Re: Oxford says Apple's OS X is a Linux distro
Rick
> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> You know how there are server-focued, desktop-focused,
>> security-focused, media-focused, gaming-focused, and so on linux
>> distros. Is there one focused on tex and typesetting?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>
> yes, it's called Mac OSX and is the powerhouse platform for print
> publications of all kinds.(snip)
Since when is OS X a Linux distro.
--
Rick
David Kastrup
That's just retaliation for Windows being a graphical user interface.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
UKTUG FAQ: <URL:http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html>
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:36:24 -0600, Rgdawson wrote:
>>
>>> casioc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> You know how there are server-focued, desktop-focused,
>>>> security-focused, media-focused, gaming-focused, and so on linux
>>>> distros. Is there one focused on tex and typesetting?
>>>>
>>>> If not, why not?
>>>
>>> yes, it's called Mac OSX and is the powerhouse platform for print
>>> publications of all kinds.(snip)
>>
>> Since when is OS X a Linux distro.
>
> That's just retaliation for Windows being a graphical user interface.
GUI? I thought it was a graphic virus collector.
--
Rick
Snit
pan.2005.10.22...@nomail.com on 10/22/05 12:09 PM:
OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
ignorance? My guess is that you were feigning ignorance and trying...
trying... to point out that Rgdawson's comments are clearly not technically
correct being that OS X is clearly *not* a version of Linux. If so - and it
likely is the case - the meaning of his comments went *way* over your
head...
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
>ignorance?
I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
components.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
Snit
435afcf...@news.usenetzone.com on 10/22/05 8:02 PM:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote, in part:
>
>> OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
>> ignorance?
>
> I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
> components.
I can see that - but even if I disagreed, at least your position seems to
comes from a place of knowledge... unlike Rick who does not even show he
knows if OS X is *Linux*.
As far as OS X being a BSD distro, I do not really see how it matters. I
like what OS X offers me (and, for the record, I like what Linux offers as
well). Not sure it matters how it gets classified.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
_________________________________________
Timberwoof
jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
> >ignorance?
>
> I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
> components.
Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
George Ellison
> In article <435afcf...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> > wrote, in part:
> >
> > >OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
> > >ignorance?
> >
> > I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
> > components.
>
> Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
>
A BSD kernel, for one. Mach seems to do the actual kernel thing, but it's
got BSD stuff layered on top of it, so I'd say it's fifty/fifty.
--
"There is no dark side of the moon, really.
As a matter of fact, it's all dark"
--Roger, the Irish Doorman
ZnU
George Ellison <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> writes:
>
> > In article <435afcf...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> > jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
> > > wrote, in part:
> > >
> > > >OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
> > > >ignorance?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
> > > components.
> >
> > Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
> >
> A BSD kernel, for one. Mach seems to do the actual kernel thing, but it's
> got BSD stuff layered on top of it, so I'd say it's fifty/fifty.
It's not quite 'layered' as much as 'entangled'. But yeah, OS X does
have a very different kernel architecture from the other BSDs.
Whether OS X is a BSD is really all just a matter of definitions. It
rates a spot on the "Open Source BSD Derivatives" list in BSD's
Wikipedia article, for what that's worth.
--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> In article <435afcf...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>> wrote, in part:
>>
>> >OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
>> >ignorance?
>>
>> I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
>> components.
>
> Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
>
A BSD kernel perhaps?
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Savard
<timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote, in part:
>Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
Actually, it isn't necessarily anything it *lacks*. It just happens that
OS X contains elements that are not freely redistributable - and those
elements are significant additions to the value of OS X.
Calling it a BSD distribution would be confusing, because it would
obscure that important distinction.
George Ellison
> On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:29:00 GMT, Timberwoof
> <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote, in part:
>
> >Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
>
> Actually, it isn't necessarily anything it *lacks*. It just happens that
> OS X contains elements that are not freely redistributable - and those
> elements are significant additions to the value of OS X.
>
> Calling it a BSD distribution would be confusing, because it would
> obscure that important distinction.
BSD distros themself haven't always been freely redistributable.
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>BSD distros themself haven't always been freely redistributable.
True, but that was back when FreeBSD hadn't yet been completed. That
wasn't because they contained something that was not UNIX, but that they
contained parts of AT&T's UNIX, which was not free.
OS X is not a "flavor" of Unix, free or proprietary - its value comes
largely from the Macintosh (and NeXT) heritage it contains.
If that weren't true, then, after the Macintosh makes its move to Intel,
Apple would be basically dead in the water - if programs made for Intel
Macs could run just as well on an i386 version of BSD which included
KDE.
The user interface and the API are _not_ consistent with that scenario.
The Macintosh with OS X is still a Macintosh... of sorts.
Of course, it could be _more_ of a Macintosh - the idea of charging
extra for a copy of OS 9 if you want Classic compatibility doesn't warm
my heart. I would have opted for integrating as much of OS 9 as possible
with NextSTEP and BSD so as to have *both* the past and the future on my
side, instead of just the future.
But OS X still offers more added value than, say, Linspire, or the
commercial versions of Red Hat or Mandriva. Otherwise, it wouldn't have
a reason to exist - because it is considerably more expensive than those
examples of Linux distributions with non-free content. One part of that
value, but not all of it, is that it is a major standard towards which
binaries are targeted. The major Linux distros, by comparison, are minor
targets for binaries. But that is, I would presume, a *consequence* of
other added value OS X provides. (But I will let Mac users and advocates
explain, in detail, just what that added value might consist of.)
ZnU
jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2005 11:50:41 -0400, George Ellison <notam...@nerdshack.com>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >BSD distros themself haven't always been freely redistributable.
>
> True, but that was back when FreeBSD hadn't yet been completed. That
> wasn't because they contained something that was not UNIX, but that they
> contained parts of AT&T's UNIX, which was not free.
>
> OS X is not a "flavor" of Unix, free or proprietary - its value comes
> largely from the Macintosh (and NeXT) heritage it contains.
>
> If that weren't true, then, after the Macintosh makes its move to Intel,
> Apple would be basically dead in the water - if programs made for Intel
> Macs could run just as well on an i386 version of BSD which included
> KDE.
If Darwin is a *nix system, OS X is a *nix system. Shipping with a bunch
of extra proprietary libraries can't, IMO, turn a *nix system into a
non-*nix system.
[snip]
Thomas Wootten
<snip>
> If Darwin is a *nix system, OS X is a *nix system. Shipping with a bunch
> of extra proprietary libraries can't, IMO, turn a *nix system into a
> non-*nix system.
>
> [snip]
>
But applications that depend on those libraries are then not *nix
applications.
--
Tom Wootten, Trinity Hall.
oof.trinhall.cam.ac.uk
There was only ever one valid use for the notorious <blink> tag:
Schrodinger's cat is <blink>not</blink> dead.
George Ellison
> In article <435bcab...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
> > On 23 Oct 2005 11:50:41 -0400, George Ellison <notam...@nerdshack.com>
> > wrote, in part:
> >
> > >BSD distros themself haven't always been freely redistributable.
> >
> > True, but that was back when FreeBSD hadn't yet been completed. That
> > wasn't because they contained something that was not UNIX, but that they
> > contained parts of AT&T's UNIX, which was not free.
> >
> > OS X is not a "flavor" of Unix, free or proprietary - its value comes
> > largely from the Macintosh (and NeXT) heritage it contains.
> >
> > If that weren't true, then, after the Macintosh makes its move to Intel,
> > Apple would be basically dead in the water - if programs made for Intel
> > Macs could run just as well on an i386 version of BSD which included
> > KDE.
>
> If Darwin is a *nix system, OS X is a *nix system. Shipping with a bunch
> of extra proprietary libraries can't, IMO, turn a *nix system into a
> non-*nix system.
>
And who said Darwin was a *nix system? As far as I can tell, it's a mixture
of Mach (not *nix) microkernel components with a BSD (might be *nix, opinions
differ) layer on top of that, and a proprietary GUI (definitely not *nix)
rounding the whole thing out.
