86 pointsby Bluestein3 hours ago16 comments
  • mrweasel25 minutes ago
    Maybe someone more familiar with operating systems kernels can answer this: Is Darwin really all the exiting? It is different from both the BSD kernels and Linux, but less so than Windows. Other than the ability to run macOS applications (assuming you can clone the libraries and APIs from macOS) is there some benefit of Darwin that I'm not seeing?
    • __d5 minutes ago
      XNU has some interesting features.

      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.

    • ripdog3 minutes ago
      I honestly think the kernel interface is by far the easiest part of building a MacOS compat layer. The userland is gigantic, super complex, and totally closed source. That's the hard part.

      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.)

    • jabedude11 minutes ago
      I don't think it's all that exciting. The hybrid BSD/mach personalities is somewhat interesting, as are some of the available mach machineries.

      It's been a stable foundation for several of the most successful operating systems in history though

  • dang2 hours ago
    Related. Others?

    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)

  • mcdowan hour ago
    from the faq: > Is this... legally sketchy? No. Consider projects like ReactOS, a from-scratch effort to create an OS compatible with Microsoft Windows, GNUstep, which provides an open implementation of Cocoa APIs and other things, or Darling, a compatibility layer for running Darwin (macOS) binaries on Linux. ravynOS is similar and stands on the shoulders of many such projects.

    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.

    • IsToman hour ago
      I think the core of this is google vs oracle case. I think they'll be in the clear unless they hit some specific (design?) patents.
    • jppittmaan hour ago
      I think the better example is actually GNU, which endured several challenges as a clean room implementation of unix. I think this is legally sound, but IANAL.
    • hnlmorg37 minutes ago
      Microsoft definitely know about ReactOS.
  • pmkary2 hours ago
    I think any desktop operating systems has to present itself with at least a single screenshot. Why not one in the entire page?
    • pmkaryan hour ago
      And now that I have walked over the whole website: Why not a single screenshot anywhere?
      • refulgentis12 minutes ago
        My $0.02: it doesn't actually exist.

        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.

      • WesolyKubeczekan hour ago
        I wager that maybe, probably, possibly, perhaps the GUI of this thing looks like ass and feels even worse. There used to be screenshots, you can google them. But maybe don’t.
  • jamesforestwest27 minutes ago
    You're using open-source Apple code (Darwin) and aiming for Cocoa API compatibility. How are you handling the legal side? Apple's APIs and frameworks are proprietary. Are you reimplementing them from scratch, or using something like GNUstep?
  • travisgriggs2 hours ago
    Everyone gets to name their projects for their own reasons. If the pitch is basically an “alternate apple” macOS, I would have chosen one of the other other (alternate) apple varieties as the root of my OS. Missed opportunity I guess.
    • laxdan hour ago
      Real apple-people would'nt consider this anyways. Open source geeks is were they can get traction. Seems like there is plenty of us that would like fbsd quality and vertical integration to the desktop level. There is effort but no breakthroughs.
  • tcdentan hour ago
    > Developers can port existing Cocoa applications with minimal changes.

    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.

  • ivanjermakovan hour ago
    Imagine the world where open-source is collaborating instead of fragmenting. Single Linux distribution, single compartibility layer for other OSes, single graphics API, single package manager...
    • theandrewbailey14 minutes ago
      If we had that, many people would yearn for a cambrian explosion of diverse software running in unique niches trying out different ideas.
    • nobleach20 minutes ago
      I mean, yes, that might get more folks working on a single project - which _might_ lead to shipping more quickly (might - more devs doesn't always equal speed). But I think what we'd end up with is Gnome; something that works fairly well, yet the committee won't allow simple things that the community wants. So we have the whole, "fine, I'll fork this project and add it myself" followed by, "why don't you spend your time HELPING the project instead of creating your own". It sounds a bit like a doom-loop.

      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.

