Talk:GNU-Darwin

message: It's great to see that this OS is being developed, but I'd like more info...
Which of the OS X applications will this run?  For example, could I instal GNU-Darwin on my computer at get it to run Final Cut Pro?  Or perhaps the better question would be, will I be able to get it to run FCP once it's released for the new Intel Macs?  Also, what about support for HFS?  Blackcats 11:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled question

message: I've basically generally ignored GNU-Darwin since it first attempted to fork Darwin development, and especially since OpenDarwin was released by Apple under a certified Free License. A couple of things though: GNU-Darwin does insist it's its own distribution, packaging Darwin components with GNU tools in a way that claims to be "more" free than OpenDarwin. I don't want to get into an argument over which one is more free than the other. The GNU-Darwin packages can be installed into and alongside an existing OS X setup, or an existing Darwin setup, but it is NOT its own OS, as has been argued above. It's not bootable, I can't take a blank Mac or x86 PC and install just GNU-Darwin. I'd have to at least install Darwin 7.x or 8.x THEN the GNU-Darwin distribution. Note that at gnu-darwin.org he's also now offering webmail and other "Services" - so that further blurs the answer to the question "What IS GNU-Darwin?" I also found it absurd that during the "Free Darwin" movement, they claimed that PowerPC was "too proprietary" and would only support x86 - but what is THAT if not its OWN CLOSED PROPRIETARY system? And don't get me started on the irony of Apple going to x86 in 2006.... --JohnDBuell 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. The gnu-darwin faq says that it IS bootable by itself. --JohnDBuell 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: By that they mean they sell a CD with OpenDarwin and their packages. AlistairMcMillan 00:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But isn't that what every Linux distribution is?  They sell you (or give away to you) the Linux kernel and GNU stuff with various software packages.  I think it's fair to call GNU-Darwin a distribution of OpenDarwin if their CDs are bootable and can install the OS on your computer.  Blackcats 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as long as we make clear that they are only distributing other people's work.  As far as I know they haven't made any contributions to Darwin or OpenDarwin, they just package stuff to run on Darwin.  BTW You'll notice that their OpenDarwin bootable CDs are based on v6.6.1 which came out in May 2003 (based on Darwin 6.6, which corresponds with Mac OS X v10.2.3).  It doesn't seem like distributing OpenDarwin has much of their attention. AlistairMcMillan 19:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, isn't Darwin 6.6 equal to 10.2.6? The minor number is supposed to correspond to the last number in the OS X distro. 8.3 (equal to 10.4.3) is out now, and once 10.4.4 is out (several of the Mac rumor sites report that an update with this number is being worked on), the Darwin update to 8.4 should be released too. --JohnDBuell 22:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doh you're right.  Typo. Still... very old. AlistairMcMillan 23:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: @Blackcats: isn't clear yet  their strategy to you? They are altering the factual reality with the goal of blocking any MaxOSX=distribution argument. But this is not actually a strategy it's pure vandalism. Moreover they are administrators, they are threatening wikipedia freedom. Luxiake 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: He's on his "Darwin and GNU-Darwin are distros and REAL Operating Systems, and OS X isn't" soapbox again. --JohnDBuell 22:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GNU-Darwin projects

message: :GNU-Darwin was originally supposed to run on top of Mac OS X, however after other developers ported an X server to Mac OS X that allowed users to run Unix-like software without having to port the interface elements to Mac OS X. That project, XDarwin is still active.
what does this even mean? i don't want to edit it wrong, so I will remove it until someone can replace it so that it makes sense. --Yoasif 10:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  originally intended for os x/Xdarwin 

message: I'm actually with you now, Alistair - sorry about my one edit summary, I accidentally hit return instead of backspace on my little laptop. But I now agree to keep the OS infobox out - and Luxiake, if you're going to throw more information in about purchasing, at least use proper English standards for displaying currency symbols before the Arabic numerals, NOT after. --JohnDBuell 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A 60 gig Maxtor 3.5 inch, ATA/EIDE hard drive ready to go with GNU-Darwin-ppc OS pre-installed, plus GNU-Darwin Office for ppc, plus a full ports tree and select distfiles. This bundle includes Darwin-6.6.1, OpenOffice-1.0.1, Mozilla-1.0, AbiWord-0.9.4, PyMOL-0.82, The GIMP, gdFortran, parallel computing, and much more. Compatible with all OS X capable machines. A full GNU-Darwin disc set for ppc is also included.
it specifically references that Darwin 6.6.1 is preinstalled on the drive, and then the gnu-darwin package manager is installed on top of it to provide the gimp, openoffice, etc. even gnu-darwin admits that this isn't a distribution, but a simple installed copy of darwin! look again if it didn't sink in the first time -- as it stands now, the ONLY way to get gnu-darwin as an "OS distribution" is to order a hard drive from them -- and in the description for this product, the store doesn't even call itself an OS distribution!
while others (Blackcats) may consider it to be original research to not consider gnu-darwin an OS, i think it is clear that gnu-darwin doesn't mean "OS distribution" when they call it a distribution. they are more likely calling it a package manager, but may be using unsophisticated language to describe it. as all of this is available from their site, and descriptions of what an OS distribution are are available on wikipedia and elsewhere, i contend that this is not original research, but rather, quite obvious given the facts at hand.
i said this once and i'll say it again -- gnu-darwin is likely not a distribution of darwin in the sense that we usually call "OS distributions". the preinstalled hard drive is a red herring; when the order page doesn't bother to call it it's own OS, it isn't. --Yoasif 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary

message: Alistair had called for the removal of the infobox on the grounds that GNU-D was not an opperating system, and that the infoboxes were only for OSes.  I had initially gone along with that, but upon doing more research I found that many of the Linux distribution articles have info-boxes.  For example Debian, its derivitave Ubuntu, and even Ubuntu's derivitive (with only slight mod.s) Kubuntu.  So if these distributions (which clearly aren't unique OSes) get their own boxes, then there's no reason why GNU-D shouldn't.  And if Alistair (or others here) still maintains that GNU-D shouldn't have one then he should go and remove them from all the Linux distros too for consistency.  In the mean time though I'm putting it back in.  Blackcats 02:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem might just be the semantics. Using "OS-infobox" for something that isn't its own OS - on the other hand, anyone wanting to make a Distro-infobox will likely find it on Templates for Deletion in pretty short order. :) I'm really seeing the balance of this. I'm in full agreement that G-D is NOT its own OS, and on the other hand, what is WRONG with it having an infobox of some sort to summarize what it actually IS at the beginning of the article? Don't you just hate it when this stuff ain't black and white? ;) --JohnDBuell 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox revisited

message: The criticism section needs cites, not just so that readers can verify the truth of the claims, but also because the claims look like typical misrepresentations of a project that one person happens not to like.  Thus, if there were citations, someone could rewrite that section in an encyclopediac style, instead of it's current rant style (I've tried to improve it already, so it's not pure-rant style). Gronky 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section needs cites