Peter Köhlmann
> wd <n...@1.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Consider that 1/3 of the world's population will live in slums within 15
>> years. $50,000 is a lot of money, except to the greedy/ignorant.
>
> seems you have a problem with people that are intelligent and also make
> money? please explain.
None of which would apply to you
You are not smart. You are by far the dumbest poster I've ever encountered.
And that parking lot sweeping job you're barely able to do does not exactly
make you rich
--
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!
ZnU
George Ellison <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <435bcab...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> > jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
> >
> > > On 23 Oct 2005 11:50:41 -0400, George Ellison
> > > <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote, in part:
> > >
> > > >BSD distros themself haven't always been freely redistributable.
> > >
> > > True, but that was back when FreeBSD hadn't yet been completed.
> > > That wasn't because they contained something that was not UNIX,
> > > but that they contained parts of AT&T's UNIX, which was not free.
> > >
> > > OS X is not a "flavor" of Unix, free or proprietary - its value
> > > comes largely from the Macintosh (and NeXT) heritage it contains.
> > >
> > > If that weren't true, then, after the Macintosh makes its move to
> > > Intel, Apple would be basically dead in the water - if programs
> > > made for Intel Macs could run just as well on an i386 version of
> > > BSD which included KDE.
> >
> > If Darwin is a *nix system, OS X is a *nix system. Shipping with a
> > bunch of extra proprietary libraries can't, IMO, turn a *nix system
> > into a non-*nix system.
> >
>
> And who said Darwin was a *nix system? As far as I can tell, it's a
> mixture of Mach (not *nix) microkernel components
Sure, but *nix has never been about kernel design internals, has it?
Those vary pretty widely even across 'real Unix' systems.
> with a BSD (might be *nix, opinions differ)
I'd say BSD is certainly *nix; the argument is about whether it's
actually 'real Unix'.
> layer on top of that, and a proprietary GUI (definitely not *nix)
> rounding the whole thing out.
Darwin doesn't have a GUI.
George Ellison
My mistake. For some inexplicable reason I was thinking of OS X. OK, Darwin
(and by extension OS X) could be a *nix (although not a Unix), but what does
that mean anymore? Sure, X11 and pretty much anything else will port, and
Apple has "open sourced" the already freely-redistributable portions of the
OS, but the proprietary layers and the hardware lock-in factor pretty much
ensure the Mac remains a closed system. And as commodity hardware and
commodity software take a firmer grip, closed systems will fast become dead
systems.
ZnU
George Ellison <notam...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
I'll make my usual point here, which is that the concept of open vs.
closed systems has to go beyond source code. What's really important for
most of the market is not code, but *standards*. And Apple has embraced
openness on that front very enthusiastically.
The Mac will be a more attractive system in a world dominated by Linux
than it is in today's Microsoft-dominated world, where the Mac is to
some extent locked out of the mainstream by the fact that the mainstream
uses formats and protocols which Apple can't implement, because
Microsoft doesn't document them.
Rgdawson
> >> Consider that 1/3 of the world's population will live in slums within 15
> >> years. $50,000 is a lot of money, except to the greedy/ignorant.
> >
> > seems you have a problem with people that are intelligent and also make
> > money? please explain.
>
> None of which would apply to you
>
> You are not smart. You are by far the dumbest poster I've ever encountered.
> And that parking lot sweeping job you're barely able to do does not exactly
> make you rich
why so angry, why so angry Peter? did you trip over your pigs when you
got out of bed today? where is the happy Peter we knew 5 years ago?
Rgdawson
> > > layer on top of that, and a proprietary GUI (definitely not *nix)
> > > rounding the whole thing out.
> >
> > Darwin doesn't have a GUI.
>
> My mistake. For some inexplicable reason I was thinking of OS X. OK, Darwin
> (and by extension OS X) could be a *nix (although not a Unix), but what does
> that mean anymore? Sure, X11 and pretty much anything else will port, and
> Apple has "open sourced" the already freely-redistributable portions of the
> OS, but the proprietary layers and the hardware lock-in factor pretty much
> ensure the Mac remains a closed system. And as commodity hardware and
> commodity software take a firmer grip, closed systems will fast become dead
> systems.
correct enough about the first part, but partly closed systems that are
created for the aim of a better user experience out of chaos... will
likely grow faster over the next few decades than open systems that have
little central control. osx is now clearly the fastest growing platform
and that's unlikely to change for quite some time. you see the same
thing in game machines, cell phones, etc. some products reach a level
that could be considered a "utility", osx coupled with macs is one solid
example.
TheLetterK
> In article <435afcf...@news.usenetzone.com>,
> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>wrote, in part:
>>
>>
>>>OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
>>>ignorance?
>>
>>I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
>>components.
>
>
> Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
there.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Kohlmann <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> > But applications that depend on those libraries are then not *nix
>> > applications.
>>
>> By default most OSX apps aren't. They depend on the apple-only GUI
>> Apple made the worst blunder possible by not using X by default
>
> apple did consider X for use in OSX, but they determined it wasn't
> modern enough to handle what they wanted to do going forward. And even
> today you can tell they made the correct decision since you can look at
> the same app running under X and under Quartz and the OSX version is far
> richer in speed, and fidelity.
>
As usual, you are an idiot without any useful knowledge
> you can learn more here Peter:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/
Spare us the marketing drivel. It is of no interest whatsoever
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Edwin
> Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> did eloquently scribble:
>> In article <435afcf...@news.usenetzone.com>,
>> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>> wrote, in part:
>>>
>>>> OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you feigning
>>>> ignorance?
>>> I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
>>> components.
>> Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify as one?
>>
>
> A BSD kernel perhaps?
Perhaps you ought to contact Apple and inform them they're mistaken
about their own OS?
"UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment that
underlies Mac OS X."
Snit
PSGKf.10998$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net on 2/21/06 9:05 AM:
Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on BSD
(especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
--
Sex-based crimes are not synonymous with sex
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
Liam Slider
Darwin is not BSD, merely based somewhat on BSD with many changes. And the
Mach kernel isn't used on any BSD to my knowledge. So again.... Apple's
marketing hype is not the same as the truth.
Liam Slider
> "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> stated in post
> PSGKf.10998$rL5....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net on 2/21/06 9:05 AM:
>
>> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>> Timberwoof <timbe...@stimpberawoofm.com> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> In article <435afcf...@news.usenetzone.com>,
>>>> jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:26:59 -0700, Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>
>>>>> wrote, in part:
>>>>>
>>>>>> OS X is not a Linux distro. Did you not know that or were you
>>>>>> feigning ignorance?
>>>>> I wouldn't even call it a BSD distro. Even if it includes some BSD
>>>>> components.
>>>> Why would you not call it a BSD distro? What does it take to qualify
>>>> as one?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A BSD kernel perhaps?
>>
>> Perhaps you ought to contact Apple and inform them they're mistaken
>> about their own OS?
>>
>> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
>> that underlies Mac OS X."
>>
>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
>
> Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on
> BSD (especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
And I'll continue to do so. Marketing hype from Apple is not the same as
the truth.
Snit
pan.2006.02.21....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/21/06 9:40 AM:
>>>> A BSD kernel perhaps?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you ought to contact Apple and inform them they're mistaken
>>> about their own OS?
>>>
>>> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
>>> that underlies Mac OS X."
>>>
>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
>>
>> Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on
>> BSD (especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
>
> And I'll continue to do so. Marketing hype from Apple is not the same as
> the truth.
What makes you think that OS X is not partially based on BSD/FreeBSD?
Liam Slider
> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> pan.2006.02.21....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/21/06 9:40 AM:
>
>>>>> A BSD kernel perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you ought to contact Apple and inform them they're mistaken
>>>> about their own OS?
>>>>
>>>> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
>>>> that underlies Mac OS X."
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
>>>
>>> Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on
>>> BSD (especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
>>
>> And I'll continue to do so. Marketing hype from Apple is not the same as
>> the truth.
>
> What makes you think that OS X is not partially based on BSD/FreeBSD?
