5 ms·

Apple open-sourced the kernel of iOS and macOS for ARM processors

97 points by andriesm 9y ago

seltzered_ 9y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15373055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15373055
mpweiher 9y ago
Alas, only 12 references to APFS, that part appears to not be part of the drop, yet. https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/search?p=2&q=APFS&type=&utf8= https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/search?p=2&q=APFS&type=&...
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Note HFS+ is in a kernel module and not in the main tree (though is also open source), it therefore seems unlikely the APFS will ever be released in the same tree.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Those releases are here. In previous xnu drops, the HFS+ module was in the xnu tree, but it was moved out for a version of xnu which only ever shipped on iOS (10) and WatchOS (3) and all subsequent releases. https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/ https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  Apple has said they plan to release the format spec, but not the code.
simonh 9y ago
It’s interestingly my to me that while Windows has undergone multiple pretty much ground up rewrites (Windows 3/95/98, Windows NT/2000/XP, Vista/7/8/10) and largely incompatible parallel unrelated code bases (eg Windows CE contained little to no common code with desktop windows), OSX and iOS (and BSD for that matter) have an unbroken source code lineage going back to the 70s. Yes various portions of the OS were swapped out or rewritten at various points, but nothing remotely close to the way everything under the surface API layers of Windows was gutted and clean sheet rewritten every decade or so. I think it offers an object lesson in writing systems to be modular and extensible.
- matsur 9y ago
  This interpretation is linear going back decades, but looking at Apple OS history all up, you see them same hard fork/rewrite between Classic Mac OS and OS X.
  - delinka 9y ago
    Right. That’s because Classic was outright replaced. The NeXTSTEP code has parts with origins in the 70s.
- erik 9y ago
  Did Vista's kernel break from XP's in some significant way? I've never heard anything indicating that Vista/7/8/10 were a new kernel, and not a continuation of the NT line.
  - tw04 9y ago
    There are only two code lines. The original 3.x and the NT 4.x. Everything starting with 2000/XP was a derivative of the first NT kernel.
    - rpeden 9y ago
      It's a small nitpick, but the first version of NT was 3.1. It was a separate codebase from Windows 3.1, of course.
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  How much of Windows has _honestly_ been re-written? There's so much baggage in Windows it seams it's just not possible it has been re-written that many times.
  - webreac 9y ago
    Most of windows 3.11 was in assembly and p-code (according to the book "undocumented windows"). A lot of assembly was still present in 95, but almost all was converted to C/C++ in XP and vista.
TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
did they? Aren't these just the same ARM stubs there's always been in the macOS source releases? Note the absence of iOS kernel sources labelled as such, and note the README on GitHub doesn't even mention ARM. I'll believe it when someone knowledgeable in the subject confirms it.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/tree/master/osfmk/arm64 https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/tree/master/osfmk/arm64
fiokoden 9y ago
But why? What use is this to anyone?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  It's useful for source auditing. A lot of third parties like to review source code of things on behalf of customers, this makes it a bit more straightforward.
- khana 9y ago
  So you know what's rrrreally going on.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Personally I'm glad it reaffirms Apple's commitment to open source (which has been strong since the early OSX days), and to refute those who claim the OS shipping on Android is functionally more open the iOS (does Google publish the code for their common library that almost every app requires?). Android OHA version != what's deployed on phones.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  Security.

97 points by andriesm 9y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15373055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15373055

Alas, only 12 references to APFS, that part appears to not be part of the drop, yet. https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/search?p=2&q=APFS&type=&utf8= https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/search?p=2&q=APFS&type=&...

gsnedders 9y ago
Note HFS+ is in a kernel module and not in the main tree (though is also open source), it therefore seems unlikely the APFS will ever be released in the same tree.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Those releases are here. In previous xnu drops, the HFS+ module was in the xnu tree, but it was moved out for a version of xnu which only ever shipped on iOS (10) and WatchOS (3) and all subsequent releases. https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/ https://opensource.apple.com/source/hfs/
lobster_johnson 9y ago
Apple has said they plan to release the format spec, but not the code.

simonh 9y ago

It’s interestingly my to me that while Windows has undergone multiple pretty much ground up rewrites (Windows 3/95/98, Windows NT/2000/XP, Vista/7/8/10) and largely incompatible parallel unrelated code bases (eg Windows CE contained little to no common code with desktop windows), OSX and iOS (and BSD for that matter) have an unbroken source code lineage going back to the 70s. Yes various portions of the OS were swapped out or rewritten at various points, but nothing remotely close to the way everything under the surface API layers of Windows was gutted and clean sheet rewritten every decade or so. I think it offers an object lesson in writing systems to be modular and extensible.

matsur 9y ago
This interpretation is linear going back decades, but looking at Apple OS history all up, you see them same hard fork/rewrite between Classic Mac OS and OS X.
- delinka 9y ago
  Right. That’s because Classic was outright replaced. The NeXTSTEP code has parts with origins in the 70s.
erik 9y ago
Did Vista's kernel break from XP's in some significant way? I've never heard anything indicating that Vista/7/8/10 were a new kernel, and not a continuation of the NT line.
- tw04 9y ago
  There are only two code lines. The original 3.x and the NT 4.x. Everything starting with 2000/XP was a derivative of the first NT kernel.
  - rpeden 9y ago
    It's a small nitpick, but the first version of NT was 3.1. It was a separate codebase from Windows 3.1, of course.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
How much of Windows has _honestly_ been re-written? There's so much baggage in Windows it seams it's just not possible it has been re-written that many times.
- webreac 9y ago
  Most of windows 3.11 was in assembly and p-code (according to the book "undocumented windows"). A lot of assembly was still present in 95, but almost all was converted to C/C++ in XP and vista.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

did they? Aren't these just the same ARM stubs there's always been in the macOS source releases? Note the absence of iOS kernel sources labelled as such, and note the README on GitHub doesn't even mention ARM. I'll believe it when someone knowledgeable in the subject confirms it.

microcolonel 9y ago
https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/tree/master/osfmk/arm64 https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu/tree/master/osfmk/arm64

fiokoden 9y ago

But why? What use is this to anyone?

microcolonel 9y ago
It's useful for source auditing. A lot of third parties like to review source code of things on behalf of customers, this makes it a bit more straightforward.
khana 9y ago
So you know what's rrrreally going on.
r00fus 9y ago
Personally I'm glad it reaffirms Apple's commitment to open source (which has been strong since the early OSX days), and to refute those who claim the OS shipping on Android is functionally more open the iOS (does Google publish the code for their common library that almost every app requires?). Android OHA version != what's deployed on phones.
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
Security.