Talk:GNU-Darwin

Untitled question

It's great to see that this OS is being developed, but I'd like more info...

Which of the OS X applications will this run? For example, could I instal GNU-Darwin on my computer at get it to run Final Cut Pro? Or perhaps the better question would be, will I be able to get it to run FCP once it's released for the new Intel Macs? Also, what about support for HFS? Blackcats 11:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If final cut pro uses Apple's proprietary libraries then the software is not likely to run. This issue has to be added in the MAC OSX criticism section. By contrast, all the packages compiled for Darwin, that are mainly free-software, works both on GNU-Darwin and Mac OSX. GNU-Darwin has made pressure over the year on opensourcing, Cocoa, Carbon etc.. In this Mac OSX will be 100% free, that means no profit for Apple. I don't think it's gonna happen in the next month. Luxiake 12:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

GNU-Darwin is not an operating system

GNU-Darwin is not an operating system. AlistairMcMillan 02:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Darwin is an OS, GNU-Darwin is a distribution, just like macosx. The only difference is that GnuDarwin is honest about it and doesn't claim to be an OS in its own right

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but Mac OS X is an operating system. Apple created Mac OS X and then released parts of Mac OS X as Darwin. AlistairMcMillan 18:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

you know FreeBsd was opensource, Mach was opensource too. Apple did some cut&paste of both and here we have Darwin. Then applied a GUI on Darwin and said to the dull massess of mac-maniacs, like you: Here's MAC OSX!

Luxiake 21:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

considering that mac os x is based on NeXTSTEP and not just some amalgamtion of "darwin" and apple libraries, plus the fact that the people that worked on mach (like avie tevanian) moved on to NeXT, mac os x is not simply a new apple created os. it's got a long hostory as NeXTSTEP. is nextstep also not an OS? and was nextstep just a "next" branded freebsd and mach? --Yoasif 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

GNU-Darwin projects

I've basically generally ignored GNU-Darwin since it first attempted to fork Darwin development, and especially since OpenDarwin was released by Apple under a certified Free License. A couple of things though: GNU-Darwin does insist it's its own distribution, packaging Darwin components with GNU tools in a way that claims to be "more" free than OpenDarwin. I don't want to get into an argument over which one is more free than the other. The GNU-Darwin packages can be installed into and alongside an existing OS X setup, or an existing Darwin setup, but it is NOT its own OS, as has been argued above. It's not bootable, I can't take a blank Mac or x86 PC and install just GNU-Darwin. I'd have to at least install Darwin 7.x or 8.x THEN the GNU-Darwin distribution. Note that at gnu-darwin.org he's also now offering webmail and other "Services" - so that further blurs the answer to the question "What IS GNU-Darwin?" I also found it absurd that during the "Free Darwin" movement, they claimed that PowerPC was "too proprietary" and would only support x86 - but what is THAT if not its OWN CLOSED PROPRIETARY system? And don't get me started on the irony of Apple going to x86 in 2006.... --JohnDBuell 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The gnu-darwin faq says that it IS bootable by itself. --JohnDBuell 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

By that they mean they sell a CD with OpenDarwin and their packages. AlistairMcMillan 00:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

But isn't that what every Linux distribution is? They sell you (or give away to you) the Linux kernel and GNU stuff with various software packages. I think it's fair to call GNU-Darwin a distribution of OpenDarwin if their CDs are bootable and can install the OS on your computer. Blackcats 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Just as long as we make clear that they are only distributing other people's work. As far as I know they haven't made any contributions to Darwin or OpenDarwin, they just package stuff to run on Darwin. BTW You'll notice that their OpenDarwin bootable CDs are based on v6.6.1 which came out in May 2003 (based on Darwin 6.6, which corresponds with Mac OS X v10.2.3). It doesn't seem like distributing OpenDarwin has much of their attention. AlistairMcMillan 19:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, isn't Darwin 6.6 equal to 10.2.6? The minor number is supposed to correspond to the last number in the OS X distro. 8.3 (equal to 10.4.3) is out now, and once 10.4.4 is out (several of the Mac rumor sites report that an update with this number is being worked on), the Darwin update to 8.4 should be released too. --JohnDBuell 22:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Doh you're right. Typo. Still... very old. AlistairMcMillan 23:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

@Blackcats: isn't clear yet their strategy to you? They are altering the factual reality with the goal of blocking any MaxOSX=distribution argument. But this is not actually a strategy it's pure vandalism. Moreover they are administrators, they are threatening wikipedia freedom. Luxiake 09:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

isn't this the wrong talk page to talk about mac os x? --Yoasif 20:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

He's on his "Darwin and GNU-Darwin are distros and REAL Operating Systems, and OS X isn't" soapbox again. --JohnDBuell 22:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Distro