I didn't say it wasn't *partly* based. In a rather loose sense... OS X is
based on *Darwin* at it's core, which in turn takes some components here
and there from BSD, and runs on a completely non-standard kernel (Mach, a
kernel no BSD actually uses) which has been further modified by Apple.
It's about as loosely based on BSD as you can possibly get. Hell, I'd say
it's a Unix in about the same sense that Linux is....somewhat vaguely
close relative, but not really.
Snit
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:42:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>> pan.2006.02.21....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/21/06 9:40 AM:
>>
>>>>>> A BSD kernel perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you ought to contact Apple and inform them they're mistaken
>>>>> about their own OS?
>>>>>
>>>>> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
>>>>> that underlies Mac OS X."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
>>>>
>>>> Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on
>>>> BSD (especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
>>>
>>> And I'll continue to do so. Marketing hype from Apple is not the same as
>>> the truth.
>>
>> What makes you think that OS X is not partially based on BSD/FreeBSD?
>
> I didn't say it wasn't *partly* based.
Snit: Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on
BSD (especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
Liam: And I'll continue to do so.
Did you simply misspeak? If so then no big deal. If not, I am curious how
you account for your apparent denial that OS X is partially based on BSD.
> In a rather loose sense... OS X is based on *Darwin* at it's core, which in
> turn takes some components here and there from BSD, and runs on a completely
> non-standard kernel (Mach, a kernel no BSD actually uses) which has been
> further modified by Apple. It's about as loosely based on BSD as you can
> possibly get. Hell, I'd say it's a Unix in about the same sense that Linux
> is....somewhat vaguely close relative, but not really.
There is no doubt that OS X is not completely based on BSD/FreeBSD. Apple
has done a lot of work and used ideas from elsewhere (Mach, Classic Mac OS,
etc.)
Timberwoof
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
Well, Edwin's quote-mining is not the same as the truth. The kernel is Mach; the
environment is BSD.
Liam Slider
Close, the environment is Darwin.
Edwin
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" - Jack Nickleson
"Mach explored the concept that we now refer to as a microkernel.
Instead of having all of the code for the operating system in a single
large program (called the kernel), the majority of the code would
instead be located in smaller programs known as servers which would run
like any other program. The kernel's job was reduced from essentially
"being" the OS, to maintaining the servers and scheduling their access
to hardware.
In theory this meant that changes to the OS required nothing more than a
re-loading of that single server program, as opposed to re-building OS
and restarting the machine. Only work on the Mach kernel itself would
require a restart, and in theory this should be a rare occurrence.
Mach is not an operating system on its own, and is largely unusable
without a set of servers - and those servers did not exist. In order to
get some sort of usable system up and running, the Mach authors ported
BSD onto the Mach kernel in a quick-and-dirty fashion: instead of
breaking down BSD into parts and building each of them as a server, they
simply compiled the entire kernel into one server and ran it. The result
was known as POE (which is distinct from the Perl Object Environment)."
http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Mach-kernel.html
Do you get it, Liam? "Mach is not an operating system on its own," the
BSD services are the operating system. Apple's OS is BSD, not Mach.
Liam Slider
<snip the "Mach is a microkernal bullshit" since it's not used that way in
OS X anyway>
> http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Mach-kernel.html
>
> Do you get it, Liam? "Mach is not an operating system on its own," the
> BSD services are the operating system. Apple's OS is BSD, not Mach.
I never said it was an OS, I said it was non-standard. As for the OS...it
is *not* BSD, it is *Darwin* under the hood. Darwin, not BSD.
Edwin
"Mach is not an operating system on its own, and is largely unusable
without a set of servers - and those servers did not exist. In order to
get some sort of usable system up and running, the Mach authors ported
BSD onto the Mach kernel in a quick-and-dirty fashion: instead of
breaking down BSD into parts and building each of them as a server, they
simply compiled the entire kernel into one server and ran it. The result
was known as POE (which is distinct from the Perl Object Environment)."
"Meanwhile several vendors took practical approaches to using Mach. The
BSD (or other) layer was run directly inside the kernel (thus avoiding
lots of context switches) which resulted in reasonable performance while
still retaining the advantages of multi-processing and an easy-to-use
threading model. However even these advantages have been eroded as the
various Unix vendors worked to provide them in their own products."
"Versions of Mach-based operating systems of this ilk were found in
OSF/1, NeXTSTEP, and IBM's OS/2 for the RS/6000-based machines - all of
which are no longer widely used. Other operating systems looked to
migrate to this sort of system as well, including Apple's Pink, IBM's
Workplace OS, and any number of others."
Edwin
The facts I supplied you with are not "bullshit." Your unsupported
statements, like the one above, are what's "bullshit."
>
>> http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Mach-kernel.html
>>
>> Do you get it, Liam? "Mach is not an operating system on its own," the
>> BSD services are the operating system. Apple's OS is BSD, not Mach.
>
> I never said it was an OS, I said it was non-standard.
You said Apple's OS is not BSD because it's based on Mach.
> As for the OS...it
> is *not* BSD, it is *Darwin* under the hood. Darwin, not BSD.
Apple says Darwin is BSD.
Edwin
The kernel and the environment are both BSD.
"XNU, the kernel, is derived from a number of sources, particularly Mach
3.0 and FreeBSD 5.x.
Mach
The core of the XNU kernel, Mach, provides kernel threads,
message-passing (used in inter-process communication), protected memory,
virtual memory management, real-time support, kernel debugging support,
and console I/O. The Mach component also allows the OS to host binaries
for multiple distinct CPU architectures within a single file (such as
x86 and PowerPC) due to its use of the Mach-O binary format.
BSD
The BSD portion of the kernel provides the POSIX API (BSD system calls),
the process model, basic security policies, user ids, permissions, the
networking code, the virtual filesystem code (including a filesystem
independent journalling layer), cryptographic framework, System V IPC,
and some of the locking primitives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Darwin
Aren't you tired of being wrong yet, Liam?
Peter Köhlmann
Only, he is right. And you are mentally unable to supply anything which
would remotely resemble "facts"
The Mach kernel in OSX is *not* used as a µ-kernel
Otherwise the Macs would be even slower than they already are
< snip more Edwin droppings >
--
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.
Liam Slider
OS X uses the Mach kernel as a monolithic kernel would be used, and not as
a microkernel would be used. using a microkernel as a monolithic kernel
does not make it a microkernel OS.
>
>
>>> http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Mach-kernel.html
>>>
>>> Do you get it, Liam? "Mach is not an operating system on its own,"
>>> the BSD services are the operating system. Apple's OS is BSD, not
>>> Mach.
>>
>> I never said it was an OS, I said it was non-standard.
>
> You said Apple's OS is not BSD because it's based on Mach.
I said that as one of many reasons. One of the non-standard components is
the Mach kernel. There are others. Sufficient to say it is not BSD,
>
>> As for the OS...it
>> is *not* BSD, it is *Darwin* under the hood. Darwin, not BSD.
>
> Apple says Darwin is BSD.
So if I download and run Darwin on x86....it is exactly, 100% a stock
standard BSD Unix? BSD vouches for this do they? What's the point of
calling it something different, and providing a seperate download and
seperate sources, if it's one of the BSDs (and which one, exactly)?
Liam Slider
Nothing there contradicts what I said. If anything it goes to show how
custom the system is. It is a system heavily modifed by Apple, right down
to the kernel (which isn't even properly Mach, but based on it).
Edwin
The articles I referenced and quoted are not facts?
> The Mach kernel in OSX is *not* used as a µ-kernel
> Otherwise the Macs would be even slower than they already are
The Mach kernel is a hybrid. It contains elements of both a microkernel
and a monolithic kernel.
[snip]
Edwin
Everything you said has been contradicted by the facts I have provided,
you just don't have the grace to admit you're wrong.
Apple's OS is BSD, its environment is BSD, and its kernel is BSD.
Darwin and Mac OS X are nothing without BSD.
TheLetterK
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:42:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>>"Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
>>pan.2006.02.21....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/21/06 9:40 AM:
>>
>>
>>>>>>A BSD kernel perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you ought to contact Apple and inform them they're mistaken
>>>>>about their own OS?
