history of hacking the copy prevention methods out of every binary known to man, so how closing the source will help is open to question.

Apple believes it can get away with this because the number of users of Darwin is pretty low. (Actually, I was going to put it on my Thinkpad, but I'm in two minds about that now. But had I done so, that would have probably doubled the Intel version's "market share"...) Apple released Darwin in the first place after being pressured by the Open Source advocate Eric Raymond, who lobbied intensively, arguing that by releasing Darwin, an entire community of developers would help Apple out, fixing bugs and adding new features Apple had never thought of, making Darwin the BEST OS EVAH.

Raymond was full of crap. That never happened. Darwin development remained with Apple. Some people semi-joined in, but as soon as it became clear that Darwin wasn't attracting a community of developers, Apple pretty much closed open development of the OS (while continuing to release updates under the APSL for the sake of PR, helping developers understand the internals of Mac OS X, and presumably other reasons.)

Darwin is, essentially, a failure. It no longer represents anything. The "Open Source" movement continued to concentrate on GNU/Linux. The small community interested in Darwin found it harder and harder to keep up with Apple. It didn't attract a base. Meanwhile it's attracted a lot of technical criticisms that arguably require a revamp of the kernel to fix anyway.

So this is negative. It's negative because it represents the failure the APSL Darwin became. It's negative because information has been removed from the public domain. It's negative because it represents a strategy to "protect" Mac OS X from piracy that's completely moronic. It's negative because the freedom to tinker with your own, bought and paid for, computers just got a little harder.

There's a relatively simple way in which Apple can deal with the piracy issue BTW, or at least ensure they make money from Mac OS X on non-Macs. I don't think they'll do it, but I think everyone knows what it is.

eSnow
May 18, 2006, 08:03 AM
Well the virus argument can be argued either way!

Right, I just prefer to stick to what I can see - and this is thousands of virii attacking windows, few if any, Linux.

Lollypop
May 18, 2006, 08:18 AM
Yeah, that's right, because the most hacked operating system in the world is well known for its open source code. Why I was just downloading winxp-ntkrnl51-src.tgz only the other day...

Seriously, there's only one way to comment on this, and that's negatively. There's no full explanation for why Apple has abandoned "open source" XNU for Intel, but the "speculation" Arn talks about is about as close as we're going to get, and it does reek of PHBish reasoning.

Here's what's going on. Apple has launched Mac OS X for Intel. It doesn't want people porting OS X to Beige Box PCs. It appears to believe it's "helping" hackers by releasing source code. It's arguable that there's any truth to this, hackers have a long history of hacking the copy prevention methods out of every binary known to man, so how closing the source will help is open to question.

Apple believes it can get away with this because the number of users of Darwin is pretty low. (Actually, I was going to put it on my Thinkpad, but I'm in two minds about that now. But had I done so, that would have probably doubled the Intel version's "market share"...) Apple released Darwin in the first place after being pressured by the Open Source advocate Eric Raymond, who lobbied intensively, arguing that by releasing Darwin, an entire community of developers would help Apple out, fixing bugs and adding new features Apple had never thought of, making Darwin the BEST OS EVAH.

Raymond was full of crap. That never happened. Darwin development remained with Apple. Some people semi-joined in, but as soon as it became clear that Darwin wasn't attracting a community of developers, Apple pretty much closed open development of the OS (while continuing to release updates under the APSL for the sake of PR, helping developers understand the internals of Mac OS X, and presumably other reasons.)

Darwin is, essentially, a failure. It no longer represents anything. The "Open Source" movement continued to concentrate on GNU/Linux. The small community interested in Darwin found it harder and harder to keep up with Apple. It didn't attract a base. Meanwhile it's attracted a lot of technical criticisms that arguably require a revamp of the kernel to fix anyway.

So this is negative. It's negative because it represents the failure the APSL Darwin became. It's negative because information has been removed from the public domain. It's negative because it represents a strategy to "protect" Mac OS X from piracy that's completely moronic. It's negative because the freedom to tinker with your own, bought and paid for, computers just got a little harder.

There's a relatively simple way in which Apple can deal with the piracy issue BTW, or at least ensure they make money from Mac OS X on non-Macs. I don't think they'll do it, but I think everyone knows what it is.

