Why would I want to use Darwin?
macOS has some UI advantages, its the largest reason I use it - but without cocoa, and all of the core foundations that make OSX, OSX, I just dont see the point.
macOS has some UI advantages, its the largest reason I use it - but without cocoa, and all of the core foundations that make OSX, OSX, I just dont see the point.
Another approach I've heard used was just faking the library from the headers - as long nothing from it is called in the course of your testing, your program wouldn't notice.
It would make me terribly happy if Oracle would refrain from doing so. I think this case is ridiculous. The same developer implemented a range check in the same way he did 10 years ago. Yes, copyright for software is broken...
And the lines in question were even removed, which is a tragedy itself, but I cannot see Oracle as anything but hugely detrimental to software. Developers should ignore anything they touch.
If they do indeed rule in favor of Oracle, it wouldn't be undermining OSS, it would undermine the whole judiciary system. It would be scientifically proven bullshit.
private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
if (fromIndex > toIndex)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
if (fromIndex < 0)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
if (toIndex > arrayLen)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}Why port that kind of stuff to macOS? Obviously it isn't going to be the deployment platform, but developers will want to run that stuff locally during development. (Less important than it used to be with the popularity of Docker on Mac, although still it can be a bit more developer-friendly to run things directly on macOS instead of under Docker.)
You know that there's entire data centers just running Mac Minis as VM hosts, in order to comply with Apple's OS licensing requirements? PureDarwin can just run on AWS.
Sure, running the XCode GUI needs Cocoa. But running xcodebuild doesn't, IIRC. It just needs some other, lower-level libs, ones that (reimplementations of) are in scope for PureDarwin.
Self-service test VM provisioning, CI build/test environments, QA machine labs -- all of these would benefit immensely from not having to run on a farm of Mac Minis in order to stay compliant, while their Windows and Linux counterparts are able to run on large on-premise racked server environments with high-performance, high-availability storage and fast networking.
But, surely it is in their business interest to make life easy for developers, especially if doing so isn't undercutting their end-user-focused hardware business? A cloud server running PureDarwin+Xcode is not undercutting their end-user-focused hardware business, and while it might mean they sell slightly less hardware units for that cloud use case (not a core market for them), surely the added ease for their developer community (who develop apps which make those end-user-focused hardware units so attractive) more than makes up for that?
They've pretty well demonstrated through questionable deprecations and hoops they make people go through with each release that ease for the developer community is not what they optimize for, but I agree it would lead to better end user experience.
And yes, that includes notarization support.
It's similar to reactos sharing userspace code with wine.
(Some people will question whether z/OS really counts as a "Unix", but like macOS, it is actually a certified Unix, and as such has greater official claim to be Unix than FreeBSD or most Linux does.)
(Addendum: I say "most Linux", because while the vast majority of Linux distributions are not certified Unix, some have been. Right now, Huawei EulerOS is a certified Unix based on a Linux distribution. Inspur K-UX is another Linux distribution which used to have Unix certification, although the certification has expired–I guess they failed to pay the renewal fees.)
UNIX 2003 is not the latest version of the certification, the latest UNIX certification is (somewhat confusingly) named UNIX V7 (different thing from the classic Bell Labs V7 UNIX), but thus far only Oracle Solaris is certified to that.
z/OS is still only UNIX 95 – https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3601.htm – maybe one day IBM will upgrade that to the newer UNIX 98, UNIX 03, or UNIX V7 certifications, although I suspect not. IBM has decided to focus on running Linux Docker containers under z/OS instead (which it calls zCX).
But we usually not used this but use posix. In fact i think that is what linux originally built against.
What is certified as UNIX is the POSIX personality.
And strictly speaking, z/OS as a whole is a certified UNIX. Look at the registration certificate [1], it never mentions UNIX System Services. Obviously without that component z/OS would fail to pass the certification tests, but the certification is for the operating system as a whole not just that component of it.
[1] https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/certificates/1199p.pdf
Compare this to Windows NT, where each executable was marked as belonging to a primary subsystem (Win32, POSIX, OS/2, etc) which is fixed from the time of process startup. In contrast, z/OS offers the flexibility that any MVS task can potentially be "dubbed" as a UNIX process at any time. Or similarly, look at WSL1 in Windows 10 – a process is either a Win32 process which is allowed to call the Win32 API, or a picoprocess which can call Linux system calls, you can't mix Win32 calls and Linux calls in the same process. (You can do it via two processes, one Win32 and one WSL, communicating over IPC; by contrast, z/OS allows mixing UNIX and classic MVS APIs in the same process/task running in a single address space). So the separation between "UNIX" and "classic MVS" in z/OS is actually a lot weaker than in Windows NT, which is why the "personality" term which was used in the later isn't really applicable to z/OS.
chocolate ice cream has some taste advantages, it's the largest reason I eat it - but without cocoa, and all of the core flavor that makes chocolate, chocolate, I just don't see the point. (like your post)