site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com For x86 it is. If you take a look at http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.6.x86/ vs. http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.6.ppc/ you will see a big difference. -- James Reynolds http://james.magnusviri.com james@magnusviri.com - james@scl.utah.edu _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... At 2:22 PM -0700 5/17/06, Matt Ginzton wrote: Is there an official story behind this? I noticed when trying to use the xnu source to debug, say, some signal handling problems, that the i386 xnu code was demonstrably very different from what's actually in OS X 10.4.6 for x86. That MacWorld story is light on details, but seems to be mostly talking about pirates and "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext". Has there been an official announcement that the Darwin and xnu source for x86 isn't intended to reflect OS X, or that it won't in the future? Matt Well, that article definitely implies an official announcement. That is what I thought it meant. If there is no official announcement Apple better step up and give one because right now I'm hearing whispers on my campus from the Unix type folks (computer science and engineering types) that this is a serious blow and that they are going to have to quit using OS X if it isn't open source anymore. In other words, official announcement or not, people are reading into that article that it is official. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com