All other issues aside, the article should clearly state that it is a distribution. Most Linux distribution are just the same old Linux kernel, GNU stuf, X.org, etc. with a selection of software. Also, the software on most Linux distributions can be installed on prexisting Linux installations. But if it's bootable, installable, and there's a unique combination of software then it's a distribution. Blackcats 03:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If you download an ISO of OpenDarwin, burn it onto a bunch of CDs and sell those CDs is that a new distribution? Note the OpenDarwin CDs are just the OpenDarwin OS, they don't seem to include any software packaged by GNU-Darwin. AlistairMcMillan 08:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK - you're confusing me now. Earlier you said "By that they mean they sell a CD with OpenDarwin and their packages." [emphasis added] So that meant that both the OpenDarwin and their software packages were on the same CD. But now you seem to be saying that they're on separate CDs, or that GNU-Darwin doesn't package any of their softare at all. Your original argument seemed to be that GNU-Darwin was just a software distribution project, but now it seems to be that they're just a CD cloning and distributing company which doesn't distribute their own software. Please clear that up for everyone... Blackcats 20:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I originally thought that they did sell a CD with OpenDarwin and their packages. Then when I looked more closely at their website, I realised the OpenDarwin CDs and the packages CDs are completely separate. Their website is not exactly a shining example of clarity. AlistairMcMillan 03:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"A Linux distribution is a Unix-like operating system comprising the Linux kernel, the GNU operating system (or most of it), other assorted free software/open-source software, and possibly proprietary software." source: Wikipedia's distro article If you change the terms like this: "A Darwin distribution is a Unix-like operating system comprising the XNU kernel, the Darwin operating system, other assorted free software/open-source software, and possibly proprietary software." You obtain only one logical consequence: a perfect right to call GNU-Dawin a distribution, plus, if Alistair doens't like the logo of GNU-Darwin, is pleased to ask Proclus to change it, or if he prefer to erase the entire Distro article. But, as long as the logo is the one I posted, it has a perfect right to stay. Luxiake 15:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I just took the mascot down, because it is sort of... pathetic. "Oo copy and paste... wow yeah I'm an artist!"

About the distro issue. I'll say this one more time: if you download an ISO off of someone else's website, burn it onto a bunch of CDs and sell the CDs, you aren't actually producing your own disto. AlistairMcMillan 11:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

About the mascot. You know, even Andy Warhol often did no more that some cut and paste with pictures of people or advertisings. Despite this he had a lot of fans that called him a genius. It's the same story that is going on with OSX. Apple did some cut&paste with other operating systems and a lot of Mac-fanatics called this a miracle. It's not actually a miracle but (I have to admit) a very smart move that if pumped-up with smart marketing strategy, is eventually regarded as a miracle, by profanes of course. Moreover, you can regard me as pathetic, I find GNU-Hexley a very nice pair of friend, so lovely!

About the distro. GNU-Darwin CDs are not just a collection of free-software randomly burned into a DVD, that is to say: what everyone like me and you could do. GNU-Darwin is an attempt to provide a comprehensive enviroment of libraries, GUIs, apps etc.. trying to deliver all the useful tools you need to work with a PC. And trying to deliver these features in a accessible way, avoiding users to build up their Opendarwin system by themselves, resolving for them all the dependencies issues. Of course in doing this GNU-Darwin takes advantage of other people's work, like the Fink project, but you know they are all people from the free-software, everyone of them is working for free, and their are happy when other projects are taking advantage of what they made. Of course, at the moment GNU-Darwin doesn't represent a viable alternative for the public of IT consumer, because it still needs a two-step, via command-line installation procedure, so it is still a distribution intended for power-users. But even for these users, GNU-Darwin is giving a big help. If GNU-Darwin wouldn't exists, everyone who wants to build up his opendarwin system, would have to do a huge amount of work, to plan the architecture step by step. Is something that only a software-engineer could do. Infact Proclus is a scientist, a very big head. Please see his page at apple Michael Love. As you can see in Apple's site too there is a reference and a link to the GNU-Darwin project. No one is afraid of GNU-Darwin. So please, stop acting like a child and restore by yourself the references and the link to GNU-Darwin in the Darwin page by yourself. If you do so, I promise I will not touch the MAC OSX page for 1 year at least, and I will stop calling you a Mac-Maniac. Is it ok?Luxiake 18:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Original research and the "distribution" question

I think there's an easy way that we can solve this issue without having to deal with any of the underlying personal conflicts or all the "mac-fanatic" vs. "anti-mac-zealot" stuff. (I'm certainly not an "anti-mac-zealot" - I'm actually waiting on a Final Cut Pro project to finish encoding on a G5 across the room as I type this right now - but I do think that a free-software alternative to OSX would be a great thing.) What we really need to do is go with what can be independently verified and sourced and cited as to what GNU-Darwin is or isn't. This is what I've been able to find in the way of sources to cite on this matter:

From the article "Three Years of Free Software Activism: The Case of GNU-Darwin OS" [1] This article refers to GNU-Darwin as a "distribution" several times and states the following:

"The GNU-Darwin Distribution is a free operating system and a popular source of free software for Mac OS X and Darwin-x86 users, but it is also a platform for digital activism. Founded in November of 2000, the Distribution has the stated goal of bringing software freedom to computer users of every stripe, and vigilantly defending digital liberties."

The projects homepage [2] also repeatidly refers to it as a "distribution."

