site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com Stop. You keep repeating this, and it is not true. Honestly, why don't you start bringing up some technical statements here? I care about why kauth is severely limited, feature lacking and almost useless in XNU. I care about why most process, BSD thread or locking API has been crippled in XNU. Because XNU is not FreeBSD or NetBSD, despite sharing some DNA. If you plan on breaking ABI on every minor update, you might as well stop releasing source. But then stop marketing XNU or Mac OS X as an open source or 'openly available and developer friendly' platform. If your developers can't write drivers because you've intentionally crippled your ABI/API, your platform does not qualify as open or developer friendly. In the end only Apple is able to provide closed source or binary-only drivers, So yeah, let's all drink the kool-aid and spice it up with some LSD and candy. No wonder some run out of arguments when they start repeating themselves over and over like a broken record. --Amanda _______________________________________________ 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... On Dec 15, 2008, at 3:26 AM, John D. wrote: You've already used the whole FreeBSD kernel code base, Everyone who has responded to you has been giving you technical answers. You just aren't listening to them, since you don't like those answers, and keep raising political objections to them. It's not. Quite a number of successful products use it quite nicely, thank you. No. How about "If you plan on breaking compatibility with FreeBSD or NetBSD, you might as well call your OS something else." Which is, in fact, exactly what happened. *Years* ago. "Open source and developer friendly" has *nothing* to do with maintaining compatibility with the internals of other operating systems. Sure it does. It just means you'll have to find a different way to write your driver than you expected to. Having developed both FreeBSD and IOKit drivers, I can say that IOKit is much more "developer friendly" in most ways than the FreeBSD or NetBSD kernel driver infrastructure. Not so. I've personally shipped several closed source drivers (and made plenty of money from them). And thanks to well defined KPIs and binary compatibility, I've been able to ship single builds that work across multiple major revisions of the kernel. If you think this is what has been happening on this thread, you are wrong. You are throwing a temper tantrum because Darwin does not conform to your expectations from FreeBSD. You aren't the first person to do this, but it's generally not the best way to do engineering. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com