| 00:03.50 | *** join/#qi-hardware diarything (~starcard@79-73-125-182.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com) |
| 00:44.38 | *** join/#qi-hardware dandon_ (~dandon@88.151.75.28) |
| 01:15.11 | *** join/#qi-hardware _whitelogger (~whitelogg@uruz.whitequark.org) |
| 01:15.11 | *** mode/#qi-hardware [+v _whitelogger] by ChanServ |
| 01:26.46 | *** join/#qi-hardware dandon_ (~dandon@88.151.75.28) |
| 05:12.11 | *** join/#qi-hardware _whitelogger (~whitelogg@uruz.whitequark.org) |
| 05:12.12 | *** mode/#qi-hardware [+v _whitelogger] by ChanServ |
| 06:37.58 | kyak | does anybody have an idea, what's the purpose of this: https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu ? |
| 06:43.48 | kyak | is it about creating a better image of themselves? or are they legally obliged to publish parts of their kernel source? |
| 11:18.45 | *** join/#qi-hardware eintopf (~eintopf@unaffiliated/eintopf) |
| 11:19.59 | *** join/#qi-hardware SopaXorzTaker (~SopaXorzT@unaffiliated/sopaxorztaker) |
| 12:24.09 | whitequark | kyak: neither |
| 12:24.58 | whitequark | apple routinely releases the core components of their systems under OSS licenses, and has been doing that for a very long time |
| 12:26.01 | whitequark | that's how we have e.g. a cross-toolchain from linux to macos |
| 12:26.26 | whitequark | they don't really benefit from it, not directly at least, so sometimes they're being really slow; parts of their systems require approval from legal |
| 12:26.39 | whitequark | btw that's not parts of the kernel source, that's pretty much the entire thing |
| 13:27.43 | *** join/#qi-hardware sandeepkr (~sandeepkr@ec2-52-29-251-54.eu-central-1.compute.amazonaws.com) |
| 16:27.49 | kyak | whitequark: i see |
| 16:28.15 | kyak | how do we benefit from their kernel source though? |
| 16:31.19 | kyak | can user compile it and install instead of shipping kernel for OSX or iOS? I doubt that |
| 16:33.17 | kyak | even if they could, it still misses essential things: "You donât get the apps, frameworks, user interface, etc." |
| 16:34.23 | kyak | apple doesn't really benefit from it, as you said. User don't really benefit from it. But it's right there on Github - and it makes we wonder what is the reason |
| 18:19.04 | whitequark | kyak: I benefitted from it when writing systems-level software for macOS |
| 18:19.23 | whitequark | also, security researchers can use it to improve security of iOS |
| 18:19.38 | whitequark | but there's no real reason other than "OSS software developed at Apple stays OSS" |
| 18:20.00 | whitequark | y'know sometimes companies have actual policies and not just greed? |
| 20:51.31 | DocScrutinizer05 | isn't iOS mach based and mach would be FOSS? |
| 20:52.18 | DocScrutinizer05 | err s/iOS/OS X/ |
| 20:53.17 | DocScrutinizer05 | err yes, the README at https://github.com/apple/darwin-xnu gives it away |
| 21:22.40 | *** join/#qi-hardware qwebirc35376 (52f3545d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.243.84.93) |
| 21:25.32 | *** join/#qi-hardware zcrc (~pcercuei@bnf55.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl) |
| 21:48.04 | whitequark | DocScrutinizer05: they both use xnu |
| 21:48.15 | whitequark | but in practice the published sources only let you build a macos kernel |
| 21:48.23 | whitequark | because the arm parts were non-public |
| 21:48.33 | whitequark | well, before a few days ago, that is |
| 21:48.50 | whitequark | the mach bits are actually relatively small and unused |
| 21:49.17 | whitequark | most of darwin is the xnu/bsd subsystem and you can no longer even create pure mach tasks in darwin |
| 21:49.25 | whitequark | it has *got* to have a xnu subsystem task |
| 21:49.37 | whitequark | bsd subsystem* |
| 21:50.14 | whitequark | this has really weird ramifications because, for example, inheriting a mach port requires an extremely bizarre dance that happens to work because of something that I think is an accident |
| 21:50.23 | whitequark | and this is a basic operation in a microkernel... |