It seems to have slightly better hardware support for the Macintosh. For example, the X server is dead simple to setup, and it works properly.
System administration is similar to Mac OS X, so Darwin may be appealing if you are familiar with that. You don’t have to learn other tools, and it’ll talk nicely to your Mac OS X network. (Actually, I hate Darwin for this — but I can see some people liking it.)
I’m sure that the kernel obsessed also like playing with xnu.
To you, Darwin may look like yet another OS. To others, it looks like something better.
What I’m trying to figure out is why one more option is something to question. While things are a bit nuts on the Linux side, it also demonstrates that people who love their OS are willing to tweak it to their needs and share their work with others. It isn’t much different from stereos or cars. You wouldn’t want to live with just three options, now would you?
Darwin is the free software (FLOSS) foundation on which osX is build. GNU Darwin is a GNU-project to port more free software to Darwin, and build a distro.
GNU is a larger projet to create a free software OS (they are behind projects like GCC, Glibc, parted, GNUstep, etc), and are today usually used with the Linux kernel (the combination is called GNU/Linux), but they are still developing their long avaited Hurd-kernel.
Does anyone know how the driver situation is looking on the x86 version? I had a look around the Darwin x86 site, but could not find a hardware compatability guide.
I tried it ages ago, but only got it working on an ancient p200, it would not recognise the ide chipset on my athlon box.
I mean they were developing this GNU for years (for OS X obviously) but it hardly supports any modern hardware.
Ah, only if I can run this and somehow run OSX programs.
So, forgive my ignorance, how is Darwin different (better) from **BSD and Linux?
How is it better than Linux distros or *BSD?
It seems to have slightly better hardware support for the Macintosh. For example, the X server is dead simple to setup, and it works properly.
System administration is similar to Mac OS X, so Darwin may be appealing if you are familiar with that. You don’t have to learn other tools, and it’ll talk nicely to your Mac OS X network. (Actually, I hate Darwin for this — but I can see some people liking it.)
I’m sure that the kernel obsessed also like playing with xnu.
To you, Darwin may look like yet another OS. To others, it looks like something better.
What I’m trying to figure out is why one more option is something to question. While things are a bit nuts on the Linux side, it also demonstrates that people who love their OS are willing to tweak it to their needs and share their work with others. It isn’t much different from stereos or cars. You wouldn’t want to live with just three options, now would you?
Heh. Thanks for the wonderful explanation (including the stereo analogy).
Darwin is the free software (FLOSS) foundation on which osX is build. GNU Darwin is a GNU-project to port more free software to Darwin, and build a distro.
GNU is a larger projet to create a free software OS (they are behind projects like GCC, Glibc, parted, GNUstep, etc), and are today usually used with the Linux kernel (the combination is called GNU/Linux), but they are still developing their long avaited Hurd-kernel.
Does anyone know how the driver situation is looking on the x86 version? I had a look around the Darwin x86 site, but could not find a hardware compatability guide.
I tried it ages ago, but only got it working on an ancient p200, it would not recognise the ide chipset on my athlon box.
Apple really does need to release a Hardware Compatibility List, and more resources to help third parties write better drivers for Darwin/OSX.