    • pythonaut_1639 minutes ago
      Imagine a world where there's no innovation because everyone just accepts the current standard instead of trying something weird.
  • soupbowl2 hours ago
    Good luck! There are many attempts at doing something similar. We can't really see anything to judge it by, yet.
  • mixdup2 hours ago
    >but we're not a fan of the ever-closing hardware and ecosystem

    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

    • reactordev2 hours ago
      a lot of the kernel extensions are closed source proprietary. The core is still open but a lot of what makes modern Mac, Mac, are those kexts.
      • mixdup2 hours ago
        how has that changed over the past 20 years? the proprietary parts of Mac OS X and now macOS have been proprietary from the beginning
        • radicaldreamer2 hours ago
          There used to be a bootable Darwin instance that Apple published, which on paper would've made things a bit easier, but they stopped publishing it a while ago. It never resulted in any serious OS with a UI however.
          • ndiddyan hour ago
            There was a community around Darwin for a while, and people released Darwin distros that ran X11 and a variety of ported Unix software. You’re right that it never really amounted to anything serious though. Within Apple, open sourcing Darwin seems to mainly have been a marketing ploy to get Unix/Linux people interested in Mac OS X by tying it to the hype around the open source movement. There’s a good article with more information here: http://www.synack.net/~bbraun/writing/osfail.html
            • mixdupan hour ago
              The premise of that article is way off base. Darwin didn't fail, because the point wasn't to create a robust open source operating system along the lines of Linux. Apple got everything they needed from the OSS community while providing no more than they were required to. Apple got a bunch of tools, utilities, shells, etc as well as a view that this was a Real UNIX Operating System (TM) (they even got it certified) and that inarguably sold millions of machines

              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

              • ndiddy23 minutes ago
                You are describing the premise of the article.

                > 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.

      • WorldMaker2 hours ago
        By referencing the 90s it is a reminder that Mac started on an entirely closed source kernel. It's a regression towards the Mac mean more than a regression away from it.
        • reactordev2 hours ago
          Correct, but to dismiss the NeXT contributions from BSD into modern mac and Darwin would be to dismiss Darwin entirely. Macintosh from the System7 days was a dramatically different beast.
          • Grombobulous4 minutes ago
            I think the point is that Darwin wasn’t really a serious attempt to move Apple toward being an open source company.

            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.

  • masijo2 hours ago
    Would be nice to have a screenshot in the overview page
  • j4514 minutes ago
    It will be interesting to see how much further (or not) some open source projects like this can get using meaningful AI driven development.
  • CodeCompost35 minutes ago
    Another one? What happened to the other one that was called ... (quick Google) ... Hello System?
  • 01096173741an hour ago
    صباح
  • Select2an hour ago
    [dead]
  • gnuplustoejam2 hours ago
    What, exactly, is the point of this?

    The Mac GUI is closed source. You're not cloning it without being sued by Apple's turbo lawyers or at the very least receive a C&D. This is for console applications?

    macOS will now be ARM-only. If you buy Apple hardware you already have a license for the real thing.

    Why run a TBD meme OS when you could run Darwin, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. or real macOS to accomplish whatever unclear goals are presented here?

    *sigh* This is for no one, there is no viable use case. The ReactOS team will be sending a fruit basket.

    • cosmic_cheese2 hours ago
      Perhaps the biggest reason is that the existing FOSS OS world has little to offer for people who like a Mac-style desktop. It's possible to customize DEs to have a very shallow visual resemblance but the details are all wrong, with Windows, legacy Linux desktops, and even mobile operating systems (in e.g. the case of GNOME) exerting the greater bulk of design influence.

      The question might then, "why not make this a DE instead?" to which the answer is that Mac users also like how the underpinnings of the OS work (or have worked in older releases) and would like to continue to use their favorite Mac apps, which isn't going to happen as long as any traditional Linux distribution is involved. Mac apps also have a design ethos that's rare among current native Linux apps, which drives demand for alternatives.

      To do this properly it really needs to be a whole-OS endeavor.

      • jppittmaan hour ago
        EndeavorOS. I think it's actually the userspace though, which this aims to emulate. The problem is that if you're using a macbook for final cut pro, then endeavorOS doesn't solve your problem.
        • cosmic_cheese42 minutes ago
          Hmm, isn't EndeavorOS in the same vein as CachyOS? Mainly a pre-configured Arch variant with a custom point-and-click configurator built in? I don't see where it'd be of particular interest to would-be switchers using macOS.
      • gnuplustoejaman hour ago
        Didn't the Best Koreans rip off the Mac GUI in their home-grown spyware-laden Linux distro? Red Star Linux or whatever it's called.

