digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Mac OS X 10.5 Source Code

opensource.apple.com — I may actually buy a Mac now... just to show support.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • caliform, on 11/07/2007, -15/+9Not really the 'source code of OS X', but the kernel - nevertheless, something I truly love about Apple. Let's digg this to remind them just how great we think it really is :).
    • FinestCall, on 11/07/2007, -9/+1NO
      • knowmonger, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0I mean, why can't they make it full open source ? Thats why Linux is much better.
  • kajoob, on 11/08/2007, -3/+76This is the Darwin source code you knucklehead
    • onedingo, on 11/08/2007, -5/+13Too late to edit it now - I'll go sit in the corner.
    • Audacitor, on 11/08/2007, -0/+14I always thought Darwin was such a terrific name for a kernel.
    • ilgaz, on 11/08/2007, -5/+11It still matters. Where is Windows_NT_5.2.src.zip? Even ordinary MS developers don't see it in full.

  • Pliep, on 11/08/2007, -2/+37You should have bought a Mac 6 years ago then, just to show support for release the Darwin source codes of Mac OS X 10.0
  • andywebb95, on 11/07/2007, -1/+10It is just the source to their variant of BSD but it is nice to see they are giving back to the community in this way.
    At the same time they can take advantage of improvements to BSD by others and they make their money off the hardware and the OSX front end.
    Not bad :)
    • chillypacman, on 11/08/2007, -12/+2They have to, they are legally obliged to 'give it back to the community'.

      APples just honouring the license, they shouldn't be commended for doing what they are legally obliged to do.
      • bigtomrodney, on 11/08/2007, -0/+10It's under a BSD style licence, so it they are not required to give the source back - just maintain the copyright notice.
  • thelastknowngod, on 11/07/2007, -20/+8or you could just use linux... youve got all the source code you could ever want.
    • thejoker86, on 11/07/2007, -8/+28linux is like a slutty fat chick... yeah you can do anything you want to her... but still ugly as *****
      • Audacitor, on 11/07/2007, -1/+9I agree. I wholeheartedly commend the Linux community on their achievements, but you guys still have a really long way to go.
        • ToadLeg, on 11/07/2007, -2/+3wtf are you joking? I guess you've never seen Compiz/Beryl:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD7QraljRfM

          Have you even seen the terminal on Windows? It's a joke - there's only like 5 commands that do anything...how are you supposed to run stuff on Windows? You can do everything from a terminal on Linux!

          If by "you guys (?) still have a really long way to go" you mean in a future sense "we" have an unknown amount of work to do on the system, and it will probably be decades before we have a really standard computer system that won't need to be constantly updated with the latest improvements, then yes, there is still a huge amount of work to be done to Linux and other open source software. If you mean that Linux has a long way to go to look and work as good as Windows or Macintosh, Linux left Windows and Mac in the dust 2 years ago and are only getting better - much faster than Windows or Macintosh.
          • Audacitor, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1First of all, I agree with you on Windows. Windows got left behind by pretty much everybody. As for the Linux GUI, it's got a crap load of eye candy. As cool as a cube is, Apple's version of it (and I acknowledge that Apple got the idea for spaces from Linux) is cleaner and can hold more stuff. What I mean by "you guys still have a really long way to go" is that Linux just doesn't have to functionality that other operating systems have. It doesn't have as many apps, it doesn't have as many users, it's virtually unknown in the market.
            Now, don't think that I don't like Linux. I think it's awesome that there is an open source platform, and I look forward to the day when Linux is a major competitor to Windows and OS X, but for now, Linux isn't much compared to Windows and OS X.
          • Boondoggle, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2"You can do everything from a terminal on Linux!"