>>>>>
>>>>>"UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
>>>>>that underlies Mac OS X."
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
>>>>
>>>>Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on
>>>>BSD (especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
>>>
>>>And I'll continue to do so. Marketing hype from Apple is not the same as
>>>the truth.
>>
>>What makes you think that OS X is not partially based on BSD/FreeBSD?
>
>
> I didn't say it wasn't *partly* based.
I don't believe 'based on' (an absolute term) is really a good word to
describe OS X's relation to FreeBSD. I would think 'inspired by',
'incorporation portions of', or 'partially derived from' would all be
better terms to use. But, of course, Snit would like to stand by his
straw man.
> In a rather loose sense... OS X is
> based on *Darwin* at it's core, which in turn takes some components here
> and there from BSD,
Most of which come via Nextstep, IIRC.
> and runs on a completely non-standard kernel (Mach, a
> kernel no BSD actually uses) which has been further modified by Apple.
> It's about as loosely based on BSD as you can possibly get.
Hence why I think 'based on' is a bad term to use. It implies a stronger
level of association than is actually present.
TheLetterK
Mach is a microkernel, plain and simple. *XNU* (the kernel used by OS X)
is an amalgamation of Mach and BSD into something that is, well, like
both a monolithic kernel and microkernel at the same time. It's more
akin to Mach than it is BSD, but certainly includes aspects of BSD too.
Liam Slider
> Everything you said has been contradicted by the facts I have provided,
> you just don't have the grace to admit you're wrong.
The hell I have and the hell I don't.
>
> Apple's OS is BSD,
Nope.
> its environment is BSD,
It shares some similarities sure...a given since it's based on something
that's somewhat based on BSD...
> and its kernel is BSD.
Just because something is under BSD license doesn't make it BSD. Some BSD
components also do not make it BSD. Znu is a heavily modified, custom
kernel somewhat based on Mach....which itself is not the kernel of any BSD.
> Darwin and Mac OS X are nothing without BSD.
Oh absolutely, given that without the parts they took from it they'd not
work.
Edwin
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:27:05 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>
>> Everything you said has been contradicted by the facts I have provided,
>> you just don't have the grace to admit you're wrong.
>
> The hell I have and the hell I don't.
Your credibility and quality as a poster have taken a real nose dive.
>> Apple's OS is BSD,
>
> Nope.
The references I gave you say otherwise. That's why you snip and
ignore them.
>> its environment is BSD,
>
> It shares some similarities sure...a given since it's based on something
> that's somewhat based on BSD...
It's based on something that is exactly BSD. Even Apple says so.
>> and its kernel is BSD.
>
> Just because something is under BSD license doesn't make it BSD.
Nobody but you mentioned the BSD license.
> Some BSD
> components also do not make it BSD.
You ought to remember that argument for when your fellow Maccies are
saying Windows is a copy of Mac OS...
Apple itself says Darwin has BSD underneath.
> Znu is a heavily modified, custom
> kernel somewhat based on Mach....
That's Xnu, and the facts I quoted you show it's derived from both Mach
and BSD.
> which itself is not the kernel of any BSD.
Wrong. It's the kernel of Apple's BSD variant, and the facts I quoted
to you showed that the Mach creators used BSD to make the first
Mach-based OS.
>
>> Darwin and Mac OS X are nothing without BSD.
>
>
> Oh absolutely, given that without the parts they took from it they'd not
> work.
Right, they'd have no OS, or kernel, or environment, without the BSD
parts they took.
chrisv
>>
>> Apple's OS is BSD,
Damn, you are stupid. You almost make cretins like billwg look smart.
Rick
(snip)
>
> Apple says Darwin is BSD.
Uh, no. Apple says Darwin is 'BSD based'.
"UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies as mach and FreeBSD"
<http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/>
"Mach 3.0 microkernel, FreeBSD services,"
^^^^^^^ Does not = BSD.
"UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment that
underlies Mac OS X"
BSD environment does not = BSD.
And... where does FreeBSD say that Darwin is FreeBSD?
Oxford
> > Apple's OS is BSD,
>
> Nope.
>
> > its environment is BSD,
>
> It shares some similarities sure...a given since it's based on something
> that's somewhat based on BSD...
>
> > and its kernel is BSD.
>
> Just because something is under BSD license doesn't make it BSD. Some BSD
> components also do not make it BSD. Znu is a heavily modified, custom
> kernel somewhat based on Mach....which itself is not the kernel of any BSD.
>
>
> > Darwin and Mac OS X are nothing without BSD.
>
>
> Oh absolutely, given that without the parts they took from it they'd not
> work.
upon install, it clearly says "installing BSD"... so here's some quick
background info to help you understand...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tg.online/macfaq/articles/054.html
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:27:05 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>
>>> Everything you said has been contradicted by the facts I have provided,
>>> you just don't have the grace to admit you're wrong.
>>
>> The hell I have and the hell I don't.
>
> Your credibility and quality as a poster have taken a real nose dive.
Not really. I'm the only one of the two of us showing any sign of
intelligence whatsoever, so how can it be *my* credibility that's taking
a nose dive?
>
>>> Apple's OS is BSD,
>>
>> Nope.
>
> The references I gave you say otherwise. That's why you snip and
> ignore them.
I snipped your references because they were unimportant to the argument at
hand.
>
>>> its environment is BSD,
>>
>> It shares some similarities sure...a given since it's based on
>> something that's somewhat based on BSD...
>
> It's based on something that is exactly BSD. Even Apple says so.
No, it's based on darwin, which is not BSD, but merely based on BSD.
>
>>> and its kernel is BSD.
>>
>> Just because something is under BSD license doesn't make it BSD.
>
> Nobody but you mentioned the BSD license.
Oh then, fine, explain to me how this kernel is BSD if it runs on no
BSD...other than the OS you claim flasely to be a BSD, namely Darwin.
>
>> Some BSD
>> components also do not make it BSD.
>
> You ought to remember that argument for when your fellow Maccies are
> saying Windows is a copy of Mac OS...
My fellow maccies? I'm not a maccie, I'm a Linux advocate. One of the
better known people over at COLA, with at least somewhat of a solid
reputation I would hope. I also know a thing or two about *nix. Apple's
Darwin is not BSD.
>
> Apple itself says Darwin has BSD underneath.
Yes but, is Apple the group that decides what is and is not BSD? Just them
stating that something is a BSD does not make it so, no matter how rich
your company.
>
>> Znu is a heavily modified, custom
>> kernel somewhat based on Mach....
>
> That's Xnu, and the facts I quoted you show it's derived from both Mach
> and BSD.
Znu, Xnu, Snoo-snoo...I don't give a fuck what Apple calls it. It may
contain Mach elements, and various bits taken from BSD...but that doesn't
make it BSD. It makes it derived, in some small part, from BSD.
>
>> which itself is not the kernel of any BSD.
>
> Wrong. It's the kernel of Apple's BSD variant, and the facts I quoted
> to you showed that the Mach creators used BSD to make the first
> Mach-based OS.
There is no "Apple BSD", And Darwin itself is not simple "BSD+mach." If I
take FreeBSD (or any other stock standard BSD) and use Mach as the
kernel, then compare it piece by piece I will not find the two to be
identical. Darwin is *not* just BSD.
>
>
>>> Darwin and Mac OS X are nothing without BSD.
>>
>>
>> Oh absolutely, given that without the parts they took from it they'd
>> not work.
>
> Right, they'd have no OS, or kernel, or environment, without the BSD
> parts they took.
That does not mean the OS is BSD. Hell, Microsoft took a couple parts from
BSD here and there at one time to make Windows...that doesn't make
Windows a BSD by a fucking long shot.
Oxford
> > upon install, it clearly says "installing BSD"... so here's some quick
> > background info to help you understand...
>
> So?
earth to Liam, it simply means BSD is part of OSX. and while I agree
it's not purely based on BSD, it is based on the Mach kernel and the BSD
implementation of Unix.
