On Jul 26, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Rob Braun wrote:

>  On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 06:40:34PM, Christian Brunschen wrote:
> >
> > However, I am slightly confused by the timing. After all, Apple's
> > World Wide Developer Conference (WWDC), where the next version of Mac
> > OS X (10.5, 'Leopard') will be previewed, is just around the corner -
> > it will take place less than two weeks from now. That might have been
> > a forum for some direct feedback into, and back out of, Apple, which
> > might have led to perhaps improved communication between Apple and
> > OpenDarwin (yes, unlikely but possible), or might indeed have further
> > clarified the issues; either way, I would have thought that with WWDC
> > so close by, it could have made sense to see if anything, positive or
> > negative, might be derived from WWDC. Who knows, Apple might even
> > have some Darwin-related announcements planned for WWDC, which might
> > affect this decision. Likewise, even if any information gotten from
> > WWDC were to only further support the decision to shut down
> > OpenDarwin, that would have been useful extra recent background for
> > the decision.
> 
>  Waiting until WWDC would not have accomplished anything.  If you have
>  read some of my commentaries on the state of things, you know this is
>  not somthing that will be "fixed" overnight.  There is no possible
>  announcement or discussion that could happen at WWDC that would change
>  OpenDarwin's fate.

Even if Apple were to announce (and I'm just making wild suggestions  
here, not saying that this is possible or plausible) that they have  
been working internally on an improved, unified Darwin codebase for  
Leopard, and are now releasing it as Open Source, buildable for ppc  
and x86 architectures form a single codebase? And that as part of a  
concerted push, they are going to be actively working with open- 
source developers to get drivers for various hardware working, and to  
help people build replacement Mac OS X kernels from the Darwin codebase?

>  You can't make up 6 years of regression and
>  distrust at one event.

Perhaps not; but one single event might _start_ to heal things, which  
might thus at least postpone the decision to close down the project.

>  Given that this is the first WWDC that does
>  not have an Open Source Feedback Forum since 2000, that can be taken
>  as an indication of Apple's desire for communication on the subject.

On the other hand, WWDC this year has _50_ sessions 'to be  
announced', which is more than last year's 30, for instance; and _if_  
there were to be a big shift in strategy regarding Open Source, that  
might be precisely one of the things to keep hidden until the last  
possible moment.

>  The only thing waiting until WWDC to announce OD's closure would
>  have done is possibly steal some of Apple's thunder.

I wasn't suggesting 'waiting until WWDC'. I was suggesting 'waiting  
until _after_ WWDC', so that any information that could be gathered  
_at_ WWDC could be used as a basis for the decision whether or not to  
shut down OpenDarwin.

>  While that may
>  be temporarily gratifying, it would accomplish nothing.  We are
>  done, I am done.  Closing OpenDarwin is not a publicity stunt or a
>  bargaining chip.  It is an announcement of a sad fact, and an
>  admission that 6 years of my, and other's, involvement has been a
>  failure or worse, contributed to a marketing scheme.  This is not
>  something to be defiantly proud of or gloat over.  We're done, we'd
>  like to move on and to the best of our ability not screw over the
>  people that helped us.

I don't see how the entire OpenDarwin project can be considered a  
failure - parts of it have indeed failed to materialise, but in the  
mean time OpenDarwin has become host to a number of related and quite  
successful projects (DarwinPorts, Darwine, WebKit, etc). It seems to  
me that closing down opendarwin.org entirely is a bit of let-down  
towards those projects. Also, to quote from the 'About OpenDarwin' page,
<quote src="http://opendarwin.org/en/about.html"> 
	Goals
	The goal of the OpenDarwin project is to provide resources for open  
source developers to interact and produce products for Apple's Mac OS  
X. [ ... ]
</quote> 
OpenDarwin has certainly succeeded in that goal, even if the goal of  
letting developers rip out and replace the Mac OS X kernel with one  
they built themselves has not been achieved.

I also wonder whether OpenDarwin actually has to be closed down, or  
whether there might be someone else who would be willing (and able)  
to continue (what is left of) the OpenDarwin project. Yes, you are  
done, but it might be possible for OpenDarwin to continue as a host  
for projects, mirrors of Darwin source code, and so on, even if its  
original vision and goal are abandoned.

If someone were to step up and offer to take over the reins, so to  
speak, would the OpenDarwin core team be willing to let them?

>  Rob

Best wishes,

// Christian Brunschen

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@[...].org
http://www.opendarwin.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss