It’s Mach based, so it has Mach ports, which are an IPC system that is fairly heavily used by macOS.
It has DriverKit, which is a C++ framework for drivers that’s got morecsuppirt than the usual Unix driver model.
Mach-O does more than ELF, and enables the two-layer namespacing that makes macOS able to manage dynamic linking dependencies better than ELF.
Nothing really earth-shattering but interesting enough. And far easier to build a macOS environment on than FreeBSD.
I've always admired that mach-o supports fat binaries.
AFAIK all macos software only talks to the kernel via userland APIs - so there's no particular benefit to basing ravynOS on XNU anyway. (Just the opinion of a layman.)
> Is Darwin really all the exiting?
I’ve tried to reread your question, and couldn’t get the sense, before I thought maybe that’s an autocorrection / misprint.
It's been a stable foundation for several of the most successful operating systems in history though
New OS aims to provide (some) compatibility with macOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45997212 - Nov 2025 (165 comments)
RavynOS Finesse of macOS. Freedom of FreeBSD - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38485596 - Dec 2023 (176 comments)
RavynOS – Finesse of macOS, freedom of FreeBSD - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32492514 - Aug 2022 (366 comments)
I’m super excited about any open source OS there is, but in all honesty, I see very little value for a desktop system like that. Linux is plenty good and apps ecosystem is slowly coming into a really great state. I’d love to see FreeBSD being there too, and basically you need nothing different from that.
https://github.com/ravynsoft/website/commit/1a576c1d8f2fa964...
GitHub repo indicates they're working on basic, basic, bringup. Like, Objective-C works at all and CLI utilities work.
This is gutting, when combined with a prior post showing this dates back 3 years.
Others have speculated that the UI looks like ass. Some have said "Mac OS window chrome with Win 95 GUI controls.
Yeah, no.
See for yourself. This is the most recent release on their github page. I considered posting it to my Youtube account to gain some of that much-needed eyeballs and attention, but it's 11pm and I'm not doing that shit, I'm not playing that game.
Here is what appears to be the most recent release. I think you'll agree that as a Mac OSX replacement, it's quite jaw-dropping.
as far as i understand it, most companies don’t bother sending cease and desists to projects you’ve never heard of. the fact that the aforementioned projects have avoided the banhammer of Apple should not be an indication that a successful MacOS clone would receive the same treatment.
but on the other hand, maybe that’s a champagne problem. if you can make a macos clone good enough to get the attention of Apple, you’ve already done something incredible.
I wonder how big the actual gap between close to Cocoa App compatibility and full app compatibility is? Being able to run MacOS apps natively would unlock a huge barrier to adoption here.
And if it ever reaches a usable state, I assume it will far behind Apple's current systems.
ARM is great. Love it. There are tons of chips that all do things differently, much more so than x86. Plus the booting mechanisms are a PITA to figure out, debugging is tricky, etc - and that's a single target. x86 isn't particularly elegant given its years of cruft and questionable design decisions but at least it's quasi-consistent (yes, lots of "well actually" possible; I'm speaking broadly).
The ISA on ARM is better, IMO, than x86 but the surrounding ecosystem is hellishly fragmented. Just my $0.02. makes it difficult for OSdevers to find an 'in' to a wider ARM audience. rpi is a great entry point.
There's substantial demand for a spiritual successor to OS X 10.4/10.6/10.9 that isn't being filled.
The wiki is impossible to read on mobile, due to the sidebar.
What has changed about Apple's ecosystem vis a vis openness, hardware, or the 'ecosystem'?
The macOS ecosystem is pretty much the same as it has been since 1997
Prior to that, modern Macs were just PCs. Then Apple started to introduce, and then depend upon, their unique hardware.
Then the ARM migration using proprietary CPUs and GPUs really kicked it up a level. The OS relies on the hardware, which is unique to Apple now.
At least they always allow installing your own arbitrary OS.
Not to diss you, but these kind of questions ("Why another distro?", "Why another language?", "Why another ssh server/client/framework"? and so forth) have been asked zillions of times already, and the answer is always the same: the current offerings were not enough, for whatever definition of "enough" was at the time, and those offerings were tied down by whatever social structure or framework that did not work for these creative folks. I love that we have the freedom to explore with technology in the way we do.
Most people aren't interested in cooperating. The neat thing about collaboration is that work can be shared without cooperation. Free software is inherently anarchist. Sure, there are several successful cooperative organizations, but they all benefit primarily from the collaboration they do with everyone else, and vice versa.
I'm kinda on the opposite end of the spectrum. I love this world where 45 people try to race toward the same goal. Sometimes the best ideas win. Sometimes the fastest to the first goal wins. Sometimes everyone gives up. Sometimes we have competing standards we have to sift through. It's a mess, but it's a beautiful mess.
Variety and change is basically the definition of life itself. Uniformity and stasis are pretty good definitions of death.
Kooky offshoots and dead-ends are not waste, they are the very definition of life.
Imagine a world without life? Sure, absoulutely do imagine that, so that you can understand how and why you would never want that and should never suggest it, and know exactly how to respond to anyone who comes along and tries to float this genius idea of efficiency.
Proton provides a better Windows runtime than Windows itself nowadays. Many games using legacy DirectX versions run perfectly fine on Linux, but need patches on Windows 11.