Liam Slider
Oh please. I've already shown how Darwin is not BSD.
Oxford
> > earth to Liam, it simply means BSD is part of OSX. and while I agree it's
> > not purely based on BSD, it is based on the Mach kernel and the BSD
> > implementation of Unix.
>
> Oh please. I've already shown how Darwin is not BSD.
you have never "shown me" that, since i know full well it's not... but
here's further info for your continued education none the less...
With its open-source core based on FreeBSD 5.0 and the Mach 3.0
microkernel, Mac OS X is the best operating system ever for UNIX users.
With built-in support for the X Window System, IPv6, Kerberos
integration, and added POSIX, Linux, and System V API support, Mac OS X
easily runs your favorite open source software. With a CUPS-based print
and fax engine, plus a suite of command-line and Python interfaces to
Apple's Quartz graphics, it is easy to develop full-featured PDF
workflows. Mac OS X even automounts Macintosh, Windows, and UNIX file
servers directly in the Finder.
One of the most widely used implementations today, the Mac OS X kernel
includes support for more than 4 GB of memory and new system
notifications built around the BSD kqueue/kevent mechanism. The UNIX
environment provides a number of advanced features, including updated
UNIX command-line tools (see the Open Source page for the latest
versions available on Mac OS X), an enhanced terminal application,
terminal emulation with xterm-color functionality, a new Activity
Monitor application, and an LDAP-based directory services architecture.
Mac OS X also supports a number of application toolkits, including X11,
Tcl/Tk, Motif, and GLUT (the OpenGL Utility Toolkit).
Darwin is the open source UNIX-based foundation of Mac OS X. Darwin
integrates a number of technologies, including the Mach 3.0 microkernel,
operating system services based on FreeBSD 5 UNIX, high-performance
TCP/IP networking, and support for multiple integrated file systems.
Because the design of Darwin is highly modular, you can dynamically add
device drivers, networking extensions, and new file systems.
Mac OS X combines a robust and open UNIX-based foundation with the
richness and usability of the Macintosh interface, bringing UNIX
technology to the mass market. Apple has made open source and standards
a key part of its strategy and delivers an operating system built on a
powerful UNIX-based foundation that is innovate and easy to use.
Liam Slider
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > earth to Liam, it simply means BSD is part of OSX. and while I agree
>> > it's not purely based on BSD, it is based on the Mach kernel and the
>> > BSD implementation of Unix.
>>
>> Oh please. I've already shown how Darwin is not BSD.
>
> you have never "shown me" that, since i know full well it's not... but
> here's further info for your continued education none the less...
>
Then, since you know it isn't, will you stop pretending that OS X is a
BSD?
<snip>
Thank you Mr. Jobs for your wonderful bit of marketing spin.
Rick
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>> > earth to Liam, it simply means BSD is part of OSX. and while I agree
>> > it's not purely based on BSD, it is based on the Mach kernel and the
>> > BSD implementation of Unix.
>>
>> Oh please. I've already shown how Darwin is not BSD.
>
> you have never "shown me" that, since i know full well it's not... but
> here's further info for your continued education none the less...
>
> With its open-source core based on FreeBSD 5.0 and the Mach 3.0
> microkernel, Mac OS X is the best operating system ever for UNIX users.
> With built-in support for the X Window System, IPv6, Kerberos integration,
(snip Oxford's marketing tripe)
So, now you are showing that MacOS has caught up with the oter *nix
flavors.
Oxford
> > you have never "shown me" that, since i know full well it's not... but
> > here's further info for your continued education none the less...
>
> Then, since you know it isn't, will you stop pretending that OS X is a
> BSD?
I've never pretended... is it based on FreeBSD? yes... that's a fact.
"is" it BSD, nope! glad you are starting to figure this out...
> Thank you Mr. Jobs for your wonderful bit of marketing spin.
don't see any marketing... only facts... maybe you need to re-read it.
Edwin
You're not even worth a pimple on my ass.
Edwin
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:40:55 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> Apple says Darwin is BSD.
>
> Uh, no. Apple says Darwin is 'BSD based'.
>
> "UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies as mach and FreeBSD"
>
> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/>
>
> "Mach 3.0 microkernel, FreeBSD services,"
> ^^^^^^^ Does not = BSD.
>
> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment that
> underlies Mac OS X"
>
> BSD environment does not = BSD.
>
> And... where does FreeBSD say that Darwin is FreeBSD?
Continue with your struggle for comprehension, 'tard. You've fallen
far short... as usual...
Edwin
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:36:44 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>
>> upon install, it clearly says "installing BSD"... so here's some quick
>> background info to help you understand...
>
Omigod, Liam just dropped the Atom Bomb of Mac Advocacy, the dreaded
"so?"
Duck and cover! Duck and cover!
Rick
I just love it when the Eddies prove is (their?) stupidity.
Edwin
The only thing you've shown is your ego and your penchant for empty
bluster...
Edwin
Why does it hurt you so much to think of Mac OS X as a BSD variant?
Especially when Apple has no problem with it? Doubly so when the BSD
community has no problem with it?
"For starters, here is where you get information on the major BSD flavors:
Apple Mac OS X
The DragonFly BSD Project
FreeBSD
m0n0wall
The NetBSD Project
The OpenBSD Project
OpenDarwin
PC-BSD
PicoBSD
TrustedBSD "
Whoa! www.bsd.org lists Mac OS X, and Darwin, both as a "BSD flavor."
How dare they oppose the Mighty Liam, Self-proclaimed *nix Expert, and
wielder of the Power of "So?"
Edwin
IOW, your alias is "the Eddies."
Liam Slider
>> Thank you Mr. Jobs for your wonderful bit of marketing spin.
>
> don't see any marketing... only facts... maybe you need to re-read it.
Please, you're nothing but a market-droid that speak market-speak Oxtard.
Your posts are practically press releases.
>
> With its open-source core based on FreeBSD 5.0 and the Mach 3.0
> microkernel, Mac OS X is the best operating system ever for UNIX users.
Hah, that certainly debatable. And while Mach may be the kernel of OSX,
and may be designed to be a microkernel, OSX does not use Mach as a
microkernel (fortunately actually, the whole microkernel idea doesn't
really work well).
> With built-in support for the X Window System,
Rather poor support IMO...
> IPv6, Kerberos
> integration, and added POSIX, Linux, and System V API support, Mac OS X
> easily runs your favorite open source software.
Nothing Linux doesn't do...
>With a CUPS-based print
> and fax engine, plus a suite of command-line and Python interfaces to
> Apple's Quartz graphics, it is easy to develop full-featured PDF
> workflows.
This isn't exactly revolutionary either...
>Mac OS X even automounts Macintosh, Windows, and UNIX file
> servers directly in the Finder.
Also not exactly revolutionary, except in the Mac and Windows worlds
perhaps.
>
> One of the most widely used implementations today, the Mac OS X kernel
> includes support for more than 4 GB of memory and new system
> notifications built around the BSD kqueue/kevent mechanism. The UNIX
> environment provides a number of advanced features, including updated
> UNIX command-line tools (see the Open Source page for the latest
> versions available on Mac OS X), an enhanced terminal application,
> terminal emulation with xterm-color functionality, a new Activity
> Monitor application, and an LDAP-based directory services architecture.
> Mac OS X also supports a number of application toolkits, including X11,
> Tcl/Tk, Motif, and GLUT (the OpenGL Utility Toolkit).
That's wonderful Oxtard...nothing spectacular where I sit, but I'm happy
for you.
>
> Darwin is the open source UNIX-based foundation of Mac OS X. Darwin
> integrates a number of technologies, including the Mach 3.0 microkernel,
> operating system services based on FreeBSD 5 UNIX, high-performance
> TCP/IP networking, and support for multiple integrated file systems.
> Because the design of Darwin is highly modular, you can dynamically add
> device drivers, networking extensions, and new file systems.
Like any decently designed *nix.
>
> Mac OS X combines a robust and open UNIX-based foundation with the
> richness and usability of the Macintosh interface, bringing UNIX
> technology to the mass market.