So at the very least, we would need to say that the project considers itself to be a distribution. But then I went to see if anyone had contested that claim. [3] But none of the pages that I found in my Google search said that GNU-Darwin wasn't a distribution. Now granted my search wasn't the most thorough, but if GNU-D.'s status as a distribution is indeed disputed, then you should be able to find a source to site which discusses this. On the other hand, if you're just looking at what constitutes GNU-D, and coming up with the analysis that it's not a distribution on your own, then that's original research.

So the article needs to be changed back to identifying GNU-D as a distribution until someone can find a source which disputes this. Then, if (and only if) someone finds such a source, then the article will note that GNU-D identifies itself as a distribution but that some have disputed this claim, and present and cite the positions on both sides. Blackcats 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming you noticed who wrote the article for OSNews. I think that guy might be a wee bit biased. GNU-Darwin was intended to be a distribution. But that seems to have been too difficult for them. They've been talking about that for a long time, having a CD (for sale or download) that contains the Darwin operating system and their packages, but it has never materialised.

What they do have right now is CDs with their packages and CDs with the OpenDarwin distribution. They do not sell CDs with a GNU-Darwin distribution. The only actual operating stuff that they have on their site is stuff from Apple or OpenDarwin. The only stuff they have produced is the packaging stuff. This is not personal research or my personal POV. You just have to look at their website.

I can't believe we are actually debating this. AlistairMcMillan 04:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware that the founder wrote the article on OSNews, but that doesn't mean he's the only one who considers it a distribution - far from it. Google has almost ten thousand hits for "GNU-Darwin Distribution," [4] including this one from Slashdot [5]. And I think you're still missing the main point here. Your interpretation that GNU-D is not a distribution is *original research* - even if you have good logical reasoning to back it up. I personally think your reasoning is rather flimsy, but that's not the point. This is just like Luxiake arguing that OS X is not its own OS, but just a distribution of Darwin (which may be true on some technical level, though not on a practical level) the point is though that this is original research if he can't cite a source which has this interpretation. So as long as Slashdot and 9,000+ other Google hits consider GNU-D a distribution and you can't find any source to site that disputes this then that's how the article will read. If (and only if) you can cite a source which disputes GNU-D's status as an OS then the article will be changed to note that it is disputed and will present both sides.

"This is not personal research or my personal POV. You just have to look at their website." You looked at the website, intepreted what you found there, and came to that conclusion. That is original research. You have no source but yourself to cite for that analysis. If someone else looks at their website, comes to a similar conclusion, and publishes it somewhere other than Wikipedia then you'll have a source to cite for that analysis. Blackcats 05:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with AlistairMcMillan on this one; this thing is simply not a distro, despite claims to the contrary.

Also, the placement of the mascot/logo is really awkward; is it necessary? maybe it can be moved elsewhere? --Yoasif 04:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Your claim will be accepted when you will show the sources that can prove your opinion. As long as there is no website that disputes GNU-Darwin being a distribution your claims are vain. Please notice that the same principle has to be applied for my opinion about Mac OSX. As a matter of fact it IS a Darwin distro. This fact is a logical consequence of being a Darwin an OS in its own right. But as long as MacOSX is regarded as an original OS, and there is no verifiable source disputing this conception, then, my view has to be regarded as original research, and cannot be accepted within Wikipedia.GNU-Darwin sole existence can prove my view, but as long as no one, or the same Proclus affirm that OSX is a distribution of Darwin, then we can't write it in OSX article. Luxiake 09:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Real simple solution

If there is a GNU-Darwin distribution, please point (with a direct link) where it can be downloaded or bought? And I don't mean the OpenDarwin CDs which are available here. Or the phantom ISOs that are unavailable here. AlistairMcMillan 04:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So what do you exactly mean? Please be clear, because as a matter of fact they even sell hard-disks with GNU-Darwin preinstalled.Luxiake 09:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

from the page "These are NOT bootable cds, they install the distribution (over 250 applications and libraries) on an existing Darwin system."

the author of that page is using an alternate meaning of the word distribution from what a "linux/etc. distribution" usually implies. as this is not possible to install alone (like redhat linux, debian, etc), it does not meet the criteria that we usually mean when we say distribution. --Yoasif 09:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

from the linux distro article: "A Linux distribution 1 is a Unix-like operating system comprising the Linux kernel, the GNU operating system (or most of it), other assorted free software/open-source software, and possibly proprietary software." as gnu-darwin does not include a kernel, there can be no way it can be considered a distribution in the linux sense of the word. is there some alternate meaning for distribution you would like to allude to at this point, Luxiake? --Yoasif 10:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note the page that advertises the GNU-Darwin hard drives actually says they include "Darwin-6.6.1". The hard drives do not include a GNU-Darwin operating system.

Is my question not clear? You keep insisting that GNU-Darwin is an operating system, so please give me a direct link to wherever I can download or buy a copy of the GNU-Darwin operating system? AlistairMcMillan 10:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio???

