Announcement

After 5 years serving the vintage Apple enthusiast community, ThinkClassic has been marked for closure and is now in caretaker mode. Please see this thread for further information. Please direct any questions, comments and enquiries about the website, management and ownership to this thread.

You are not logged in.

#1 2015-02-13 00:12:26

bbraun
Member
Registered: 2014-05-29
Posts: 1,064
Website

OpenDarwin CVS repository

I'm generally all for preserving history, but some things deserve to stay dead and buried.  Darwin and OpenDarwin being poster children for deserving to stay dead.
However, someone was recently asking about where to find some old Darwin sources, and I dug out the old OpenDarwin cvs repository for them.  Since it's already dug up, I thought I'd make it available to a wider audience.
This is the raw CVS repository.  AKA the ,v files.  After extracting, you'll want to use the cvs tool to browse tags, vendor branch, etc.
Typically the Apple sources would have been imported into the cvs repository on the vendor branch, so you can check out pristine Apple versions, as well as see the OD modifications (usually to make the Apple sources actually build).

od-cvs.tar.xz

Offline

#2 2015-02-13 03:52:18

ClassicHasClass
Member
From: Electron Alley
Registered: 2014-05-26
Posts: 1,118
Website

Re: OpenDarwin CVS repository

Why "stay dead"?


Machine room (updated for 2019!): http://www.floodgap.com/etc/machines.html

Offline

#3 2015-02-13 04:37:51

bbraun
Member
Registered: 2014-05-29
Posts: 1,064
Website

Re: OpenDarwin CVS repository

Darwin is an ambiguous marketing term used by Apple to refer to different things over the years, but generally I'll use it interchangeably for "the open source core of the Mac OS X operating system", which is how SJ defined it back in the day, and for the standalone operating system.  IMO, and in retrospect (I was significantly more naive and optimistic when I was ~15yrs younger), both Darwin and OpenDarwin were doomed as any sort of open source project, for the simple reason that development is closed.  Darwin its self as provided by Apple, got a binary release and source dumps approximately corresponding to OSX releases.  OSX, with full engineering teams, produces an awful lot of change between releases, and during the development, no external person has visibility into what is being worked on, or more importantly from the perspective of a non-employee wanting to contribute, what isn't being worked on.  Then once every couple years you get a ginormous source and binary dump with no reference for what changed.  No information about bugs that got fixed, features added, etc., just hundreds of megs of compressed source tossed over the wall.
OpenDarwin was intended to be a collaboration between Apple (or at least a few employees that had a personal interest, and at least tacit support from their management) and the external community wanting to involve themselves with Darwin.  But it takes a herculean effort just to have someone go through and try to make those hundreds of megs of source just build, let alone try to do any sort of development with it.  Apple had entire teams of people employed full time just to build those sources, and then externals were supposed to be able to replicate their work, in their free time, without access to any of the build tools or information.  The fact that people outside Apple were able to build the OpenDarwin OS releases at all is pretty impressive.
Using those sources to patch OSX was a questionable undertaking.  OSX's software update system would simply overwrite any changes you made, so that was always a risk.  Additionally, you could never be quite sure what the difference was between the source releases, and the sources used in OSX.  CoreFoundation was always a big one there, since only the minimal subset of CF required to build the other open source releases was made available, and usually not even that much (CFPreferences was missing, among other things).  Similarly, xnu sources were available, but not necessarily the same as those used to build xnu for OSX.  From an external perspective, all you knew was you had this tarball of sources, with no idea of how closely it matched the OSX sources, how to build it, or when, if, or what would break if you installed the binary onto OSX.
Ultimately, the sources then and now are most often used as the ultimate fallback documentation.

I dunno, maybe now, in a retrocomputing capacity, the sources will be more useful than they were at the time.  There's no worrying about software updates or other changes going on for these older systems.

Offline

#4 2015-02-13 16:11:13

ClassicHasClass
Member
From: Electron Alley
Registered: 2014-05-26
Posts: 1,118
Website

Re: OpenDarwin CVS repository

Interesting. I do remember a lot of the hoopla at the time, but never really explored it. The "toss code over the wall" approach does, of course, sound exactly like what Google does with AOSP Android now.


Machine room (updated for 2019!): http://www.floodgap.com/etc/machines.html

Offline

Board footer

About ThinkClassic

ThinkClassic specialises in the use, maintenance, repair, restoration and modification of vintage computers and peripherals.