Not exactly the first to do so, or the only doing so...
> Apple has made open source and standards
> a key part of its strategy and delivers an operating system built on a
> powerful UNIX-based foundation that is innovate and easy to use.
Under the surface yes, Apple likes Open Source. It doesn't seem to like
it above the surface however.
And I don't see what any of this has to do with the argument.
Timberwoof
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:42:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
> > "Liam Slider" <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> stated in post
> > pan.2006.02.21....@nospam.liamslider.com on 2/21/06 9:40 AM:
> >
> >>>>> A BSD kernel perhaps?
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps you ought to contact Apple and inform them they're mistaken
> >>>> about their own OS?
> >>>>
> >>>> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
> >>>> that underlies Mac OS X."
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/
> >>>
> >>> Yet there are those that *still* deny that OS X is partially based on
> >>> BSD (especially FreeBSD). Amazing!
> >>
> >> And I'll continue to do so. Marketing hype from Apple is not the same as
> >> the truth.
> >
> > What makes you think that OS X is not partially based on BSD/FreeBSD?
>
> I didn't say it wasn't *partly* based. In a rather loose sense... OS X is
> based on *Darwin* at it's core, which in turn takes some components here
> and there from BSD, and runs on a completely non-standard kernel (Mach, a
> kernel no BSD actually uses) which has been further modified by Apple.
> It's about as loosely based on BSD as you can possibly get. Hell, I'd say
> it's a Unix in about the same sense that Linux is....somewhat vaguely
> close relative, but not really.
Yeah, they're so different that the book "Mac OS X Tiger for Unix Geeks"[1] is
only a figment of my imagination. They're so vastly different that it was a
monumental chore to get X working on OS X, thereby enabling hundreds of Unix
applications to run on OS X with just a recompile. They're so different that all
the none of the commands you know to use in BASH will work at all on OS X.
Apache feels completely different, and iptables is a total mess. When it comes
to file permissions, they're not even on the same planet.
On the other hand, I could be mistaken.
[1] by Brian Jepson & Ernest E. Rothman, O'Reilly books, ISBN 0-596-00912-7
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Timberwoof
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Who are you and what have you done with the real Edwin?
Timberwoof
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Ah, that's the Edwin I know and remember.
Timberwoof
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
So how come development of BSD took off again after OS X got started, leading to
several significant releases after a period of near dormancy? Do you think it
maybe had something to do with Apple developing BSD and returning that work to
the mainstream BSD source?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
Is Edwin still here?
Thank heavens for the power of SLRN's scoring system.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD+/fVd90bcYOAWPYRAnl8AKCKzsUhrEf5YGOY2kdwNXpY60ughgCgq9OQ
34MAWLyLd97X4M5l9u02Dgk=
=blfJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
You know the system is fubared, when politics dictates to science.
Liam Slider
I never said it didn't have ties to BSD, nor did I ever say that they
didn't contribute to it.
Liam Slider
> Yeah, they're so different that the book "Mac OS X Tiger for Unix
> Geeks"[1] is only a figment of my imagination. They're so vastly
> different that it was a monumental chore to get X working on OS X,
> thereby enabling hundreds of Unix applications to run on OS X with just
> a recompile. They're so different that all the none of the commands you
> know to use in BASH will work at all on OS X. Apache feels completely
> different, and iptables is a total mess. When it comes to file
> permissions, they're not even on the same planet.
>
> On the other hand, I could be mistaken.
Hey, Linux isn't Unix, yet most of the above applies. I even have Unix
books that mention Linux right alongside the various forms of Unix...even
though it isn't really Unix.
Oxford
> > Thank you Mr. Jobs for your wonderful bit of marketing spin.
>
> Why does it hurt you so much to think of Mac OS X as a BSD variant?
> Especially when Apple has no problem with it? Doubly so when the BSD
> community has no problem with it?
>
> http://www.bsd.org/
>
> "For starters, here is where you get information on the major BSD flavors:
> Apple Mac OS X
> The DragonFly BSD Project
> FreeBSD
> m0n0wall
> The NetBSD Project
> The OpenBSD Project
> OpenDarwin
> PC-BSD
> PicoBSD
> TrustedBSD "
>
> Whoa! www.bsd.org lists Mac OS X, and Darwin, both as a "BSD flavor."
>
> How dare they oppose the Mighty Liam, Self-proclaimed *nix Expert, and
> wielder of the Power of "So?"
you can ignore Liam, he is on a dying platform (linux) it's just nobody
has told him yet. he's scared shitless now that OSX has become the
dominant *nix on the planet... and it's only going to accelerate from
here :)
TheLetterK
> Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
>
>>> you have never "shown me" that, since i know full well it's not... but
>>> here's further info for your continued education none the less...
>> Then, since you know it isn't, will you stop pretending that OS X is a
>> BSD?
>
> I've never pretended... is it based on FreeBSD? yes... that's a fact.
> "is" it BSD, nope! glad you are starting to figure this out...
>
>> Thank you Mr. Jobs for your wonderful bit of marketing spin.
>
> don't see any marketing... only facts... maybe you need to re-read it.
Why re-read a marketing release?
>
> With its open-source core based on FreeBSD 5.0 and the Mach 3.0
> microkernel,
That's really a very poor term for Apple to use, though I suppose they
need all the good press they can get with the *nix users. I mean,
really, it's not like those open source folks appreciate honesty.
> Mac OS X is the best operating system ever for UNIX users.
I'd put Solaris ahead of OS X. But if you were looking for a Unix-like,
these days, the *nix of choice is almost always going to be GNU/Linux.
> With built-in support for the X Window System,
*yawn*
> IPv6,
*yawn*
> Kerberos
> integration,
Hell, even *Windows* has kerberos support. Even if it is Microsoft's
'extended' variant.
> and added POSIX, Linux, and System V API support,
You mean like basically every other major Unix?
> Mac OS X
> easily runs your favorite open source software.
It doesn't run Xen, and many other applications.
> With a CUPS-based print
> and fax engine,
Uhh, there's a reason CUPS is called CUPS. "Common Unix Printing System".
> plus a suite of command-line and Python interfaces
So what's unique about it, save for Apple's schizophrenic userspace
design philosophy and undocumented tools?
> to
> Apple's Quartz graphics,
Seriously *not* impressive anymore.
> it is easy to develop full-featured PDF
> workflows.
PDF workflows? I'm not really sure why I would want to do anything with
PDFs other than create them and send them to others. Both of those tasks
are trivial on any modern *nix.
> Mac OS X even automounts Macintosh, Windows, and UNIX file
> servers directly in the Finder.
Wow, you mean Apple finally got around to implementing what every other
*nix user has had since at least 2000?
>
> One of the most widely used implementations today, the Mac OS X kernel
> includes support for more than 4 GB of memory and new system
> notifications built around the BSD kqueue/kevent mechanism.
Linux has supported more than 4GiB of RAM for at *least* 5 years now.
Neither is event notification unique to the BSDs and OS X.
> The UNIX
> environment provides a number of advanced features, including updated
> UNIX command-line tools (see the Open Source page for the latest
> versions available on Mac OS X)
*yawn*. Debian even keeps them up to date for me, automatically. Without
having to pay anyone for the latest version of the operating system.
> , an enhanced terminal application,
Even something like gnome-terminal is on par with OS X's Terminal.app.
> terminal emulation with xterm-color functionality,
Completely ubiquitous.
> a new Activity
> Monitor application,
This is unique how?
> and an LDAP-based directory services architecture.
Yes, what's unique here?
> Mac OS X also supports a number of application toolkits, including X11,
> Tcl/Tk, Motif, and GLUT (the OpenGL Utility Toolkit).
Wow, all of those are supported by just about any modern *nix! pretty
much any Linux distro these days is going to include support for all of
these and more.
>
> Darwin is the open source UNIX-based foundation of Mac OS X. Darwin
> integrates a number of technologies, including the Mach 3.0 microkernel,
> operating system services based on FreeBSD 5 UNIX, high-performance
> TCP/IP networking, and support for multiple integrated file systems.
