02/24/2006, 10:50am, EST
Friday, February 24th
Apple limits Darwin for x86 source code
"One has to wonder why Apple even bothers to release non-GPL'd source at all, if it is unwilling to cooperate with external developers to increase their return on investment and accept external bug fixes and features. Even worse, one has to wonder why people would want to donate their time to such a fruitless and pointless cause."
With the release of Mac OS X 10.4, Apple has made progress in making the Darwin open-source system more useful. The company released Darwinbuild, a tool that greatly simplified building Darwin projects, allowing developers to build them as close as possible to the way Apple does--and much more quickly and easily. It also allowed developers to create patches to the Apple source, which aided in porting changes across several Apple source drops, according to Braun.
However, problems still remained, according to the brief history. In addition to the growing number of access limitations, Apple's schedule for releases prevents developers from offering meaningful contributions back to Apple and the company been slowing transitioning away from Darwin source to Mac OS X source--a move that introduces more dependencies on non-released code.
"Darwin source could be reasonably expected to be consistent and be used to create a Darwin standalone open source release. Mac OS X source was the source used to build Mac OS X, which could include dependencies on non-open source projects That made it difficult to impossible to build a Darwin release or even to build these projects on a stock Mac OS X system. Darwin is clearly fading into the background now."
, 
, 11
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
It's that "one rotten apple spoils the barrel" thing. It's sure to continue to get worse as people continue to act as if they have a right to steak Mac OS X and do with it what they want.
Maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing but if I am, I want proof of contributions to the project that were worthwhile.
So, I'd wager a vast majority (probably around 95%) of people on those forums and 99% of all other people that are running OS X 10.4 on their PC have acquired it ILLEGALLY. Those who have acquired it legally through the purchase of an Intel-based Mac are breaking the EULA (that's another story though)...heck installing a single-license OS X copy on more than two Apple PPC computers is breaking the EULA...doubly so if you're running a single-license copy on non-Apple hardware.
But the point is that almost everyone has acquired OS X illegally.
When OS X 10.5 (Universal Binary) is actually sold in stores. Then I suppose I'll cool down since I'll have an easier time believing stories about people buying OS X 10.5 for 129$, rather than purchasing a computer that many PC users consider "ridiculously overpriced" to run the copy of OS X that comes with it on their PC.
As for buying Mac OS X, you should read your EULA. Even ppc versions are not allowed to be run on anything other than Apple hardware that was specifically made for Mac OS X. Technically, you can't even run Mac OS X in pearpc, and running it on older unsupported macs is questionable. Buying Mac OS X x86 and running it on non-Apple hardware (or even in an emulator) is against the EULA and illegal.
Maybe Apple can put their "no-generic PC" hooks into Aqua, rather than Darwin, or maintain a simple way to add it in when they build MacOS X. Not sure how practical that is though.
Could someone please educate me as to what the hell I'm talking about???
It's a bit like when shops put up signs saying 'no refunds' - they are trying it on. Quite often they won't contest these things in courts because they won't stand.
(Of course there are other barriers in the way - running Tiger x86 on non-Apple hardware will almost certainly involve breaking the DMCA. On the other hand, the DMCA is a US only law)
If you read my post, I never said they were allowed to be run on anything other than Apple hardware. By saying you *can't even* run the single-license on two different *Apple* computers, it's implied that you can't run it on non-Apple hardware.