There's no GPL in the BSD sources used by Apple or Sony. They are free to release their operating systems as closed source; Sony does this. Apple releases Darwin sources "out of the goodness of their hearts", meaning, back in the 2000s they wanted to capture mindshare amongst the tech community for whom Linux was the strongest contender. Now that the future has refused to change, the year of the Linux desktop never materialized, and macOS has become the default developer's workstation OS, Apple has been much more sparing with Darwin source drops and may cease them altogether.
GPL where applicable. If it's MIT or just "as is" then no, they won't but they definitely publish the sources to what they are required to. Since FreeBSD is "as is" 4.4BSD licensed, they aren't required to publish the sources of Orbis.
> Improving FreeBSD will make it easier to run BSD on non-apple hardware which will eat into their bottom line.
The number of people who want to run FreeBSD on their laptops probably numbers in the hundreds. Not exactly a threat to Apple's bottom line.
On the other hand, some of those people are FreeBSD developers who create and maintain code that Apple would like to have the option of using. That relationship is worth something to Apple.
>On the other hand, some of those people are FreeBSD developers who create and maintain code that Apple would like to have the option of using. That relationship is worth something to Apple.
It wasn't that long ago that we used to have to endure HN commenters spamming the same copypasta every time BSD was mentioned: "did you know BSD runs your playstation and netflix and <...>. You should donate money!"
Evidently it's not worth more than the cost of assigning engineers to this, otherwise Apple would already be doing it.
Apple's attitude towards other OSes running on their hardware is less "supportive" and more "barely tolerates". Also as a general rule Apple doesn't contribute much to open source outside of some high profile projects like Swift and Webkit.
MacOS was never based on BSD. Apple developed the USB drivers for BSP so they could copy it into their OS, but that very different from based on BSD. (It is likely some other parts are copied as well)
> MacOS was absolutely derived from BSD through NeXTSTEP.
The OS-X (now branded as "macOS") kernel was not, and is not, a derivative of the FreeBSD kernel, or any other BSD, even though macOS/OS-X has a FreeBSD kernel component due to its Mach heritage. The userland tools are however BSD. OS-X's kernel is XNU and from the XNU GitHub repo[0]:
XNU kernel is part of the Darwin operating system for use
in macOS and iOS operating systems. XNU is an acronym for X
is Not Unix. XNU is a hybrid kernel combining the Mach
kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with
components from FreeBSD and a C++ API for writing drivers
called IOKit. XNU runs on x86_64 and ARM64 for both single
processor and multi-processor configurations.
I recommend the book "Mac OS X Internals"[1] for a detailed analysis of same.
EDIT:
In theory, XNU could simultaneously run the existing FreeBSD subsystem alongside Linux and/or MS-Windows ones. In practice, this would be a herculean effort fraught with difficulty.
See QNX[2] for another example of a micro-kernel OS architecture.
>Darwin is based on proven technology from many sources. A large portion of this technology is derived from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. Other parts of the system software, such as Mach, are based on technology previously used in Apple’s MkLinux project, in OS X Server, and in technology acquired from NeXT.
>>Darwin is based on proven technology from many sources. A large portion of this technology is derived from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. Other parts of the system software, such as Mach, are based on technology previously used in Apple’s MkLinux project, in OS X Server, and in technology acquired from NeXT.
> Exactly.
Darwin != XNU
userland tools != Darwin
Also, Mach[0] was created by CMU 40 years ago and is not "based on technology previously used in Apple’s ..." no matter what Apple claims.
Since you quoted from the provided archive, so shall I.
The fundamental services and primitives of the OS X kernel
are based on Mach 3.0. Apple has modified and extended Mach
to better meet OS X functional and performance goals.[1]
Apple named the above "XNU". Since Mach[0] is a micro-kernel architecture, which FreeBSD is not and never has been, there must exist:
The BSD portion of the OS X kernel is derived primarily
from FreeBSD[2] ...
What I originally stated was:
The OS-X (now branded as "macOS") kernel was not, and is
not, a derivative of the FreeBSD kernel, or any other BSD,
even though macOS/OS-X has a FreeBSD kernel component due
to its Mach heritage.
In response to your assertion of:
MacOS was absolutely derived from BSD through NeXTSTEP.
Note my identification of the FreeBSD kernel component being a component, not the kernel itself.
That may be true but a large core of it is still BSD. In fact, it’s so BSD that one could create a BSD distro based off FreeBSD and achieve binary compatibility on x86. Which is exactly what RavynOS [0] has done. There’s a lot of BSD under the hood of macOS still today in Darwin. A mix of FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
Any is a bit too strong. Apple has does (and still does) some useful work with clang/llvm, and a few other tools that BSDs use. However this is indirect at best.
Weird to see this downvoted, because it's totally true. Apple imports FreeBSD's userland periodically but not its kernel/drivers, and thus has nothing to do with how well FreeBSD works on PC hardware: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Myths#FreeBSD_is_Just_macOS_Without...
> Apple imports FreeBSD's userland periodically but not its kernel/drivers ...
OS-X/macOS runs an entirely different kernel called XNU[0][1], which is why userland tools can be imported whereas FreeBSD kernel and device driver code cannot.
I would expect if anyone even considered it, they’d immediately reject the idea, as they clearly believe that Apple retains ownership of the computers they “sell” and should control the software you could run on them.
