Operating Systems > macOS
Darwin x86
Calum:
marklar? you mean those marklars from planet marklar have marklared a marklar?
wow!
[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Calum 21.1.4 ]
psyjax:
Hey Calum.. WTF is up with yer version number? I see Quirk's runnin round with one as well.
anyway. Apple named Marklar after the planet in Southpark. It's an internal development title.
ntiozymandias:
quote:Originally posted by void main:
Well, as much as I would like to see it I find it highly unlikely that OSX would be ported any time soon. I mean Darwin is barely supported on x86 and that is the base of everything.
As soon as Darwin gets all the hardware support for all the different crappy x86 components then they might consider porting the rest of it. But the more I think about it, it still would be no easy task by any stretch. I just don't see it happening....
--- End quote ---
Marklar and Darwin-x86 are designed to support the processor architecture first and foremost. Drivers for other hardware components can be supplied at later dates by authors besides Apple. (If the PowerPC is left in the dust, Apple starts using x86 chips and gets drivers for other standard components; if Apple itself dies, they just release Marklar as open source and everybody and his dog can write their own drivers.)
hm_murdock:
why wouldn't an x86 build be plausible?
Rhapsody had an Intel build up to DR2, and apparently after that. There's not much change in the APIs between Rhap DR2 and 10.0. 10.1 changed some things, but I'm sure that if they'd kept them synched up to that point, then it'd be easy to keep them source compatible.
But... an x86 version of OS X won't ever run Classic or Carbon apps. Carbon still makes PPC native calls, which is why it runs on OS 9, while Cocoa is abstracted through APIs enough to be portable.
To be honest, I'd rather see the classic OS go open source more than I'd like to see an open OS X.
ntiozymandias:
quote:Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob:
But... an x86 version of OS X won't ever run Classic or Carbon apps. Carbon still makes PPC native calls, which is why it runs on OS 9, while Cocoa is abstracted through APIs enough to be portable.
--- End quote ---
Interesting. I thought it was just because Carbon was compatible with PEF (OS 9 file format for programs) and Cocoa wasn't. What code are you talking about, specifically?
Carbon and Cocoa code can both be compiled into the Mach-O format, which supports multiplatform binaries (ie. a single file, compiled correctly, could run natively on both x86 and PPC architectures).
quote:To be honest, I'd rather see the classic OS go open source more than I'd like to see an open OS X.
--- End quote ---
So would I. So would hundreds, maybe thousands of others. Unfortunately, there really wouldn't be much of a point to open-sourcing OS 9..... unless you were looking to recreate Copland.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version