Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: Mac: Mighty mini]]

On 1/12/2005 3:31 PM, Ayden wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 15:14 -0900, Royce Williams wrote:
>
>>On 1/12/2005 3:04 PM, Ayden wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now that we've established that it runs a weird mach kernel. Darwin
>>>doesn't have ports. And in my view, the only thing that makes a bsd
>>
>>Darwin-specific implementations:
>> http://darwinports.opendarwin.org/
>> http://freshmeat.net/projects/darwin_ports/
>>
>>Multiplatform ([Free|Net|Open]BSD, Solaris, Linux, IRIS, AIX, etc.)
>> http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/software/packages.html
>> (from your friends at NetBSD)
>
>
> Are these included in the main os? No, they are not. They do not exist
> in the apple release of darwin.

I guess I didn't realize that we were using the strict interpretation
of OS that you are here. For me -- especially for a system that is
designed to install third-party software for you anyway -- having to
do a little bit of work up front once to set that up doesn't make it
inaccessible enough that the original "Darwin doesn't have ports"
statement would be true. If they'd said, "Darwin doesn't /come/ with
ports", I'd have made my point more clearly.

> Can you even install freebsd without
> ports?

Basic install? Yes. Run it maintainably? Iffy. It's much easier
with some specific ports thrown in. The fact that most of the ports I'm
talking about are maintained by people who also maintain the OS itself
makes the line even more blurry.

>>>system, a bsd system is the kernel and the ports system. So basically,
>>>Darwin isn't anything like freebsd. It's just another opensource system.
>>
>>IMHO, I think that there's more to the BSDs that their kernels and their
>>ports. Everything between is the OS proper -- the rc system, the design
>>philosophy, etc. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. :)
>>
>>It's also important to point out here that Jordan Hubbard and others
>>have stated publicly that they periodically synchronize Darwin with
>>important improvements and fixes to FreeBSD as needed. Since the ports
>>and kernel are clearly not part of this process, they must be synching
>>something. :)
>
> Isn't that how sco unix and bsd unix started out? Didn't they each sync
> with each other on main improvements?

I wasn't aware of that. I'd be interested in more info on that if
you've got some easy links handy. Of course, I can fish for myself
on it, too. You've piqued my interest. :)

-royce

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Royce D. Williams                                  - IP Engineering, ACS
personal: [first]@alaska.net                    - PGP: 3FC087DB/1776A531
work: [first.last]@acsalaska.net           - http://www.tycho.org/royce/
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.