5 ms·
> Will they update the unix layer? A lot of the CLI tools there are positively prehistoric. They won't, they don't want to touch any GPLv3 code.
by mrswag 10y ago
> Will they update the unix layer? A lot of the CLI tools there are positively prehistoric.
They won't, they don't want to touch any GPLv3 code.
- giancarlostoro 10y agoWhat do BSD distros use?
- teamhappy 10y agoYou got to be a bit more specific. --- edit --- They all have their own version of the "GNU core utilities". BSD make instead of GNU make. less(1) is dual-licensed (I think) so everybody uses the same (OpenBSD has forked it recently though). FreeBSD's default shell is tcsh, OpenBSD uses a fork of pdksh. If you want bash then you have to install it from ports. Most of OS X's userland comes from FreeBSD (except for bash and make) and I think they keep it reasonably up to date.
- giancarlostoro 10y agoSorry, I meant two things: License used for their tools and if they used any tools that aren't 'GNU specific' at all.
- teamhappy 10y agoMost of it is BSD-style licensed, some (less and ssh for example) are dual-licensed, and very few are GPLv2 (the old versions of make, bash, and emacs; but also current git). vim is licensed under a custom GPLv2-style license. A lot of GPLv2 code now uses GPLv3 (all the GNU tools obviously) and Apple (and others too) doesn't want to ship GPLv3 code. Almost all of the userland comes from FreeBSD. Even stuff that Apple could take directly from OpenBSD for example.
- amk_ 10y agohttp://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=freebsd http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=freebsd They are able to distribute GPL v3 code because they way it is packaged complies with the terms of the license.
- giancarlostoro 10y agoWell the tools are 'stand-alone' for the most part, and they do provide the code for them, I believe the issue would be if they integrated any tools into BSD licensed software that it would have to be GPL licensed. I was hoping BSD to some degree maintained their own versions, that could of been useful for Apple, not saying they can't maintain their own, but at least they could help fund BSD and maintain their OS' CLI toolset.
- Sanddancer 10y agoBy default, FreeBSD uses Almquist Shell for root, and Tenex C Shell for users. OpenBSD uses a modified pdksh for users, which is simlinked to /bin/sh for root, and NetBSD uses Almquist shell for users and root.
- gdwatson 10y agoIt's the other way around on FreeBSD: csh is the default for root and sh for users.
- geofft 10y agoFor stuff in ports, GPLv3 code, because they don't have Apple's legal team that's worried about GPLv3. FreeBSD ports' bash is at 4.3. titan:~/src/bsd/freebsd-ports geofft$ find . -name Makefile -exec grep LICENSE.*=.*GPLv3 {} + | wc -l 1456
- kchoudhu 10y agoWhy would they touch GPLv3 code when perfectly good BSD tools available from FreeBSD?
- ninkendo 10y agoIf you're being serious here: bash is IMO the most glaringly old utility you get in an OSX install, and it's GPLv3.
- kchoudhu 10y agoThere's more to a userland than the shell, and there are plenty of shells out there that are not encumbered by GPLv3.
- super_mario 10y agoActually bash 3.2 is GPL v2.0. Later versions switched to GPL v3 and this is why Apple is not updating to newer version. Give it a few more years and there will be no one left at Apple that has any clue what bash is.