In other words, it's straight out of the 90's.
> Because the design of Darwin is highly modular, you can dynamically add
> device drivers, networking extensions, and new file systems.
See; loadable kernel modules. Linux is *also* modular.
>
> Mac OS X combines a robust and open UNIX-based foundation with the
> richness and usability of the Macintosh interface,
Not much of a feat there, considering how poor the Macintosh interface
is in OS X.
> bringing UNIX
> technology to the mass market.
Like many other *nix vendors have been doing for years.
> Apple has made open source and standards
> a key part of its strategy
Yeah, they can exploit a bunch of OSS developers so they can keep
development costs low.
> and delivers an operating system built on a
> powerful UNIX-based foundation that is innovate and easy to use.
They didn't even mention a single feature that was unique to OS X.
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
rapskat
> "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" - Jack Nickleson
"YOU CAN'T EVEN SPELL HIS NAME RIGHT!" - Me.
--
rapskat - 01:54:04 up 1 day, 1:03, 3 users, load average: 0.38, 0.20, 0.18
"Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword."
Rei on slashdot.
TheLetterK
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thank you Mr. Jobs for your wonderful bit of marketing spin.
>> Why does it hurt you so much to think of Mac OS X as a BSD variant?
>> Especially when Apple has no problem with it? Doubly so when the BSD
>> community has no problem with it?
>>
>> http://www.bsd.org/
>>
>> "For starters, here is where you get information on the major BSD flavors:
>> Apple Mac OS X
>> The DragonFly BSD Project
>> FreeBSD
>> m0n0wall
>> The NetBSD Project
>> The OpenBSD Project
>> OpenDarwin
>> PC-BSD
>> PicoBSD
>> TrustedBSD "
>>
>> Whoa! www.bsd.org lists Mac OS X, and Darwin, both as a "BSD flavor."
>>
>> How dare they oppose the Mighty Liam, Self-proclaimed *nix Expert, and
>> wielder of the Power of "So?"
>
> you can ignore Liam, he is on a dying platform (linux) it's just nobody
> has told him yet.
Only Oxtard would consider a platform that has experienced substantial
and consistent positive growth over the last 5 years to be 'dying'. It
becomes even more amazing when you realize that the platform he
advocates has been *losing* marketshare over the same period.
> he's scared shitless now that OSX has become the
> dominant *nix on the planet...
Back in 2004 there were about 17 million Linux machines in the US, and
about 43 million world-wide. That number does not include free
distributions like Debian or Knoppix. Furthermore, Linux marketshare and
adoption rates have *increased* over the last year. This would place it
at least equal with, and likely well beyond OS X's userbase.
> and it's only going to accelerate from
> here :)
There's absolutely no reason to think that.
TheLetterK
Who maintains www.bsd.org, and what is their official capacity. In other
words, why should I listen to them?
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Darwin is not BSD, merely based somewhat on BSD with many changes. And the
> > Mach kernel isn't used on any BSD to my knowledge. So again.... Apple's
> > marketing hype is not the same as the truth.
>
> "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" - Jack Nickleson
Interesting spelling of Jack Nicholson's name. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:36:00 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>
>>> Rick wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:40:55 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>> Apple says Darwin is BSD.
>>>> Uh, no. Apple says Darwin is 'BSD based'.
>>>>
>>>> "UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies as mach and FreeBSD"
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/>
>>>>
>>>> "Mach 3.0 microkernel, FreeBSD services," ^^^^^^^ Does not = BSD.
>>>>
>>>> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
>>>> that underlies Mac OS X"
>>>>
>>>> BSD environment does not = BSD.
>>>>
>>>> And... where does FreeBSD say that Darwin is FreeBSD?
>>> Continue with your struggle for comprehension, 'tard. You've fallen
>>> far short... as usual...
>>
>> I just love it when the Eddies prove his (their?) stupidity.
>
> IOW, your alias is "the Eddies."
See what I mean?
Rick
"Owner/maintainer of site: Stephen Diercouff
tfm associates do not endorse or condone any information herein. Any
information contained here has no warranty or guarantee to work, but is
given in good faith. (So if you accidentally delete any data or rupture a
spleen while using the information in this webpage we're not responsible
and you're on your own.)"
--
Rick
Rick
Well, people should ignore you... you're on a dying platform (OS X)...
Oxford
> >> Whoa! www.bsd.org lists Mac OS X, and Darwin, both as a "BSD flavor."
> >>
> >> How dare they oppose the Mighty Liam, Self-proclaimed *nix Expert, and
> >> wielder of the Power of "So?"
> >
> > you can ignore Liam, he is on a dying platform (linux) it's just nobody
> > has told him yet.
>
> Only Oxtard would consider a platform that has experienced substantial
> and consistent positive growth over the last 5 years to be 'dying'. It
> becomes even more amazing when you realize that the platform he
> advocates has been *losing* marketshare over the same period.
it's certainly dying in the context of being compared to the growth of
osx. 14,000 osx boxes come online every 24 hours, which dwarfs the linux
boxes coming online during the same period. this disparity will only
increase as the Intel Macs become the top selling PCs and we are
starting to see the dying of cola as a result. csma has surpassed cola 3
of the last 4 months, which is totally unpresidended since around the
1999 timeframe. Cola peaked around 2002, and it's been a slow death ever
since. It's the result of OSX being released in 2001, nothing more.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/about
> > he's scared shitless now that OSX has become the
> > dominant *nix on the planet...
>
> Back in 2004 there were about 17 million Linux machines in the US, and
> about 43 million world-wide. That number does not include free
> distributions like Debian or Knoppix. Furthermore, Linux marketshare and
> adoption rates have *increased* over the last year. This would place it
> at least equal with, and likely well beyond OS X's userbase.
Not personal computers, but yes if you count TiVo's and other embedded
uses. there certainly aren't 17 million linux pc's used today in the
states, it's less than 5 million if that. add another few million for
servers, but nothing on the scale of OSX usage in the states.
> > and it's only going to accelerate from
> > here :)
>
> There's absolutely no reason to think that.
But that's the worldwide trend, Apple sells another 100,000 each and
every 90 days compared to the last quarter. Linux has nothing near this
type of uptick. Yes, linux remains strong in the server and embedded
space, but in terms of a single person using Linux as a personal system,
most all of them are moving to OSX.
Timberwoof
Liam Slider <li...@nospam.liamslider.com> wrote:
What size tractor did you have to use to move those goal posts? We were
discussing how BSD-like OS X is.
Timberwoof
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
What authority will you accept in this matter?
Rick
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Whoa! www.bsd.org lists Mac OS X, and Darwin, both as a "BSD
>> >> flavor."
>> >>
>> >> How dare they oppose the Mighty Liam, Self-proclaimed *nix Expert,
>> >> and wielder of the Power of "So?"
>> >
>> > you can ignore Liam, he is on a dying platform (linux) it's just
>> > nobody has told him yet.
>>
>> Only Oxtard would consider a platform that has experienced substantial
>> and consistent positive growth over the last 5 years to be 'dying'. It
>> becomes even more amazing when you realize that the platform he
>> advocates has been *losing* marketshare over the same period.
>
> it's certainly dying in the context of being compared to the growth of
> osx.
No, it isn't.
> 14,000 osx boxes come online every 24 hours, which dwarfs the linux
> boxes coming online during the same period. this disparity will only
Prove your numbers.
> increase as the Intel Macs become the top selling PCs and we are
> starting to see the dying of cola as a result. csma has surpassed cola 3
> of the last 4 months, which is totally unpresidended since around the
> 1999 timeframe. Cola peaked around 2002, and it's been a slow death ever
> since.
What do COLA postings have to do with Linux adoption? Uh.. nothing.
> It's the result of OSX being released in 2001, nothing more.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/about
>
>> > he's scared shitless now that OSX has become the dominant *nix on the
>> > planet...
>>
>> Back in 2004 there were about 17 million Linux machines in the US, and
>> about 43 million world-wide. That number does not include free
>> distributions like Debian or Knoppix. Furthermore, Linux marketshare
>> and adoption rates have *increased* over the last year. This would
>> place it at least equal with, and likely well beyond OS X's userbase.
