4 ms·

There are a number of past projects very similar to this one. The two I remember off-hand: - http://hcpnet.free.fr/applebsd.html http://hcpnet.free.fr/applebsd

There are a number of past projects very similar to this one. The two I remember off-hand: - http://hcpnet.free.fr/applebsd.html http://hcpnet.free.fr/applebsd.html -- NetBSD in-kernel COMPAT_MACH / COMPAT_DARWIN support. This got to the point of being able to run XDarwin, which is a pretty major step towards being able to run the WindowServer: http://hcpnet.free.fr/xdarwin.jpeg http://hcpnet.free.fr/xdarwin.jpeg - https://github.com/shinh/maloader https://github.com/shinh/maloader -- A user-space Mach-O binary loader. The only goal was to be able to run Apple's binary toolchain on Linux, which it is able to do. It's very possible to implement the necessary kernel APIs to run Mac / iOS Darwin binaries. Where you run into trouble is the massive software stack that sits on top of those OS APIs. Without $10M or more to spend on development, it's simply not feasible to produce full binary-compatible replacements for Apple's software frameworks. The best you can hope for is to copy over Apple's software from a real installation, and then run it atop your own kernel. I love hacks like this, so god speed to christina_b. This is awesome. To those of you telling the Christina to put her work on github to get contributors, I don't think that is particularly helpful advice. The barrier to entry on a project like this has nothing to do with the SCM being used.

kqa5 14y ago
From your first example: "This project is dead due to a lack of interest from users." Do they really mean "lack of interest from other developers"? They shouldn't be doing it for users, they should be doing it for themselves, and to their credit, I think that's often why they do what they do. They have more common sense than the usual. That's why their work is so good. (It's also because they have more of a cathedral-like structure, and not just with respect to the kernel.) Who are these "users" we need interest from? How do we measure interest? Among OS's NetBSD's user base (non-corporate) is very small. This developer chose the Linux kernel not to please users by making the "popular choice" or because it is necessarily the easiest to work with. As the blurb says, it's a matter of driver support. Yes, Godspeed.
- flatline3 14y ago
  In the case of the NetBSD project, users and developers were the same people, and there wasn't much interest. When looking for people with the necessary skills to contribute, you'll find that the majority qualified individuals are Mac OS X kernel/systems engineers, who already have Apple hardware, and don't have any particular need to support an alternative clone of their existing target platform. This was certainly the case with the NetBSD project. When it was contemporary, I kept tabs on it, but never bothered to contribute -- Mac OS X worked fine for me. Revisiting the problem space now, my development time would be better spent working on the open source alternatives (such as Android), rather than attempting to clone Apple's stack. It's just too big. Personally I work with Android on OMAP4 hardware.

kqa5 14y ago

From your first example: "This project is dead due to a lack of interest from users." Do they really mean "lack of interest from other developers"? They shouldn't be doing it for users, they should be doing it for themselves, and to their credit, I think that's often why they do what they do. They have more common sense than the usual. That's why their work is so good. (It's also because they have more of a cathedral-like structure, and not just with respect to the kernel.) Who are these "users" we need interest from? How do we measure interest? Among OS's NetBSD's user base (non-corporate) is very small. This developer chose the Linux kernel not to please users by making the "popular choice" or because it is necessarily the easiest to work with. As the blurb says, it's a matter of driver support. Yes, Godspeed.

flatline3 14y ago
In the case of the NetBSD project, users and developers were the same people, and there wasn't much interest. When looking for people with the necessary skills to contribute, you'll find that the majority qualified individuals are Mac OS X kernel/systems engineers, who already have Apple hardware, and don't have any particular need to support an alternative clone of their existing target platform. This was certainly the case with the NetBSD project. When it was contemporary, I kept tabs on it, but never bothered to contribute -- Mac OS X worked fine for me. Revisiting the problem space now, my development time would be better spent working on the open source alternatives (such as Android), rather than attempting to clone Apple's stack. It's just too big. Personally I work with Android on OMAP4 hardware.