        I wonder if they have a GitHub...

        • cosmic_cheesean hour ago
          I haven't downloaded or played with it because I'd rather not toy with software so obviously full of landmines, but from what I've seen it also falls into the "surface level" bucket. It goes a little further than one might get by e.g. enabling KDE's global menubar and installing one of the Mac-themed Breeze forks, but not much.
    • seabrookmx2 hours ago
      > when you could run Darwin

      That's what this is. Darwin isn't installable today. Apple just dumps a bunch of source code. Previous attempts at making Darwin bootable didn't go far and had no GUI.

      • gnuplustoejam2 hours ago
        Four years and still pre-alpha. Stick a fork in it.

        There's also PureDarwin (?) which had been around forever but last I recall the lone developer was seriously ill and the project was not receiving help. I don't see how this would be any different.

        To everyone here cheering this on: when will you be contributing? Or are you just waiting to download it, run it once for the lulz, and drag it to the Trash?

        • jdiff2 hours ago
          > Four years and still pre-alpha. Stick a fork in it.

          Who jammed a toe in your cheerios?

          • gnuplustoejaman hour ago
            What will you personally be contributing to the project to help move things along?

            Besides accolades on HN of course.

            I'm being real here and frankly blind, empty support of open-source projects does zero to support them.

            • jdiffan hour ago
              I'm actually the head lead developer in chief president. Now, your cheerios?
              • cxran hour ago
                (For those not catching on that the claim was written in jest, the person commenting here is not the creator of this project nor have they committed any code.)
              • an hour ago
                undefined
            • pythonaut_1637 minutes ago
              What? You're the one attacking this project. Or attacking everyone in this thread?

              Like seriously, what do you want here? Or are you just mad at everyone and lashing out?

    • efficax2 hours ago
      I dunno you could definitely do a "wine but for macos" kind of implementation, e.g., https://www.darlinghq.org/ without breaking IP laws
    • baron3dl2 hours ago
      I've always been shocked by the lengths of time people will commit to proving wrong the folks who tell them "you can't do that."
    • reactordev2 hours ago
      why do anything? why Linux? why FreeBSD? why Mac at all? Why build your own wind turbine when corporations make large ones? Why build a cyclekart when you own a car? Why workout when everyone's going to die?

      With that mindset, everything is useless and nothing has a point. Have I made my point?

      • Bluestein2 hours ago
        > Why workout when everyone's going to die?

        I regret to actually say this, and mean no controversy - but, I have been actually asking myself just that - and, not in the "workout or not" sense, alone. In the "does anything have a point", way. Apologies.-

        PS. To indeed contribute something: I am a big fan of the "doing things because of the joy of doing things" itself theory of it all, which is, seemingly, an antidote.-

        • BirAdam2 hours ago
          In general, things have meaning because people assign meanings to them. Nothing inherently has meaning as meaning exists only within the human mind/soul. If you are searching for meaning, you will find nothing.
    • Bluestein2 hours ago
      ... or flowers for the grave? :)
      • Bluestein2 hours ago
        PS: The FAQ speaks to this somewhat:

          "This is a huge effort. Y'all must be crazy!
           Yes. Here's to the crazy ones... because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones that do.
        
           In all seriousness, though, it's not my first rodeo. I have no illusions about the scale of building an OS or how long projects like Haiku, ReactOS or GNUStep took to get usable. This is just something I like doing in my Copious Spare Time™ and that I hope will be useful someday.
        
          I've always liked Apple's design and elegance, but am not thrilled with the direction of recent macOS® or how closed the hardware has become. And I'm a big believer in open source. So ... let's build something that feels as elegant, without all the lock-in, and maybe (just maybe) I can get it to a point that reasonably useful Mac apps build & run on it. And if not, we'll build a lot of cool pieces along the way and learn a ton. I'm OK with that."