Is OS X open source? I've heard that the underlying operating

>>59827591
Correct on all counts

Kernel source : https://github.com/opensource-apple/xnu

>>59827607
>>59827591
Looks like the actual project that keeps the code for most of OS X is called Darwin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

Looks like Apple is required by licensing law to keep realeasing new code under this project. Does anyone here use Darwin (and not OS X)?

Why isn't there a Darwin based OS? Probably too busy building YET ANOTHER DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT or maybe ANOTHER NEW DISPLAY SERVER for another SHITTY OS. The Linux kernel is shit, Darwin already POWERS THE MOST AMAZING OS IN THE WORLD. I'm sure it can run web servers just fine. OPEN YOUR EYES DEVELOPERS. Linux to be fucking cancelled already. fucking bullshit.

>>59827591
>Apple drops to fifth place in best laptop brand survey over higher prices and fewer options

apple is finished there is only iOS now

>>59827852
They have the same team working on both

>>59827871
WE NEED TO RALLY THE LINUX COMMUNITY BEHIND THE DARWIN KERNEL

what the fuck how has nobody thought if this before. if everyone stops fucking around with all of these stupid Linux window managers and display servers and music players and weather app bullshit we can have a top notch free OS based on Darwin and not this broken Linux nonsense. fuck windows fuck Linux fuck OSX this is the future right here

>>59827871
it's true that there's only one team for both.
but in reality that translates in that team only doing iPhone stuff since that's where the money is.

Apple really should abandon their unusual functional corporate structure and go to a divisional one like every other Fortune 500 company. then there would be a separate team for Mac that actually can focus on it.

http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/27/13706776/apple-functional-divisional

>>59828086
yeah apple is being fucking stupid but we CAN DO THIS ourselves!

>>59828086
no, I want apple to die

>>59827656
>>59827813
There used to be a Darwin OS, Apple stopped releasing ISOs after 8.11 (Darwin version that corresponds to Mac OS X 10.4.11)

>>59827912
It's called XNU

>>59828086
>Apple really should abandon their unusual functional corporate structure and go to a divisional one
Having one team work on both actually makes sense, iOS is essentially OS X for ARM. It uses XNU as its kernel, Darwin as the base OS, HFS+ for the FS, Cocoa for the UI, etc.

>>59828628
we need to build a desktop for it

File: 395847d5f7b617e88f6330d1b8236908_400x400.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

the amount of samefaggotry in this thread

>>59829592
GNUStep is already source compatible with all of the older OpenStep library functions and many of the ones which are commonly used which Apple introduced as well. There are quite a few applications which compile and run on both, and some company funds GNUStep for its own purposes (probably secretly Apple through an elaborate system of shell corporations lol).

GNUStep itself is a layer which works on a large number of Unix™ and Unix-like systems.

Sony also updated GNUStep with a shit ton of new features and great touchscreen support, released the code a few years ago, and then scrapped the project.

You can find it if you look around. I don't know why so few people seem to know about this.

http://so-mo.net/2010/11/ソニー、次世代ネット家電の開発環境にobjective-cgnustepを採/

File: openstep_virtualbox_windowmaker-2.png (146KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1600x900px

gnustep + windowmaker = OS X - some apps and libraries

>>59831013
that looks fucking stupid. we need to do better

>>59828628
>Apple stopped releasing ISOs after 8.11
You can still download the source. The latest version is 16.3 released in Dec last year. It matches OSX 10.12.2 and iOS 10.2, according to Wonkypedia.

>>59833066
>You can still download the source
No shit, but an installer ISO and source code are two very different things. I never said anything about the latter.

>>59832977
>we need to do better
What you mean "we", Chemo Sabe?

>>59832977
No, you just need better taste. Also, this >>59833206 What have YOU done to be included in this "we?"

>>59827813
Darwin lacks hardware support, a graphical framework, and applications. Just bringing it up to parity with Linux would be a huge project that isn't really worth the effort.

>>59827969
Apple would find a way to sue.

>>59833226
>What have YOU done to be included in this "we?"

I shitpost on /g/

>>59833260
>graphical framework
Slap X11 on top
>applications
Many should either just compile or compile with gmake, others should be trivial to port.

>>59833330
Can you tell us what applications you've developed for Darwin?

>>59833263
>Apple would find a way to sue.
For using their FOSS code.
You really are desperate.

>>59833330
>Slap X11 on top
Why not something that works and looks reasonable?
I'm sure "we" could knock it out in an afternoon.

>>59833405
Apple sued samsung for making tablets that looked like tablets, it's entirely within their realm.

Darwin is a patchwork of many different projects combined into one abomination.

The core of the system comes from NeXTSTEP which Apple acquired in the 90s. NeXTSTEP itself is derived from 4.4BSD. The userland is made up mostly of parts of FreeBSD with NetBSD and OpenBSD providing certain other components. Then there's a few components which Apple developed in-house. I think there might be some GNU project stuff in there as well.