Compare this edit by Luxiake:

the original goal of the GNU-Darwi project was to bring the benefits of free software to the wide spectrum of Apple users. GNU Darwin originally was supposed to run on top of Mac OS X, an XServer was developed which allowed Mac OS X users to run UNIX software without having to port the interface elements to Mac OS X. The project is still going strong and many developers have joined the ranks.

...with this article on OSNews:

His goal was to bring free software to the wide spectrum of Apple users. GNU Darwin originally was supposed to run on top of Mac OS X, an XServer was developed which allowed Mac OS X users to run UNIX software without having to port the interface elements to Mac OS X. The project is still going strong and many developers have joined the ranks. [6]

Are there any other copyvio contributions Luxiake would like to tell us about? AlistairMcMillan 04:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

you know, we are all people from the free-software, everyone of us is working for free, and we are happy when other people like us are taking advantage of what we made. Notice that you can't do the same for proprietary project. Luxiake 09:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

unless everything he writes is available under the public domain, this is indeed a copyvio. a copyright release was not attached to the page (like wikipedia includes on every page: # All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License) Also: see the notice at the bottom of the OSNews article: Reproduction of OSNews stories is granted only by explicitly receiving authorization from OSNews and if credit is given to OSNews.

if you can prove that the author allows copying of his work to wikipedia, that's fine. otherwise those sections may need to be editied. --Yoasif 09:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite a little the original article,that is enough to invalidate your claim. Plus you have already edited my version, that made the original article hardly recognizable, so your claim is simply a pretexture. I wrote it with no collaboration from you and I'm not a native english speaker. Before I wrote it this artice was a stub. Luxiake 10:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A copyright violation is a copyright violation. Moving two or three words around doesn't change anything. AlistairMcMillan 10:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

originally intended for os x/Xdarwin

GNU-Darwin was originally supposed to run on top of Mac OS X, however after other developers ported an X server to Mac OS X that allowed users to run Unix-like software without having to port the interface elements to Mac OS X. That project, XDarwin is still active.

what does this even mean? i don't want to edit it wrong, so I will remove it until someone can replace it so that it makes sense. --Yoasif 10:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Distro? Operating system?

I've noticed a lot of editing reverts lately around the issue of whether GNU-Darwin is a distribution of Darwin, an operating system on its own, both, or neither. I've pulled some data from the GNU-Darwin FAQs that might help settle this.

1. What is GNU-Darwin?

GNU-Darwin is an Open Source BSD Unix-like OS based upon Darwin, from Apple Computer.

2. What the difference between GNU-Darwin and Darwin?

GNU-Darwin aims to be the most free Darwin distribution. Many of Apple's tools are replaced and enhanced by Open Source applications.

4. Can I use GNU-Darwin as a stand-alone system?

Yes! GNU-Darwin can be installed on top of a Darwin installation or as a stand alone OS.

Hope this might shed some light on the issue, and lead to more discussion, rather than an edit war. – Mipadi 16:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately people don't always keep their websites up to date (you can use archive.org to see how old some of their pages are). GNU-Darwin intended to be a distribution based on Darwin, but after five years they don't actually appear to have ever achieved this goal. Their is no real debate here. If there was really a GNU-Darwin distribution why can't anyone point directly to a download or a purchasable CD? AlistairMcMillan 16:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The link is right here [7], but I suspect you probably knew that already, as you've probably been looking around their site. What you may have missed though is a notice at the top of their page:

"All of our hard media offerings include a source code disc. To comply with the GPL, you must distribute the sources along with the executables. So if you distribute physical copies of the binary CD, you can comply with the GPL by distributing physical copies of the source CD also."

Note they didn't say "a disk with source code and binaries," they said "a source code disk." So that means that if they're sending you two disks, and one of them is a source code disk, then all of the binaries have to be on the other disk. Which therefore means that both the OpenDarwin core and all the GNU stuff is on just one bootable disk.

Now scroll down to where it says "GNU-Darwin-x86 operating system (2 CD-R discs, $15)" [emphasis added] and there's a little button right next to it that says "add to cart." A bit further down on the page: "GNU-Darwin-x86 pre-installed hard drive, $250" and it says "A 60 gig Maxtor 3.5 inch, ATA/EIDE hard drive ready to go with GNU-Darwin-x86 OS pre-installed, plus GNU-Darwin Office for x86, plus a full ports tree and select distfiles. This bundle includes Darwin-6.6.1, AbiWord-1.0.2, PyMOL-0.82, The GIMP, gdFortran, parallel computing, and much more. Compatibility is limited to the models supported by our OS installer CD. A full GNU-Darwin disc set for x86 is also included" So there you have it! You can either buy the just bootable instalation CD and source code disk, or you can buy a hard drive with the whole thing pre-installed and they'll send you the CD as well so you can give them to your friends or keep it as a system-restore disk (and of course the source code disk too because they're GPL purists ;-) ).