            Yeah OS X has that too.
    • Killwize, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1Puch!
  • kudos, on 11/07/2007, -19/+14Why is this a big deal? They are REQUIRED to publish it under the original license.
    • vslavik, on 11/07/2007, -0/+11Actually, no, it's required only for some of the packages.
    • m94mni, on 11/07/2007, -0/+10Except they are not? It's a BSD license after all.
  • ricepudd, on 11/08/2007, -7/+6I like how the license is "APSL" or "Other"... why can't they put "GPL", or whatever the other license may be...?
  • Audacitor, on 11/07/2007, -7/+2Okay, I've timed it, and in the space of one minute, this thing has accrued 20 diggs.
  • Weejay, on 11/07/2007, -19/+6OWOW, THEY ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW BECAUSE OF THE LICENCE, HOW AWESOME!!!!!1111
    • TastyLamp, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4As has been repeated about 6 times in this comment thread, they don't have to do anything - it's BSD.
    • manitoba98xp, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4The BSD license, unlike GPL, is not copyleft. They are not required to redistribute the source to Darwin.
    • Weejay, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Alright, I can recognize my mistakes when I see them.... The whole sarcastic tone makes me look like a dumbass on top of that. Sorry everyone, won't do it again :(
  • Endemoniada, on 11/08/2007, -3/+7The Darwin code has been publicly available for quite some time. The rest of OSX is quite closed though, and that's the part we're interested in.
    • manitoba98xp, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Much if it is, but certainly not all the rest. Most of the CLI userspace is standard utilities, and most of the backend daemons (Apache, for instance) are just open-source projects. Safari uses the WebKit Engine, which is open-source (based on KHTML, but WebKit may supercede KHTML eventually).
  • burk3, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2They don't have any of the actual Apple programmed OS parts, which basically consists of the display implementation (aqua interface, SystemUIServer, etc).
    • StarManta, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2That is, all the things that make OS X, OS X. :P Every feature Apple has given a name to is closed source.
    • lowelito, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Recently Darwin Calendar Server was released as under the Apache License. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is an original apple product and not deviated from a previous project.
  • ulmus, on 11/07/2007, -0/+7They' re only required to publish the projects where they modify GPL'ed (or equivalent) code. The projects licensed under APSL (about half of it as it seems) are released more as a token of goodwill. I do think that much of that code is too specific to be generically useful, but some open-source concepts, like bonjour (zeroconfig) originated in Cupertino if I recall correctly
  • rdas7, on 11/10/2007, -4/+3buried for wtf.
  • cmost, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3This title is entirely misleading. The only released the source to Darwin 9. This is the bare bones base of OS X 10.5. To say the entire source of 10.5 was released is ridiculous.
    • Boondoggle, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2misleading is in the reading... it doesn't say entire source code.
  • sp1nm0nkey, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8They totally and completely don't need to release anything except for the GPL stuff. Just for the record, Microsoft has mass amounts of BSD code in their OS.

    root@suigin:/mnt/windows/WINDOWS/system32# strings ./ftp.exe | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

    OS X and Windows probably share a bit of code here or there.
  • PainToad, on 11/07/2007, -6/+1Nothing new.
    Just bare minimum to allow them to use BSD code
  • sukimashita, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1The really interesting stuff such as SMC, Video/iSight and other drivers are missing, right?
  • Stevo23, on 11/07/2007, -5/+2I like how every license that isn't the Apple license (BSD, GPL, etc) is listed as "Other". Are they afraid that if they mention other licenses people might realize that a huge chunk of OS X wasn't written by Apple at all?
  • shavenlunatic, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3oh lordy.. another very mis-leading article title... groan
  • thushan, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3This is not *all* the source from the 10.5 release of Leopard. Rather the source for Darwin.

    "Darwin is the open source UNIX-based foundation of Mac OS X. Darwin integrates a number of technologies, including the Mach 3.0 microkernel, operating system services based on FreeBSD 5 UNIX, high-performance TCP/IP networking, and support for multiple integrated file systems. Because the design of Darwin is highly modular, you can dynamically add device drivers, networking extensions, and new file systems."

    In short this isnt like CentOS taking RHL and redistributing it, rather its the Kernel and much of its base and userland bits. You wont find the eye-candy features (Dock) or Finder or the likes here.

    OneDingo, you can still buy a Mac, but dont base it soley on this source release.

    Several years ago (gosh!) there was a project called OpenDarwin, unfortunately it stopped work:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDarwin
  • tdous, on 11/10/2007, -2/+2buried as so inaccurate as to be a lie
    • Boondoggle, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1Where is the lie? it is a link to available OS 10.5 source code downloads. Nowhere does it say the entire codebase is available. That would be a lie.

      Put your 2 bit outrage back in your pants.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.