Ok, im gona bite what is the way apple can deal with piracy? Just for you info, apple had another closed source OS that nobody managed to crack, I believe it was called os 1 - os 9. Closing the kernel can help apple deter hackers, especially if they do some hardcore stuff in the kernel to make the average hackers life a living hell. And you say darwin is dead, why do you say that? Darwin is still alive, still open source, its just the XNU conponent that has been closed. There are also these nice things called darwin Ports, Im not a expect, ,but I would asume without darwin being open source the darwin ports would have struggled to get anything done.

Evangelion
May 18, 2006, 08:31 AM
Right, I just prefer to stick to what I can see - and this is thousands of virii attacking windows, few if any, Linux.

I believe that there's about half a dozen "viruses" for Linux, and they are all more of less "proof of concepts", instead of "real" viruses. And speaking of security and open-source: OpenBSD is usually thought as the most secure OS out there (with exceptions to some specialist OS'es), and it's open source

peharri
May 18, 2006, 08:32 AM
Ok, im gona bite what is the way apple can deal with piracy?

You don't need me to tell you the answer to that, you just don't want to hear it.

Just for you info, apple had another closed source OS that nobody managed to crack, I believe it was called os 1 - os 9.

68000 versions of Mac OS ran on Amigas and Atari STs using third party tools. PowerPC versions were also widely hacked, I've heard of people running them on RS/6000s and IBM Thinkpad 801s. I'm not sure where you get it from that Mac OS wasn't hacked for other computers with similar CPUs, but I can assure you you're quite, quite, wrong.

Closing the kernel can help apple deter hackers, especially if they do some hardcore stuff in the kernel to make the average hackers life a living hell.

As I've already said, hackers have had no problems hacking binary-only apps with copy-prevention schemes in them for years. Most applications that have some kind of copy-prevention scheme are available, unlocked, via the P2P networks or Usenet. Whether Apple's decision makes it slightly harder or not, the fact is it will be circumvented, because there is demand.

And you say darwin is dead, why do you say that? Darwin is still alive, still open source, its just the XNU conponent that has been closed.

I said the Intel version was. As I said above, Darwin has few users. A key component of the Intel version of Darwin is no longer available. It's dead. It only "lives" as the source code for the userland of Mac OS X, and as a viable OS for PPC.

There are also these nice things called darwin Ports, Im not a expect, ,but I would asume without darwin being open source the darwin ports would have struggled to get anything done.
I'm struggling to even understand how such a confusion of concepts could be condensed into so few words. Darwin Ports is a collection of ports of popular predominantly-open source (actually, just source-available) applications to Darwin. It doesn't require any aspect of Darwin be open source, as open source applications do not require the operating system they run upon to be open source. Darwin Ports predates the Intel Darwin being uncompilable, but it will continue to exist, even under Mac OS X.

nostrum
May 18, 2006, 08:53 AM
I only bought a Mac becasue I wanted to use OS X. Windows is too problematic and Linux is a bit too clunky at the moment.

If I could run OS X on a PC I'd have just built my own machine.

But Apple are a hardware company so they have to protect their market I guess.

pizzach
May 18, 2006, 01:23 PM
I only bought a Mac becasue I wanted to use OS X. Windows is too problematic and Linux is a bit too clunky at the moment.

If I could run OS X on a PC I'd have just built my own machine.

But Apple are a hardware company so they have to protect their market I guess.

I wouldn't be surprised if apple became a software company within the next 10 years with how they have been changing. They sell a lot of software now.

pizzach
May 18, 2006, 11:11 PM
Well, I was a Linux-user before I tried out OS X. I bought a Mac Mini a bit over year ago to personally check out OS X that everyone was talking about. I instantly fell in love with the Mini (although I had looked other pieces of Mac-hardware for quite a while in stores). I just LOVE the look 'n feel of it!

I did also enjoy OS X. Sure enough, it was VERY polished, and it had those "nice touches" (genie-effects etc.). And I had no real problems using it at first. But as time progressed, I noticed that I slowly started moving back to Linux. I have tried identifying why that is. For starters, filemanagement (Konqueror in KDE at the time) was clearly superior to Finder in OS X. And I also disliked the Dock. Then there were those cases where I wanted to do something a bit differently, only to notice that OS X does not really allow me to make those changes. It was the "OS X-way, or the highway". I also missed the virtual desktops I had in Linux. I also found that installation and removal of apps is more pleasant in Linux.

