3 ms·

That was tried with OpenDarwin, but Apple was not a fan of the project IIRC. More generally, it doesn't offer much of practical value to use the Darwin kernel

by scythe 6y ago

That was tried with OpenDarwin, but Apple was not a fan of the project IIRC. More generally, it doesn't offer much of practical value to use the Darwin kernel which is at this point pretty tied to Apple hardware that comes with OS X anyway. You can still Hackintosh but it just adds a lot of additional complexity that you won't have to deal with on Linux.

grishka 6y ago
The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. Sometimes they fall apart, but even when they don't, it still shows. Linux GUIs still feel like an afterthought. upd: googling "OpenDarwin" bings up two first results that are news of it closing, in 2006
- chungus_khan 6y ago
  And working with the Darwin kernel would offer zero benefit in fixing this. The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do, just as is the case on BSDs. Using a different UNIX kernel doesn't change any of that, and any effort made on the Darwin side would be easily ported to Linux. The GUI components of Mac OS are not open source.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    It would offer access to the mac software ecosystem, particularly the (imho) cohesive set of underlying frameworks. Just like linux is "just" a kernel but is in reality a center of floss development, actively organizing around bringing binary compatibility can bring incidental benefits. That said at this point I don't see anything inherently easier or beneficial about this than creating some other project around an alternative paradigm than PC derived desktop systems on top of some existing better supported kernel. That said contrary to what the previous poster implied I don't think either OpenDarwin or PureDarwin aimed at reproducing the proprietary bits—they were/are essentially quirky, buggy, poorly documented BSDs just as reliant on the floss ecosystem as much better supported stacks.
  - grishka 6y ago
    > The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do Why? Where does this logic come from? And apparently it's common, because PureDarwin mentioned in another comment does just that for some reason. IMO, the right thing to do would be to replicate Apple's proprietary stack as closely as possible. Like, literally take the real macOS and start replacing essential proprietary frameworks like Cocoa and Quartz and core apps like Finder and Dock with fully API-compatible open-source ones. You'll eventually end up with a fully open-source operating system capable of running macOS apps.
    - chungus_khan 6y ago
      That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. While it could be done, the same amount of effort spent building a better Linux desktop would be more efficiently spent if the goal was to just get a high-quality open source desktop offering. There's also some hairiness legally about working from within the official Mac OS system outwards AFAIK.
      - grishka 6y ago
        > That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. That's the point. ReactOS doesn't use any of the Linux parts, and it's reimplementing everything from scratch because there are no open-source components in Windows afaik.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUstep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUstep
- symlinkk 6y ago
  Have you used GNOME? Download Fedora and tell me it’s not more visually consistent than Windows
- blablabla123 6y ago
  > The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. To some degree it is. On the other hand this is also why I prefer to use Ubuntu or Debian over any other distribution. They are highly integrated and opinionated in the sense that they keep the packages as unmodified as possible.

by scythe 6y ago

grishka 6y ago

The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. Sometimes they fall apart, but even when they don't, it still shows. Linux GUIs still feel like an afterthought. upd: googling "OpenDarwin" bings up two first results that are news of it closing, in 2006

chungus_khan 6y ago
And working with the Darwin kernel would offer zero benefit in fixing this. The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do, just as is the case on BSDs. Using a different UNIX kernel doesn't change any of that, and any effort made on the Darwin side would be easily ported to Linux. The GUI components of Mac OS are not open source.
- monadic2 6y ago
  It would offer access to the mac software ecosystem, particularly the (imho) cohesive set of underlying frameworks. Just like linux is "just" a kernel but is in reality a center of floss development, actively organizing around bringing binary compatibility can bring incidental benefits. That said at this point I don't see anything inherently easier or beneficial about this than creating some other project around an alternative paradigm than PC derived desktop systems on top of some existing better supported kernel. That said contrary to what the previous poster implied I don't think either OpenDarwin or PureDarwin aimed at reproducing the proprietary bits—they were/are essentially quirky, buggy, poorly documented BSDs just as reliant on the floss ecosystem as much better supported stacks.
- grishka 6y ago
  > The GUI coming out the other side would still rely on all the same technology as Linux desktops do Why? Where does this logic come from? And apparently it's common, because PureDarwin mentioned in another comment does just that for some reason. IMO, the right thing to do would be to replicate Apple's proprietary stack as closely as possible. Like, literally take the real macOS and start replacing essential proprietary frameworks like Cocoa and Quartz and core apps like Finder and Dock with fully API-compatible open-source ones. You'll eventually end up with a fully open-source operating system capable of running macOS apps.
  - chungus_khan 6y ago
    That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. While it could be done, the same amount of effort spent building a better Linux desktop would be more efficiently spent if the goal was to just get a high-quality open source desktop offering. There's also some hairiness legally about working from within the official Mac OS system outwards AFAIK.
    - grishka 6y ago
      > That would have to be done from scratch as literally none of that is open source. That's the point. ReactOS doesn't use any of the Linux parts, and it's reimplementing everything from scratch because there are no open-source components in Windows afaik.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUstep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUstep
symlinkk 6y ago
Have you used GNOME? Download Fedora and tell me it’s not more visually consistent than Windows
blablabla123 6y ago
> The point is that desktop Linux is still pretty much a bunch of standalone components loosely duct taped together. To some degree it is. On the other hand this is also why I prefer to use Ubuntu or Debian over any other distribution. They are highly integrated and opinionated in the sense that they keep the packages as unmodified as possible.