Slashdot Log In
Running Mac OS X Binaries With NetBSD
Posted by
Hemos
on Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:57 AM
from the making-it-work dept.
from the making-it-work dept.
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has an interesting article about an effort to add a Mach and Darwin binary compatibility layer to NetBSD. The project has evidently already made a fair amount of progress, currently working to stabilize the WindowServer emulation portion that will then allow NetBSD to run Mac OS X graphical applications."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Running Mac OS X Binaries With NetBSD
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 177 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Fantastic (Score:4, Funny)
Great idea (Score:1, Redundant)
Best of all the worlds combined. Run the app you need, on an OS you can trust.
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Informative)
Neat but... (Score:2)
Linux port? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Linux port? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mac-On-Linux [maconlinux.org]
OK, it's not binary compatibility, but unlike COMPAT_MACH and COMPAT_DARWIN it does already work. But COMPAT_MACH and COMPAT_DARWIN are very interesting and worth keeping an eye on it.
Oh, BTW.... From the MOL-FAQ:
Time to get a PPC computer (Score:1, Redundant)
That's great news but... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
If you remember, they've been *very* anal in the past about some things they consider to be "their stuff", such as the look and feel of the OS. I can't see them just sitting around and watching while all their OS capabilities are matched (or, for that matter, exceeded).
If they sent C&D letters for freakin' themes, I doubt they'll just sit around while their API is emulated. They've show themselves to be rather devious, and I'd be a little worried if I was a NetBSD developer.
Now look what you did (Score:5, Funny)
Of course it runs NetBSD! (Score:4, Funny)
Is this a de facto x86 OSX? (Score:2)
Re:Is this a de facto x86 OSX? (Score:5, Informative)
You still need a PowerPC machine (Score:5, Informative)
I know you can buy third party PowerPC computer, but they are more expense than Apple's machines.
I do appricated their effort, it is probably a good exercise in programming skill.
It would be useful if it was on x86, but there are plenty of problems with that; see
http://www.emaculation.com/ppc.shtml [emaculation.com]
(This is not a flame, just an observation)
Nifty. (Score:5, Informative)
What works?
On NetBSD/i386: nothing. On NetBSD/powerpc, most UNIX binaries, such as ls, sh, or vi will work. No Graphical User Interface (GUI) based program will work for now. We are able to startup WindowServer up to the first attemps to use the IOKit. See the kernel traces for WindowServer and for mach_init to discover how far we have been.
Here is what have been implemented so far:
Mach-O binaries loading
Mach system calls handling
Minimal Mach ports, messages and rights support, so that simple program are able to link and run.
Signals handling (except for siginfo) Minimal multithreading support
Support in ktrace/kdump to display Mach messages (useful for debugging)
Hacks to get mach_init starting (and to get it behaving as bootstrap mach_init)
Support for port rights carried by Mach messages
Here is what is in the TODO list:
Implement Mach notifications for destroyed ports, dead names, and no sender ports
Re-implement enough of Darwin's IOKit to get
WindowServer actually displaying something.
Use COMPAT_MACH for COMPAT_OSF1 (Tru64 binary emulation on NetBSD/alpha), to get multithreading working.
Get Darwin binaries to link and run on NetBSD/i386
What about... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about... (Score:4, Interesting)
Running Gnustep on NetBSD? It has most of the NEXTStep/OS X libs already ported over to Linux (And therefore easily ported to NetBSD)...
GNUStep is already in the NetBSD packages collection, in several packages split across devel and x11. Install it along with WindowMaker and you've got a convincing NeXT clone ...
Chris
Re:What about... (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if it will look as good as Aqua? (Score:2)
This will be one of those things where it's cool because you can do it, but is there really any reason to do it? Kinda like Mac on Linux [maconlinux.org].
MOL (Score:4, Interesting)
I have also found MOL to be far more reliable than Classic on OSX. Classic is much slicker in that OS 9 apps run directly on the Quartz desktop and one can cut and paste between apps. This also means it is more complex and therefore failure prone. My boss has no end of trouble with it. Classic icons go missing or change themselves into another apps icons. Some Classic apps will lock and won't release control to the Aqua UI. This means the machine is locked up for end user intents and purposes. Classic inflicts HFS metadata problems and some instability on OS X and kills much of OS X advantages if one has to make heavy use of OS <=9 apps. On the other hand if the OS 9 in my MOL sessions screws up then I can kill it and restart without affecting my Linux session. Since I boot my MOL session from an image I have an advantage normally only associated with virtual PC. If that boot image gets messed up, I can replace it from a backup quickly. Incidentally, MOL is very close to running OS X acceptably...eye candy and all.
MOL is can also be used as a user mode Linux. One can boot another acceptably fast Linux inside a virtual machine. This is useful for things like kernel development. MOL is far from pointless.
Would It Be Faster Than OS X? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Coolness (Score:1)
Not what Apple wanted (Score:2, Interesting)
Most FreeBSD users I know have no interest in Photoshop or Office anymore now that the alternatives are as mature as they are. I think users of any BSD would enjoy this new compatibility, but I think it could be just as valuable to everyone (except MS) if MacOS X gained some compatibility layers.
iTunes? (Score:1)
ah How DUMB are slashdoters? (Score:4, Insightful)
The status report link is from 1/2002...
Did anybody bother to read it before posting?
70 people so far did not..
The actual project ot watch is not NetBSd..in that they don't have the nice Apple relationship like Darwin does..
In fact if my memory is right the proejct was stopped because they were duplicating Darwin's efforts..
To see if MacOSx will run under intel machines check Darwin porject site not NetBSD!
Come on People read once in awhile
Show yourself to better than those wintel geeks who don't even read but jsut spout what MS Gates wants..
maybe the way to a cheap mac? (Score:2)
Anyone know what kind of speed a powerpc emulator running on a x86 would get?
If this OSX apps on BSD/PowerPC jazz works, what would you get if you coupled it to a powerpc to x86 emulator and had OSX running on a x86?
Even if it ran at half the speed you might end up getting a cheaper 'mac' because x86 hardware is cheaper?
If i only had more time. (Score:2)
For those who think this is a dumb idea.. you're not seeing the bigger picture. Currently, MacOS X only runs on G3 and G4 apple machines designated by Apple unless you boot Linux and install Mac On Linux (similiar to Plex86 for PPC). If you can run OSX applications on Linux, NetBSD, etc.. then you wouldn't need the overhead of a VM. Your RS6000 could run OSX with minimum overhead. From NetBSD you could run from the same machine, binaries compiled for: OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.
Personally, I don't like OSX; However, I wouldn't mind being able to run natively on Linux: Internet Explorer, Quarx Express, etc.. Not to mention that Quartz is a pretty neat looking, X11 compatable (with Xfree86-rootless) windowing system.
This is more important for Linux than NetBSD, only because NetBSD currently has poor support for devices on many PowerPC machines (compared to Linux), especially laptops.
NetBSD Mac OS X Binary Compatibility (Score:1)
Name for the project (Score:2)
How about "OSXE"? Pronounced "Oh sexy."