Besides those, there were other things as well.... In Linux I had a wonderful community that churned out improvements for the system and shared them with everyone else. I found more or less similar improvements available for OS X as well, but they were usually sold, not shared. Then there was the fact that I believe in free software. Linux is free, OS X is not. But my "re-switch" was not solely due to ideological reasons, it was started by actual problems with the OS.

After I had mostly switched back to Linux, I did keep on using OS X, mostly to manage my iPod and camera. Then I noticed that I can manage my iPod in Linux as well, so I had one less reason to use OS X. Then I decided to try plugging in my digital camera to my Linux-box (I hadn't actually tried it before). I got a nice dialog-box asking me "Would you like to import photos from this camera?". At that point I had no real reason to use OS X anymore. And my wife was happily using Linux as well, so there was no problems expected from that front either.

I planned to sell the Mini, but in the end I decided to install Fedora Core 5 on it, and turn in in to server. And that's where I am today :).

You da man! I like Linux and Mac OS X but usually avoid Windows. Personally, I don't use kde on linux. I am a Gnome user who mostly uses the command line. The funny thing is that I am starting to use Mac OS X more like Linux nowadays...

octoberdeath
May 18, 2006, 11:32 PM
i thought being so open was a strong point for apple. did that not give people the ability to find and figure out how to fix things that were wrong with the OS ultimatly giving apple the ability to quickly send out patches?

Rocketman
May 18, 2006, 11:34 PM
I would claim it is to reduce attacks by malware.

It is one of Apple's major competitive advatages.

Rocketman

Evangelion
May 19, 2006, 04:49 AM
You da man! I like Linux and Mac OS X but usually avoid Windows. Personally, I don't use kde on linux. I am a Gnome user who mostly uses the command line. The funny thing is that I am starting to use Mac OS X more like Linux nowadays...

I like both KDE and GNOME. Back when I still used OS X, I used KDE. But few moths ago I decided to try out GNOME (as you can see, I like trying out new things), and I'm still using it.

Evangelion
May 19, 2006, 04:53 AM
I would claim it is to reduce attacks by malware.

It is one of Apple's major competitive advatages.

Rocketman

Being open-source does not mean that the OS will end up being target for malware. Windows is closed, and it's BY FAR the worst in this area. Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD are open, and their track-record is very, very good.

peharri
May 19, 2006, 06:24 AM
i thought being so open was a strong point for apple. did that not give people the ability to find and figure out how to fix things that were wrong with the OS ultimatly giving apple the ability to quickly send out patches?

That's the theory, and it's what Open Source advocates argued when they tried to encourage Apple to release parts of Mac OS X under an open source license before it was released, resulting in Darwin and the APSL.

In practice, Apple started to close the development process after a few years, making it more difficult for third parties to be involved. OpenDarwin hasn't released a complete, independent, Darwin release since version 7 (based upon Panther's Darwin) for example. Clearly Apple wasn't getting the feedback promised, or if they were, it wasn't high enough quality to actually be worth using.

Evangelion
May 19, 2006, 08:22 AM
In practice, Apple started to close the development process after a few years, making it more difficult for third parties to be involved. OpenDarwin hasn't released a complete, independent, Darwin release since version 7 (based upon Panther's Darwin) for example. Clearly Apple wasn't getting the feedback promised, or if they were, it wasn't high enough quality to actually be worth using.

Or they did get lots of feedback, but they just decided to close it anyway. Being open reduces their control of the platform. And lets face it, Apple is all about control (for better or worse)

timothyjoelwrig
May 19, 2006, 06:50 PM
What's wrong with making money? That is why businesses are in business...to make money/profit. Why is that such a bad thing? Would you rather Apple give away everything for cost or a loss? Doing that means no more Apple.

The best thing a company can do is be profitable so that they are around in the future. That way you can always go back to that business and buy more things.