OSX is Darwin + proprietary stuff that Apple does not release for free like the Carbon and Cocoa APIs and the Quartz Compositor and Aqua interface so Darwin cannot run OSX applications directly.

>>59833330
>Slap X11 on top
Gnome?
KDE?

>>59833482 >>59833263
They cannot sue for doing something what license permits. If it does not - well, fuck.

>>59831013
god that looks fucking horrible

>>59833381
I've only compiled a few for GNUstep on OpenBSD, haven't really used Darwin outside of OS X itself.

>>59833488
GNOME would take some work, isn't systemd a dependency? Less retarded WMs and DEs would probably work though.

>>59833556
You take that back, Window Maker is awesome.

There's really no advantage to making Darwin usable compared to simply using GNU+Linux or one of the FOSS BSDs.

>>59833597
that's exactly the attitude that had landed us in the situation we're in today. fuck off with your complacency.

Anyone interested in an actual solutinion:

>>59835856

>>59835192
There's nothing Darwin does better that GNU, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD. It's a waste of time

Ganoo = GNU
Xanoo (Exanoo or Zanoo?) = XNU


oh also BTW it's macOS now

>>59827591
No, but most of it's core is, userland is proprietary indeed.

>open source fork of BSD
It's not a fork, it uses a lot of code from BSD though.

>>59836078
>There's nothing Darwin does better that GNU, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD. It's a waste of time
There's precious little than any of them do better. So if you get rid of Darwin, why keep the others?

>>59837220
>userland is proprietary indeed.
Actually, according to Apple, the userland is the FreeBSD part.

>>59828628
>OS X for ARM
this is the future
embrace it

it'll be the powerpc>intel situation all over again

>>59838114
The day Apple switches to ARM is the day I go back to Linux

>>59837505
According to working with the FOSS team at Apple and personal experience with their code, a good part of the kernel is too, and they're moving more towards it. IPC is Mach though.

>>59838275
Apple isn't going to switch to ARM, it's going to switch to a CHERI-enhanced CPU, whatever that may be at the time, which is inherently a RISC architecture, so RISC-V is a possibility here.

>>59840239
Samefagging, just to clarify, I am fully aware that ARM is RISC, it's just had no interest from Apple at this point.

>>59837481
>There's precious little than any of them do better.
Hardware support, better filesystems, better network stack, better usage of multi-processor setups.


>So if you get rid of Darwin, why keep the others?
No one is getting rid of any of them, I only suggested not wasting time on Darwin which offers very little to the community in the first place. With kernel level stuff it's better not to duplicate effort, it just stretches the community thinner.

>>59827969
What about hardware support?

>>59833570
FreeBSD has GNOME so... Wayland's the issue.

>>59827591
What nobody else appears to have explained is that Mac OS X (recently renamed macOS, to be in line with the nomenclature for iOS, watchOS and tvOS) is a mix of several different pieces of kernel code including Apples own code, NeXT code (which derives from the Berkeley System Distribution made at CSRG, Berkeley), a fork of FreeBSD called Darwin, XNU and Mach. Of those, all but the Apple code is under varying forms of open source licensing along with a mix of Apple (primarily Quartz and Cocoa which derives from NeXTStep) and FreeBSD in it's userland.

>>59840230
The specific rumor is that the iOS division integrated more FreeBSD elements into the kernel because they couldn't work with HFS+, and that since that happened more divisions including the iOS one have been pulling more and more code from FreeBSD.
It's just a rumor, though - but it wouldn't surprise me.

>>59840239
Apple already uses ARM, just not IP cores.

>>59840351
Wayland is in ports and has been since January.

>>59840239
RISC-V is a nice dream, but until I see product I'm not going to hold my breath.

>>59841417
>>59840230
I wonder if Apple will eventually just take FreeBSD in its entirety and port their proprietary software/APIs to it. Their userland is already mostly FreeBSD so people on the userland side might not even notice.

I guess the main reason they haven't already done this is that Apple is worried about FreeBSD devs breaking compatibility between versions. macOS users expect their applications to work always, Apple would be potentially putting that backwards compatibility in the hands of an outside group to manage which could lead to problems.

>>59841701
Yep, their mbuf code is quite outdated for precisely this reason.

>>59827969
Why don't you stop shitposting on g and get to work then?

>>59841701
No, that's not the only reason, because that's a fucking idiotic thing to be worried about since the ONLY reason for major version number bumps is to indicate that KBI/ABI has changed since the last version.

>>59840351
Well yeah, OpenBSD has GNOME too, but it required some fuckery to get working and I've heard it's buggy. May as well just steer clear of such retarded projects.

>>59841417
>a fork of FreeBSD called Darwin is part of XNU
Darwin's not a FreeBSD fork, it's the complete OS. XNU is part of Darwin, not the other way around.
>because they couldn't work with HFS+
Last I checked iOS still used HFS+