site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:03 PM, darwin-dev-request@lists.apple.com wrote: From: "Peter O'Gorman" <peter@pogma.com> Subject: intel source code release To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com, hackers@opendarwin.org You might search for a simpler reason. Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:44:23 +0100 From: St?phane Sudre <ssudre2@wanadoo.fr> Subject: Re: intel source code release To: darwin-dev@lists.apple.com = Mike _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-dev mailing list (Darwin-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-dev/site_archiver%40lists.appl... I assume that the idea is to limit the source code availability to those who are attempting to steal Mac OS X and use it on systems not built or approved by Apple. I can understand and applaud the goal, but not the methods. By limiting published source code to that which is "infected" by the GPL, Apple is, in my honest opinion, scoring an own goal. What would be interesting to see in the Intel source version is the explanation why one week before the announcement of Mac OS X for Intel at WWDC, the x86 version of Darwin was said to be a dying 3-leg horse from a performance point of view with no hope of recovery and now, since the release of the Intel iMac Core Duo, it is (or stated to be) a stalion. Nine months of really hard work by the folks at Apple, who rightly decided that it was more important to deliver a kick-ass x86 operating system than to spend forever trying to package the sources for third-party consumption. As to your comments about performance, it was, and it is, and I hope that when you get your hands on an Intel-powered Macintosh you're as happy as the rest of us at how it turned out. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com