|
|
Apple closes down Darwin for Intel
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
"Thanks to pirates, or rather the fear of them, the Intel edition of Apple's OS X is now a proprietary operating system."
Translated:
"Now that Apple has used the open source community to help develop their OS for Intel Macs, Apple is shutting the door on them."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is old, old news and has been around on the mailing lists for a long time. All of Apple's open source projects are still running except for the kernel source. That's it.
Apple isn't shutting any doors. The parts about the OS that the developers care about are still open source under APSL and GPL. All those projects are still running and still available even though Apple is under no obligation to keep them running.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/
By the way, this could also mean that 10.5 or 10.6 might be moving to a new inhouse, custom built kernel instead of using Mach.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
By the way, this could also mean that 10.5 or 10.6 might be moving to a new inhouse, custom built kernel instead of using Mach.
This has been rumored for some time. Supposedly, Avie Tevanian (who was one of the original authors of Mach) left because Apple decided they didn't want to use his baby anymore.
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
This has been rumored for some time. Supposedly, Avie Tevanian (who was one of the original authors of Mach) left because Apple decided they didn't want to use his baby anymore.
Hmmm. Does this give any credence to Cringley's article that Apple might be dumping Mach?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
How different would a rumoured new kernel be? What would this mean for backwards compatibility for software?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
How different would a rumoured new kernel be?
Ideally, not very different at all. Software that doesn't talk directly to Mach shouldn't notice the difference. That's supposed to be one of the big advantages of the microkernel architecture. If Apple does decide to drop Mach, then they're probably dropping it for performance reasons, and so there should be a nice speed boost.
What would this mean for backwards compatibility for software?
This depends, in large part, on exactly what's changed. Ideally, anything which doesn't talk directly to Mach shouldn't be affected. However, there are a few classes of software which could be in trouble:
1) Device drivers. I don't know how much IOKit abstracts Mach out of things, but even if it completely abstracts Mach away there are probably some devices that talk directly to Mach anyway.
2) Anything using mach_inject would definitely fail at first. Some of it may never be able to be rewritten, depending on whether or not this new kernel implements equivalent functionality to what mach_inject used.
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
How different would a rumoured new kernel be? What would this mean for backwards compatibility for software?
So far everyone said it would be much faster.
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
I see no point in switching to a slower kernel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
So far everyone said it would be much faster.
Maybe it's to address the threading issue, especially if they want to remain competitive in the server market.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|