So at any rate, the site specifically indicates that these specific items are copies of a distribution, and I don't see anything to indicate otherwise. But even if you could point to evidence there to support a logical argument, that analysis would still be *original research* if you couldn't cite a source where that viewpoint is asserted. Everything I can find about GNU-Darwin on the web discusses it as a distribution. Now perhaps everyone's just been mislead and AlistairMcMillan can do the world a great service by exposing this subterfuge, but even if that's the case, he should publish his novel findings elsewhere before they are presented here at Wikipedia. Blackcats 07:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME (and yes I know that is a slight exaggeration), THE CDs AND HARD DRIVES THAT GNU-DARWIN SELL WITH AN OPERATING SYSTEM ON THEM ARE OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK. SPECIFICALLY OPENDARWIN. IT SAYS SO RIGHT ON THAT PAGE YOU LINKED TO. IF I DOWNLOAD RED HAT ISOs, BURN THEM ONTO CDs AND SELL THE CDs, THAT DOES NOT MEAN I'VE PRODUCED A LINUX DISTRIBUTION. AlistairMcMillan 08:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all ("for the millionth time!"), even if you did have solid evidence to support your argument, which I don't think you do, your argument and analysis would still be *original research* unless you could cite source where that same sort of analysis was made. And Wikipedia articles can't be changed based on an editor's original research. Now addressing your argument here - was it not you who said "I originally thought that they did sell a CD with OpenDarwin and their packages. Then when I looked more closely at their website, I realised the OpenDarwin CDs and the packages CDs are completely separate." And now I've clearly proven you wrong, since there are only two total CDs and one of them contains nothing but source code. So I'm thinking it's you who hasn't read their page. Also, the fact is that Linux distributions and other distributions all contain other people's work (the Linux Kernel, GNU tools, X, Gnome or KDE, the bootloader, much of the applications, etc.). But just as Unbutu Linux started with Debian and went from there, GNU-D started with OpenDarwin and added a whole set of applications and interface tools. Ergo - it's a new distribution. In the Linux Distro world, you can make much more minor changes (like switching from Gnome to KDE as the default or vice versa, etc.) and it will still be considered a new distribution. But again, ("for the millionth time!"), the important point here is that GNU-D's status as a distribution has been accepted by the general public at large, and you haven't been able to cite a single source where that contention is questioned. So if you feel that your research disproves its status as a distro then publish it somewhere notable and your analysis can then be presented and cited here at Wikipedia. Blackcats 19:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

i'v changed my mind on the whole thing; the thing is both a project to port software to work on opendarwin and mac os x, and a distro. it uses the results of one to sell cds/dvds/hard drives that basically is a distro. the only problem is that the "project" can be run without running their distribution. perhaps i can make some changes to make that clear. --Yoasif 20:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair enough asessment to me, and the way you've edited the into looks good. Hopefully everyone can be happy with this compromise now. Of course you can also copy application binaries off Linux distribution CDs and instal them on a computer that already has Linux installed, but GNU-D more explicity advertises this sort of function. Blackcats 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The operating system CDs that GNU-Darwin are selling as just OpenDarwin ISOs burned to CDs. These CDs do not contain the GNU-Darwin packaging system. Similarly the GNU-Darwin hard drives that they sell just contain either Apple's version of Darwin or OpenDarwin. Their is no GNU-Darwin operating system. Please be aware that Luxiake and Blackcats are "conspiring" (their own word [8]) through email off Wikipedia. AlistairMcMillan 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep talking about "burning ISOs," but I don't think you've responded to the point I've made twice now that there's only two total CDs and one of them has nothing but source code on it. That only leaves one CD fro both the OpenDarwin and the GNU stuff. And if you burn directly from an ISO image then you can't burn anything else on that same disk. So you're clearly wrong about that, but for some reason you keep repeating it. And to address your allegations of "conspiring" that wasn't my words that was Luxiake's, and I think he was being rather tongue and cheek too. He asked if he could email me off Wikipedia, and I said that'd be fine if he wanted to email me. From my understanding, lots of Wikipedians, especially the administrators, talk on email lists and corespond through private email, so it's not like that's some kinda scandal. I'm not even sure why he felt the need to email me anyway, since he basically just sent me an extended rant about Apple, and it's not like anyone here doesn't already know how he feels about that company. I don't have any particular hostility towards Apple - my concern here is just to make sure that this article is handled in a fair and accurate way. My impression (though I might be wrong) of what's happened between you and Luxiake is that you got upset that he was distrupting the OSX article to prove a point (and changing the article with an original research interpretation of the facts), so you decided to be vindictive and do a tit-for-tat here at the GNU-Darwin article. But two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that Luxiake was being disruptive and fantically anti-Mac does not in and of itself prove that everything he was saying was wrong (nor is it a legitimate excuse for wreckless editing on your part here). My suggestion is that we stick with Yoasif's perfectly reasonable compromise for the intro and put this whole saga behind us. Blackcats 19:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you buy the "GNU-Darwin-x86 operating system" CD all it does is install the OpenDarwin operating system. It does not include the GNU-Darwin packages. You have to buy that CD separately. AlistairMcMillan 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be rather misleading if the CD labeled "GNU-Darwin Distribution" did not include any of the GNU-D packages. Do you have anything to cite to support this claim - other than original research?... Blackcats 16:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

DEO GRATIAS! Do you think it's time to remove the stub template? Luxiake 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - the article can deffinately be expanded more, but I think it's certainly progressed past the stub stage. It even has a criticisms section. I'll go ahead and remove that now. Blackcats 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If GNU-Darwin is an operating system...