I couldn't agree more. I've never understood the "big bad corporation" mentality. The beauty of a free marketplace is if you don't like something, you can create an alternative.

But back to the topic: If XNU isn't included, then am I to assume that the intel source isn't bootable (unless you use kernel source pre 10.4.3)? and if so,..what's the point if releasing the intel source at all?

peharri
May 20, 2006, 08:55 AM
I couldn't agree more. I've never understood the "big bad corporation" mentality. The beauty of a free marketplace is if you don't like something, you can create an alternative.

Well, some times, it depends upon whether the "obvious" and only-available solutions to certain problems you'll inevitably encounter have been patented or not ;)

But back to the topic: If XNU isn't included, then am I to assume that the intel source isn't bootable (unless you use kernel source pre 10.4.3)? and if so,..what's the point if releasing the intel source at all?
You're right, and there's not a lot of point in releasing the Intel source at all. I guess people can fix minor issues in Mac OS X 10.4.3 with it, as long as the source to the relevent module is available.

I did think of one potential reason why XNU hasn't been released that doesn't involve inevitably fruitless attempts to slow down piracy. What if there's a technology that's going to be released later as a surprise, that requires substantial modifications to XNU's kernel, and that Apple are keen on implementing right away so that upon-release of said-technology, all existing Intel Macs will run it?

Like, er, virtualization? Microsoft launches Vista, and Apple releases Boot Camp 2 on the same day, announcing that Tiger, the soon-to-be-released Leopard (we don't know when Vista and Leopard are going to be released for certain, we just have a rough idea), and Vista can co-exist and run simultaneously on all Intel Macs. Even the old, cheap, ones.

We know Apple's interested in virtualization, and speculation has been rife for many months that Boot Camp is a precursor to an announcement of a virtualization system from Apple themselves. We also know that the best virtualization works for operating systems whose kernels know about the concept and support the idea of being hosted. Making XNU virtualizable will help an outer wrapper like XEN support it efficiently - ie if OS X is built for it, and Windows isn't, OS X will run great, and Windows will run albeit with minor limitations.

This makes a little more sense than the piracy argument, which I'm having trouble with. Surely Apple, be it their engineers and their PHBs, aren't so stupid as to think that binary code deters pirates? Mind you, this is the same company who still thinks you're supposed to put as much thermal grease on a CPU as you put ketchup on a hotdog, even with the entire computing community yelling at them for it.

Yarvin
May 22, 2006, 08:53 PM
I couldn't agree more. I've never understood the "big bad corporation" mentality. The beauty of a free marketplace is if you don't like something, you can create an alternative.

The ugliness of the O/S market is you can't create a real alternative. At least not easily enough to be competitive. Especially for the home market, no one's done it since Microsoft took over.

This is definitely a negative thing. Yes, we'll live, but this decision is very disappointing, especially to those of us who value that kind of freedom. Surely what I value as a customer is important enough to permit me to at least complain?

If Apple has any sense, they know that no code is truly "closed source" to the determined cracker. Given that, I can't see a profitable reason to close the source except to hide new technologies -- but given that Mach is a microkernel, surely almost any such technology could be moved to a module?

Honestly, I think Apple (and rabid Mac bigots -- the ones that make the system look bad) need to accept that not only will Mac OS X run on non-Macs whether they like it or not, but they would probably make more money if they sold it separately. Would non-Apple PCs be as good? In most cases not, so Mac hardware would probably still sell, maybe even more so once people got hooked on the OS.

So, maybe they're not "big bad business," but this is bad news to me.

netdog
May 23, 2006, 02:26 AM
According to Apple, these charges, as first published by Tom Yager in Infoworld, are not true.

The following comes from Ernest Prabhakar, Appleís Product Manager for Open Source & Open Standards:

Just to be clear, Tom Yager was speculating about why we have ó so far ó not released the source code of the kernel for Intel-based Macintoshes. We continue to release all the Darwin sources for our PowerPC systems, and so far has released all the non-kernel Darwin sources for Intel.

Nothing has been announced, so he (and everyone else) certainly has the right to speculate. But please don't confuse "speculation" with "fact."

From MacUser (http://www.macuser.com/apple/stop_yanking_my_open_source_ch.php)
From MacWorld UK (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=14709)