I study kernels for fun, so I've had a lot of opinions like that over the years, but none survived gaining more experience. For example, I used to think that the Windows NT kernel was a microkernel, then I thought that it was a hybrid, but now I know that it's actually monolithic. Likewise, I now understand that the major differences between the FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD kernel are really just a few hundred lines of code, nothing major. But if you Google it, it'll make it sound like they're worlds apart.
Part of this is understanding that what people call "the kernel" usually includes a lot of things that, arguably shouldn't be considered part of the kernel proper. And a lot of the differences people cite between kernels come down to different message-passing architectures that are extremely interesting academically, but don't show up in real-world testing.
The sad part is, you can't reach this level of understanding though normal means, every source of information is full of half-truths. You have to dig into the source code and run these things on a bench yourself.
- https://sourceforge.net/projects/puredarwin/files/2012/ older
- https://github.com/PureDarwin/PureDarwin/releases/tag/17.4 older just before new Nix
- https://www.puredarwin.org/#get-it newest using X11 and Nix packager
The difficult part is replicating the ecosystem of applications. From a technological standpoint I would prefer a modern Linux distribution with KDE or Cinnamon over using 2005-era Mac OS X Tiger, though I’d gladly use a version of Tiger that was retrofitted with a modern Darwin core, modern libraries for security purposes, and an up-to-date web browser. However, Linux does not have Microsoft Office, the Adobe Creative Suite, Preview.app, Keynote, Dictionary.app, and other pleasant Mac apps. The FOSS alternatives are not as polished. Even venerable Office 2008 for Mac feels nicer than LibreOffice, and it’s compatible with the XML-based Office formats.
I guess for now I could run Tiger in an emulator, though admittedly current operating systems serve my needs, even if I prefer the polish of Tiger and Snow Leopard. I get really good performance running PowerPC Tiger inside QEMU on my base M4 Mac Mini and on my Ryzen 9 3900 desktop, definitely not as snappy as running Tiger on actual contemporary PowerPC hardware, but fast enough to actually be productive.
The corporate giants are their own thing, but indie/small Mac devs are among some of the most steadfast early adopters in the software world. They routinely have new releases leveraging whatever new things were added at WWDC in the span of a few weeks or months. Many would be thrilled by a project that promises to bring back what they loved about OS X and would be happy to contribute.
The only problem is that the “it” that needs to be built is a set of frameworks that’s as robust as Cocoa/AppKit is, is flexible with language use (Mac apps have long rolled in C, C++, Ruby, and Python alongside Objective-C or Swift for UI), and isn’t afraid to be opinionated (a single well-supported “happy path” to do something is better than a dozen halfassed ways). That’s really the hardest part.
As for Tiger, on the Ryzen box you might get better performance from a hackintoshed x86 build (especially if you’ve got a spare PCI slot for passing through an old supported GPU for UI acceleration).
Thankfully, macOS Golden Gate is proving to be a decent release so far in my tests of the public betas, but I do yearn for the simplicity (and more power user friendly aspects) of the aforementioned OS X releases.
Open source software was used for the basis of macOS for Apple’s convenience, not because Apple intended to publish very much open source software.
BSD has a convenient license for these purposes and it’s why proprietary commercial products like the PlayStation 5 choose to use it.
Just FYI, the https://www.darlinghq.org project is doing MacOS app compat on Linux - i.e. building the userland libraries.
And with Apple, they’ve always approached the market as a hardware company first and foremost. Which is why macOS has always been free vs Windows which, until recently, was not.
Platforms like Linux was always a greater threat to both companies because Linux takes potential customers away from Microsoft and Apples ecosystems in ways that FOSS reimplementations do not.
But that all said, companies of that scale are inherently greedy and paranoid. So I wouldn’t be surprised to them burying those projects under a mountain of frivolous legal demands if those projects were to become as widely known as Linux.
But i didn’t realise Apple used to charge for OS upgrades. So thanks for the correction there.
Their goal was never to build a community around Darwin or get a bunch of people outside the company using Darwin sans Mac OS X's proprietary bits, or to get a bunch of people outside the company contributing to Darwin
Looks great, so sad that it's yet another web framework. Kinda smacks of GNOME, though.
> The format is very simple: it adds some accounting info at the start of the file, and then appends all the ELF binaries after it, adding padding for alignment. The end of the file isn't touched, so you can still do things like self-extracting .zip files for multiple architectures with FatELF.
But I would indeed call it very-not-alive; their demo image is Ubuntu 9.04
> The problem was Darwin was a marketing ploy, and nothing more. Marketing thought that by throwing some source files over the wall, they could increase their market share and revenue. And they were right. You go to almost any technical conference these days, and there is an astonishing number of Mac laptops in the crowd. Prior to Mac OS X, people would have been laughed out of the building for having a Mac, but now, with Mac OS X and the magic of open source, it was suddenly OK or even cool. Managerially and culturally, Apple had no intention of becoming involved with any community outside its own walls. There were some well intentioned engineers and even a few low level managers that were duped by their own marketing department, and that was all. These people had given substantial amounts of their free time under the illusion they were doing something Right, something Good, but in the end were simply used by their own company's marketing department.
Cappuccino improved upon javascript by using a different language (objective-j) that added many features js didn't have, and it used the same (mostly) well-honed api as AppKit. In comparison to other js UI frameworks of its time, it was lightyears ahead.
PS: Compare to today, with code slop (and good agent-mediated code: It also increases overall speed).-