...then why are they recommending that interested users get the Darwin OS from either Apple or OpenDarwin? [9] Why are they saying that their "software distribution" is tested on Apple Darwin, OpenDarwin and Mac OS X. Why wasn't it tested on the GNU-Darwin operating system? Oh that's right, because that doesn't exist except in the minds of Luxiake and Blackcats.

For those not in the know, Proclus and yvesde are pretty much the only real contributors to GNU-Darwin, just to put their comments in context. AlistairMcMillan 08:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link, as it further strengthens our case. First, speaking of putting things "in conext," the reason why he told him to get the OpenDarwin core elsewhere was clearly stated in his response: " We are indeed having some problems with downloads." So they were having technical difficulties at the time - question answered. Was was more interesting though was that he noted that their distribution included GNUstep. From the article, "GNUstep is a free software implementation of NeXT's OpenStep Objective-C libraries (called frameworks), widget toolkit, and application development tools not only for Unix-like operating systems, but also for Microsoft Windows. It is part of the GNU project." The article also notes that "GNUstep is modeled closely on OPENSTEP." The OPENSTEP article in turn notes that: "After Apple purchased NeXT, OPENSTEP became the basis for their operating system, Mac OS X. Mac OS X's primary programming environment is essentially OpenStep (with certain additions such as XML property lists and URL classes for Internet connections) with Mac OS X ports of the development libraries and tools, now called Cocoa." [emphasis added] So obviously the GNU-Darwin Distribution isn't just application software added to OpenDarwin! They've added an entire layer to the opperating system - just like Mac did when they added their implimentation of OPENSTEP on top of that same essential Darwin core. So I think it should be abundantly clear to everyone now that GNU-Darwin is at the very least a unique distribution, if not an OS in its own right. Blackcats 19:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The operating system CD that GNU-Darwin sell (that is the OpenDarwin OS) is completely separate from the GNU-Darwin packages CD. Also, just purely for the sake of argument, if you read the complete article you'll know that OpenStep ran on Windows NT as well. Does that mean Windows NT and Windows NT+OpenStep are two completely separate operating systems? AlistairMcMillan 20:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said that it neccessarilly was an OS, but that it deffinately is at least a distribution. Ironically, you're making the same sort of theoretical argument here that Lux. was making a whole back at the OSX talk. GNU-D could be seen as its own OS in the same practical sense as OSX - if its libraries and interface layers allow programs to run that couldn't run on just Darwin. But in the technical sense and (most importantly) in terms of accepted usage, it wouldn't be considered its own OS. If Windows NT were sold with the OpenStep interface and with software designed to run on it, then that certainly would make it a new distribution of NT. Are you now conceeding the distribution argument? Even if you're right about the base OS and the interface layer being on two separate CDs, that doesn't negate GNU-D being a distribution (and on the hard drive distribution it's undoubtably all in one place!). I'm guessing the whole OS question you're raising is because you want the template removed because it could be interpreted to insinuate that it's an OS. I think a fair compromise would be go with Yoasif's version of the intro paragraph and to remove the template but keep the screen-shot. Blackcats 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You also didn't respond to my other question. Why do they say their software is tested against Mac OS X, Darwin and OpenDarwin only? If they really do have their own operating system, why do they develop their software on Darwin, and why don't they test their packages against their own operating system? Please note that Luxiake, who started this, admits belong that the GNU-Darwin operating system doesn't actually exist. AlistairMcMillan 20:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before, I didn't claim that it neccessarily was its own OS - just a unique distribution, so don't put words in my mouth. Responding to your point here - it's really a non-sequitor. Obviously their software is originally designed and tested on their own distribution. They then test it to make sure that it works on other distributions of OpenDarwin and MacOS X. Blackcats 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is already in the article. GNU-Darwin has to be installed on a previously installed Darwin distribution. This can be Apple Darwin, Opendarwin or OSX. They suggest to install Opendarwin, wich they provide with GNU-Darwin. GNU-Darwin itself can't be regarded as an OS in it's own right, because tecnically speaking, without Darwin, Gnu-Darwin, is just a useless collection of GUIes libraries etc.. Just like OSX. The only difference between the two is that Apple provides OSX and Darwin both packed and linked together and it can do that because they develop their OS as a it is only one software. Then, and this is a separate step, they release their apple Darwin, not as working OS, but rather like binary packages for develeopers. If you get apple Darwin, you can't do much with that, it's not a bootable OS. Then Opendarwin project takes this binaries and develop Opendarwin as a bootable OS. And this is not a little work to do. GNU-Darwin hasn't achieved yet the goal to provide GNU-Darwin with a graphical-one step installer. GNU-Darwin still has to be installed on a previously installed distribution of Darwin (apple's Darwin, OSX, or Opendarwin). They suggest to install OpenDarwin, because actually they are working to the same project, being this project to create a free distribution of Darwin. And you have to think that this is not a project against Apple. A lot of opendarwin's DEVs are apple's DEVs. If Apple upgraded APSL, is not actually because of Proclus pressure, but rather because of internal pressure from apple's DEV. In this sense GNU-Darwin represent the radical wing of this not very big family of DEVs that are Darwin DEVs. Some of them are Apple's loyalists (proprietaryists) , the majority of them are Apple's DEV's that think free-software is better, and some of them adhere completely to Free software movement's battle against proprietary software, as a consequence they develop GNU-Darwin. The same can be said of the other free darwin project like Tevax and speedcake. They are Mac user dissatisfied with lack of freedom in OSX (and you can't deny OSX users options are very few), but as long as they prefer Darwin to linux (because of performance I suppose), they are working to a free alternative to OSX. This is not against Apple. Is actually a battle for the spreading of free software against proprietary software.

