David Elliott wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> On Nov 19, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Brian Bechtel wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 2007 12:58 PM, David Elliott <email@hidden> wrote:
>
> Perhaps the legal department is a better option then? Maybe they have
> the opposite opinion I do and the binary license from the prior Darwin
> binary releases still applies to the new kernel extensions found only as
> part of OS X releases.
>
> Failing that, it's theoretically possible although a bit tedious to
> rework the vtables on the older versions to be ABI compatible with
> modern xnu but I'd rather not have to do this. And you know that
> Murphy's law says that as soon as I spend the time to do that, someone
> at Apple will finally respond and release the updated binaries.
I hate to suggest it, but why not give up on Darwin? Apple as a whole
does not seem to be committed to open source. I suspect Darwin was more
motivated by marketing than by a sincere commitment.
>From a technical perspective, xnu is no longer a microkernel. I've
studied the source code with respect to other versions of Mach. My
interpretation is that the Mach portion of xnu has been turned into a
bastardized function call library for the BSD code. The microkernel
messaging interfaces are generally not utilized or maintained. The
portions of the microkernel that are not used appear to have multiple
bugs that were fixed in other places, such as MkLinux. Hence, xnu is
not really a viable microkernel anymore, despite Apple's claims to the
contrary. Once again, I am suspicious of marketing.
Why not revive MkLinux? It sucks less than xnu.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-x86 mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-x86/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
