Started by RacerX, January 05, 2008, 09:22:07 pm
Quote from: "RacerX"I find it amazing that information which can be easily checked is often completely missed in Wikipedia, and in it's place are bizarre assumptions. There are tons of examples of this, but I thought that this one deserved special attention.
Quote from: "RacerX"From the Wikipedia entry for Darwin (Operating System):"Notice that the version number jumps from Darwin 1.4 to 5. The two versioning systems have different stories. Initially, Apple established the 1.x designation, in order for Darwin version numbers to correspond to the Mac OS X Server 1.x version numbers. However, the Mac OS Server 1.x saw limited use and that versioning practice was discontinued even before Mac OS X was widely introduced. The Darwin 5.x designations, on the other hand, continue the NEXTSTEP versioning (which left off at NEXTSTEP 3.3, followed by OPENSTEP (which later became Darwin), at 4.2). Since the prepackaged "Darwin 1.x" distribution was actually created based on the Darwin 4 code underlying the Mac OS X, Apple decided to ease confusion and to continue with the version numbers it inherited when it bought NEXTSTEP. The command uname -r in Terminal will show the Darwin version number, and the command uname -v will show the XNU build version string, which includes the Darwin version number."[/list]And from the Wikipedia entry for OpenStep:"Mac OS X's primary programming environment is essentially OpenStep (with certain additions such as XML property lists and URL classes for Internet connections) with Mac OS X ports of the development libraries and tools, now called Cocoa. However, Mac OS X diverges from the OpenStep specification to the point that it is now closer to NeXTSTEP as a product. Mac OS X 10.0 could be considered NeXTSTEP 5. Apple's internal versioning of Darwin, the open source code comprising the core OS and kernel of Mac OS X, follows this numbering."[/list] :roll: This is truly amazing. Without anything other than seeing the number 5, these people assumed it was done because 5 must have followed the 4 from OPENSTEP 4.x. Of course, there were version 5 releases that followed OPENSTEP 4.2, they were Rhapsody 5.0 through 5.6.
Quote from: "RacerX"So where did this 5 come from in the Darwin version numbering system?Apple wrote a letter and sent it to everyone on their developer lists explaining the reasons behind the change in Darwin version numbers and what they stood for.
Quote from: "RacerX"The jump in version numbers from Darwin 1.4.1 to 5.1 with the release of Mac OS X v10.1.1 was designed to tie Darwin to the Mac OS X version and build numbering system. For those who don't know about the build numbering system, every version of Mac OS X has a unique beginning build number, which identifies what whole version of Mac OS X it is part of. Mac OS X v10.0 had build numbers starting with 4, 10.1 had build numbers starting with 5, 10.2 had build numbers starting with 6, 10.3 had build numbers starting with 7, 10.4 had build numbers starting with 8, and 10.5 has build numbers starting with 9.
Quote from: "RacerX"Further, Darwin made it's first appearance in Mac OS X Developer Preview 1, but didn't identify itself as such until Mac OS X Developer Preview 3 (in DP1 and DP2 the uname information is given as Mac OS 10, in DP3 Darwin 1.0 is given). Darwin was not used in Mac OS X Server 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.2 or 1.2v3, all of those are based on Rhapsody which still included encumbered BSD code that was replaced with FreeBSD elements in Darwin.
Quote from: "RacerX"None of this is a secret, so why in the world are people putting such disinformation up on Wikipedia if they really don't know what they are talking about?
Quote from: "RacerX"In the end, this should stand as a shining example of why you should never take anything put up on Wikipedia at face value. Everything on there should be cross checked before assuming it is accurate.
Quote from: "ericj"Interesting, I never knew about this. Any chance that the contents of the letter are on the Web?
Quote from: "nextchef"So did you correct it RacerX?The nice part about Wikipedia is that someone with greater knowledge can sign in and correct inaccuracies like this when they come up, and reference them properly if possible. Wikipedia on a whole is a good thing, but it is only as good as the level of time and effort that people want to put into it.
Quote from: "RacerX"[But I'll tell ya what... if you want to take on trying to make this change, I'll create a page on my site with the original e-mail explanation from Apple as a reference for you to site.