The way in wich OSX is developed, Darwin is released, Opendarwin and GNU-Darwin are developed can easily cause confusion to an average reader. OSX can be regarded as a Darwin distribution and both a OS in it's own right because of the way it's developed. Apple's Darwin alone can't be regarded as a OS, if you can't istall it how could be an OS? Opendarwin is an OS. GNU-Darwin,is a distribution of Darwin, wich has to be installed on openDarwin. Speedcake and tevax are projects to build a distribution of Darwin (they need opendarwin to be previously installed too).

Maybe the "distro" category can't be applyied on Darwin distros because of their needing of a preinstalled Darwin. So, how do you want to call them? I think that it's better now to use the words we have rather than invent new words or categories(in open violation of wikipedia's policy). Luxiake 10:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. The controversy about naming, started in the Darwin page. Than I moved it to OSX, and the Alistair moved it to GNU-Darwin on the basis of personal biases. I propose a taxonomy here, but it's still provisional. maybe it's better to move the talk to Darwin one more time. For now it's better to keep GNU-Darwin as a distro and OSX as a OS, as we got a large consensus on this. So I please Alistair not to start another copyediting war. Luxiake 11:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I just want to point out for everyone in case you missed it. Luxiake, who started this whole thing, now admits that GNU-Darwin is not an operating system. GNU-Darwin itself can't be regarded as an OS in it's own right.

Now a few corrections.

(1) Mac OS X is not just a bunch of stuff built on Darwin. Try building the Darwin kernel and swapping it out for the Mac OS X kernel, your system will not work. The intention with Darwin is that it gives people a pretty good idea of the lower levels of Mac OS X, it is not exactly the same. The intention is to let other people outside Apple help Mac OS X be a better operating system. If people also use it as an operating system in itself that is cool too, but it is not the primary reason.

(2) Darwin is a working OS. If you download a Darwin ISO (they don't provide one for each release, but they do release them fairly regularly), you can install Darwin and it will boot you into a real operating system.

(3) One of the main reasons for OpenDarwin is that they have a more "Open" process. It is not to provide a useable Darwin operating system. You are more likely to get a patch accepted into the OpenDarwin CVS than the Darwin CVS. Things like that, nothing to do with Darwin not being a bootable OS.

Let's be absolutely clear. GNU-Darwin is a distribution of software. It is NOT an operating system distribution. GNU-Darwin make that absolutely clear on their front page. The first sentence clearly says "GNU-Darwin aims to be the most free software distribution." [10] It is NOT an operating system. AlistairMcMillan 15:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And now read this [11]. GNU-Darwin FAQs:

"1. What is GNU-Darwin?

GNU-Darwin is an Open Source BSD Unix-like OS based upon Darwin, from Apple Computer.

2. What the difference between GNU-Darwin and Darwin?

GNU-Darwin aims to be the most free Darwin distribution. Many of Apple's tools are replaced and enhanced by Open Source applications.

4. Can I use GNU-Darwin as a stand-alone system?

Yes! GNU-Darwin can be installed on top of a Darwin installation or as a stand alone OS. You can download a bootable CD-R or purchase a non-bootable one from here."

Can I talk to the guys that made an administrator of you? I can't believe you are always like this, maybe you are just going through a hardtime, isn't it? If this is the case, then I'm very sorry if I'm causing more problems to you, and I'll leave you alone, letting you play with wikipedia in every way you wish. As a matter of fact I'm gonna hate GNU-Darwin quite soon.

Luxiake 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone already pointed to that. They intended to create their own OS distribution. It never actually happened.

Did you try clicking on the download link? The one that eventually leads to a page saying "Coming Soon!" for both PPC and x86. [12]

Did you try clicking on the buy link? The one that takes you to a page that sells OpenDarwin CDs. [13]

Seriously. There is no GNU-Darwin operating system. If you genuinely think that GNU-Darwin is a real operating system, please try to find a copy and install it somewhere. AlistairMcMillan 00:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

i was with you alistair until i saw the hard drive preinstalled with opendarwin + their package manager (and presumably, some of their packaged apps). so in that sense, they are a distribution, in the same sense that mandriva, etc. is a distribution. just because it's impossible to get it from them without paying $250 doesnt make it less of a distro, it just makes it a really expensive one. --Yoasif 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So if I sell a hard drive with Red Hat and Gimp installed on it, then I'm selling my own Linux distribution?

