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

From: Ayden <whitty@reeve.com>
Date: Wed Jan 12 2005 - 15:46:34 AKST

On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 15:40 -0900, Royce Williams wrote:
> 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.
>

I'd agree with you for the most part, but if some thing is released by a
leader, (read: apple) and they don't develop something for it, how can
it be considered that it has it if the leader didn't create it? (or
leader sanctioned.)

>
> > 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. :)
>
Well, I wouldn't say that they evolved in the way you're talking about,
but once one had a feature, the other automatically caught up. They
co-evolved. They didn't cooperate together, but they still synced out of
demand from both.
> -royce
>

---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.
Received on Wed Jan 12 15:46:36 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 12 2005 - 15:46:36 AKST