More to the point, I'd expect the first-milestone goal of an "OpenDarwin" project would be to be able to install and run OSX's Server.app and act as an OpenDirectory master, NetBoot Restore manager, etc. That proves compatibility, and is a useful thing all on its own (because, among other things, it would mean being able to manage OSX from non-Apple hardware†.) Doing a GUI first? Crazy talk!
† ...without spending weeks tearing your hair out trying to conform a Linux LDAP+Kerberos+whatever server to OSX's idea of what an OpenDirectory controller is supposed to look like. I tried, I tried so hard...
"Right, where's XCode on KDE or GNOME? MIA of course. Where is the XCode equivalent IDE on GNOME or KDE? MIA, unfortunately."
I'm curious as to which features you think are missing.
It is all about having a OS X clone, not yet another GNU/Linux userspace clone.
So I am missing:
- Objective-C 2.1 support
- Swift
- Swift Playground
- Storyboards
- Plist editor
- Instruments
- Core Data
- ...
So, how is your reply not moving goalposts?
"I cannot seat a Mac OS X user, or developer in front of it, and they will be able to use it just like Mac OS X."
If anyone is moving goal posts it isn't me.
Not because you can't, but because the above are better apps and a nicer experience than the Apple equivalents.
Once you get out of Apple's walled garden (and reality distortion field), you might find you like it better.
The point here is about the missing features OS X on Darwin, not about alternatives that aren't native OS X.
I seem to be responding to your anti-Free Software posts everywhere in this thread.
I care about usable software and don't mind paying for developers for their work, they have to pay their bills.
The fit and finish of linux desktops, especially KDE, are nowhere near as good as the Mac, and adding a theme which kind of sort of makes it look like OS X only serves to highlight where it doesn't match up.
As a long time Mac user and now Linux user the only desktop which is vaguely tolerable is Elementary OS as at least someone there with a good eye for detail went through and made sure it all fits together.
I beg to differ, but only with the "especially KDE" part. KDE is a different beast than most other modern desktop environments, in that it does not try to mimic OS X style in any way.
KDE was started way back when with a goal of replicating a Windows-like UI, with a Start-menu like launcher and a Start-bar like task bar with applets.
It may not be to your tastes, but the fit and finish of KDE3, 4 and now 5 is excellent. Integrated application sets (K[Anything]) with integration into a centralized control/config panel for shortcuts, MIME type handling, ...
The only problem with this is that other popular applications do not bind this tightly to KDE (understandable from application developers - KDE is not the only game in town).
Previously, GTK applications in particular acted and looked like they were from '93 when run outside of GTK-centric desktop environments (XFCE, Gnome). However, Qt has developed a GTK2 and 3 engine that uses Qt and Qt themes under the hood, largely solving that problem when properly configured (try any stable OpenSuse release, for instance).
And there are bugs and annoying aspects to Aqua, it's not perfect, but it is stable.
KDE is the interface that both Apple and Microsoft steal from/reinvent nowadays.