You know what, I give up. I can't believe I've wasted this much time arguing with a bunch of people who clearly have no experience with Darwin at all. Re-write this page to say whatever you please. AlistairMcMillan 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

it comes down to what you define a distribution to be, i suppose. i mean, look at edubuntu, it's basically ubuntu with educational software and repositories instead of (or in addition to) the standard ones. what is it about a opendarwin + gnu-darwin package manager "distribution" that makes it less of a distribution compared to something like edubuntu? --Yoasif 00:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[14] here you have bootable Gnu-Darwin CD installerLuxiake 08:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

I'm actually with you now, Alistair - sorry about my one edit summary, I accidentally hit return instead of backspace on my little laptop. But I now agree to keep the OS infobox out - and Luxiake, if you're going to throw more information in about purchasing, at least use proper English standards for displaying currency symbols before the Arabic numerals, NOT after. --JohnDBuell 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Please notice that the screenshoot taken from GNU-Darwin's site, based on your editing is today on the Darwin and Opendarwin page and not here. How can you call such operation? Revisionisn? Alteration of facts? I call it disrupting wipedia's reputation. I'm not surprised Wikipedia is on the news these days.[15] It's clear, now. Wikipedia is in the hand of people who use it for personal purpose, tearing it apart from its original goals. Last but not least an apple's wikiproject is aiming at making an Apple catalogue of it. I'm not gonna fight anymore against the corrupted corruptors of wikipedia. Luxiake 15:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Luxiake, you may want to look into what a WikiProject is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproject before you try to accuse it of some evil intention. wikiprojects exist to catalog a certain topic. as far as the argument that is going on here, it is quite honestly, easy to understand. gnu-darwin doesn't seem to have been updated in ages, does not have any installation cds for download, does not have any installation cds for sale, etc. it is only available preinstalled on a hard drive for sale, and i can understand alistair's reluctance to call it a distro under those conditions. from the gnu-darwin web page:

A 60 gig Maxtor 3.5 inch, ATA/EIDE hard drive ready to go with GNU-Darwin-ppc OS pre-installed, plus GNU-Darwin Office for ppc, plus a full ports tree and select distfiles. This bundle includes Darwin-6.6.1, OpenOffice-1.0.1, Mozilla-1.0, AbiWord-0.9.4, PyMOL-0.82, The GIMP, gdFortran, parallel computing, and much more. Compatible with all OS X capable machines. A full GNU-Darwin disc set for ppc is also included.

it specifically references that Darwin 6.6.1 is preinstalled on the drive, and then the gnu-darwin package manager is installed on top of it to provide the gimp, openoffice, etc. even gnu-darwin admits that this isn't a distribution, but a simple installed copy of darwin! look again if it didn't sink in the first time -- as it stands now, the ONLY way to get gnu-darwin as an "OS distribution" is to order a hard drive from them -- and in the description for this product, the store doesn't even call itself an OS distribution!

while others (Blackcats) may consider it to be original research to not consider gnu-darwin an OS, i think it is clear that gnu-darwin doesn't mean "OS distribution" when they call it a distribution. they are more likely calling it a package manager, but may be using unsophisticated language to describe it. as all of this is available from their site, and descriptions of what an OS distribution are are available on wikipedia and elsewhere, i contend that this is not original research, but rather, quite obvious given the facts at hand.

i said this once and i'll say it again -- gnu-darwin is likely not a distribution of darwin in the sense that we usually call "OS distributions". the preinstalled hard drive is a red herring; when the order page doesn't bother to call it it's own OS, it isn't. --Yoasif 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox revisited

Alistair had called for the removal of the infobox on the grounds that GNU-D was not an opperating system, and that the infoboxes were only for OSes. I had initially gone along with that, but upon doing more research I found that many of the Linux distribution articles have info-boxes. For example Debian, its derivitave Ubuntu, and even Ubuntu's derivitive (with only slight mod.s) Kubuntu. So if these distributions (which clearly aren't unique OSes) get their own boxes, then there's no reason why GNU-D shouldn't. And if Alistair (or others here) still maintains that GNU-D shouldn't have one then he should go and remove them from all the Linux distros too for consistency. In the mean time though I'm putting it back in. Blackcats 02:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem might just be the semantics. Using "OS-infobox" for something that isn't its own OS - on the other hand, anyone wanting to make a Distro-infobox will likely find it on Templates for Deletion in pretty short order. :) I'm really seeing the balance of this. I'm in full agreement that G-D is NOT its own OS, and on the other hand, what is WRONG with it having an infobox of some sort to summarize what it actually IS at the beginning of the article? Don't you just hate it when this stuff ain't black and white? ;) --JohnDBuell 04:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section needs cites

The criticism section needs cites, not just so that readers can verify the truth of the claims, but also because the claims look like typical misrepresentations of a project that one person happens not to like. Thus, if there were citations, someone could rewrite that section in an encyclopediac style, instead of it's current rant style (I've tried to improve it already, so it's not pure-rant style). Gronky 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)