>
> Not personal computers,
Prove it.
> but yes if you count TiVo's and other embedded
> uses. there certainly aren't 17 million linux pc's used today in the
> states, it's less than 5 million if that. add another few million for
> servers, but nothing on the scale of OSX usage in the states.
Prove it.
>
>> > and it's only going to accelerate from here :)
>>
>> There's absolutely no reason to think that.
>
> But that's the worldwide trend, Apple sells another 100,000 each and
> every 90 days compared to the last quarter. Linux has nothing near this
> type of uptick.
Prove it.
>Yes, linux remains strong in the server and embedded
> space, but in terms of a single person using Linux as a personal system,
> most all of them are moving to OSX.
Prove it.
Liam Slider
> he is on a dying platform (linux)
The hell?
Liam Slider
>> 14,000 osx boxes come online every 24 hours, which dwarfs the linux
>> boxes coming online during the same period. this disparity will only
>
> Prove your numbers.
He probably think iPods count as OS X boxes, even though they have no OS X
on them
Liam Slider
Trudging out the name of a book as evidence, gives me free reign to point
out there are plenty of Unix books out there discussing Linux as
well...even when it's not Unix. Your little bits of sarcasm, suggesting
the features OSX has as "proof" it's a BSD... are not any different than
the features that Linux has either. Is Linux a BSD too? Hell, Linux has
quite a few little bits of BSD code in it actually, came out in the whole
SCO thing.
Tim Smith
If he were counting iPods, the number would have been ~170000 every 24 hours
over the last quarter. Apple sold 14 million (~155000 every 24 hours) and
1.25 million Macs (~14000 every 24 hours).
--
--Tim Smith
Rick
mouthpiece with no concept of the non-Apple world.
--
Rick
Liam Slider
That's certainly true, hell he even thinks in Apple markret-speak.
TheLetterK
capacity to determine the BSD-likeness of OS X.
Edwin
> In article <95QKf.51070$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:27:05 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>>>> Apple's OS is BSD,
>>> Damn, you are stupid. You almost make cretins like billwg look smart.
>> You're not even worth a pimple on my ass.
>
> Ah, that's the Edwin I know and remember.
The one that throws insults back in people's faces?
Edwin
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 03:14:50 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:36:00 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:40:55 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>> Apple says Darwin is BSD.
>>>>> Uh, no. Apple says Darwin is 'BSD based'.
>>>>>
>>>>> "UNIX-based foundation built on such technologies as mach and FreeBSD"
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mach 3.0 microkernel, FreeBSD services," ^^^^^^^ Does not = BSD.
>>>>>
>>>>> "UNIX users will feel at home in Darwin, the robust BSD environment
>>>>> that underlies Mac OS X"
>>>>>
>>>>> BSD environment does not = BSD.
>>>>>
>>>>> And... where does FreeBSD say that Darwin is FreeBSD?
>>>> Continue with your struggle for comprehension, 'tard. You've fallen
>>>> far short... as usual...
>>> I just love it when the Eddies prove his (their?) stupidity.
>> IOW, your alias is "the Eddies."
>
> See what I mean?
Yes, The Eddies, I see what you mean. You need offer no further proof.
TheLetterK
> TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Whoa! www.bsd.org lists Mac OS X, and Darwin, both as a "BSD flavor."
>>>>
>>>> How dare they oppose the Mighty Liam, Self-proclaimed *nix Expert, and
>>>> wielder of the Power of "So?"
>>> you can ignore Liam, he is on a dying platform (linux) it's just nobody
>>> has told him yet.
>> Only Oxtard would consider a platform that has experienced substantial
>> and consistent positive growth over the last 5 years to be 'dying'. It
>> becomes even more amazing when you realize that the platform he
>> advocates has been *losing* marketshare over the same period.
>
> it's certainly dying in the context of being compared to the growth of
> osx. 14,000 osx boxes come online every 24 hours, which dwarfs the linux
> boxes coming online during the same period.
No, it doesn't. That's what the term 'marketshare' means, idiot. If
Apple is moving 14,000 OS X boxes every 24 hours, then the rest of the
industry is moving ~600,000 machines every 24 hours (according to the
2.3% marketshare figure). If so, then there would be roughly 21,000
commercial Linux installations in that *same* period of time.
> this disparity will only
> increase as the Intel Macs become the top selling PCs and we are
> starting to see the dying of cola as a result.
A) Intel Macs aren't going to *maintain* any sort of top-selling status
for very long.
B) Even if the Intel Macs are the top selling model of PC (which I doubt
very seriously), they *still* don't hold a candle to the rest of the
industry combined. It's not like GNU/Linux only runs on computers from
one manufacturer. Indeed, people could even install it on the Intel
Macs. I have no doubt that at least some people *will* do so in the
future, though probably not as many as before since there's no reason to
actually buy a Mac now.
> csma has surpassed cola 3
> of the last 4 months, which is totally unpresidended since around the
> 1999 timeframe.
So you have a lot of trolls. What's your point?
> Cola peaked around 2002, and it's been a slow death ever
> since. It's the result of OSX being released in 2001, nothing more.
Are you this delusional by nature, or do you work at it? It could be the
result of any number of things--an increased number of more technical
Linux newsgroups to field the previous questions, an increase in the
amount of troll feeding in CSMA, or possibly it was simply the
realization that no one actually pays attention to usenet posts and that
wasting your time arguing with trolls was just that.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/about
Which is a completely arbitrary and meaningless metric to measure
anything but activity in COLA.
>
>>> he's scared shitless now that OSX has become the
>>> dominant *nix on the planet...
>> Back in 2004 there were about 17 million Linux machines in the US, and
>> about 43 million world-wide. That number does not include free
>> distributions like Debian or Knoppix. Furthermore, Linux marketshare and
>> adoption rates have *increased* over the last year. This would place it
>> at least equal with, and likely well beyond OS X's userbase.
>
> Not personal computers, but yes if you count TiVo's and other embedded
> uses.
That's a figure generated by counting the sales figures for each of the
major commercial Linux distributors. TiVOs and other embedded Linux
devices are not included in that count. Just servers and desktops.
> there certainly aren't 17 million linux pc's used today in the
> states,
But there *are* 17 million Linux servers and desktops used in the states
today.
> it's less than 5 million if that.
That hasn't been the case since before 2001.
> add another few million for
> servers, but nothing on the scale of OSX usage in the states.
Right--it's more commonly used than OS X is.
>
>>> and it's only going to accelerate from
>>> here :)
>> There's absolutely no reason to think that.
>
> But that's the worldwide trend, Apple sells another 100,000 each and
> every 90 days compared to the last quarter.
And if Apple is selling 100,000 every 90 days (which is exactly what you
are saying), then there are ~130,000 Linux installations every 90 days.
Though I think you meant to say "Apple sells 100,000 more in every
quarter than they did in the antecedent quarter". I'm not really sure
why you want to trot out this figure, since OS X will *lose* this fight.
Linux adoption has done nothing but grow in the last 5 years, and the
rate at which it is being adopted has consistently improved throughout
the same period.
> Linux has nothing near this
> type of uptick.
If your numbers are accurate, then Linux has about 30,000 more
installations in the same time period.
> Yes, linux remains strong in the server and embedded
> space, but in terms of a single person using Linux as a personal system,
> most all of them are moving to OSX.
I can't think of *any* of the local Linux users who have abandoned Linux
in favor of OS X. I can think for a few who added Macs to their
collection, but none of them actually dropped Linux. I know that I and
many others have been annoyed by Apple's blatant misinformation
regarding their platform. We bought into this idea expecting Apple to
actually deliver a platform that acts like a BSD (or even some other
*nix), but instead we got screwed over with this useless Mac bullshit.
>
> http://www.apple.com/switch/
Apple couldn't even convince *Windows* users to move, what makes you
think they've managed to get a substantial number of Linux users?
Edwin
> In article <W%JKf.35858$F_3....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:27:05 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>>
>>>> you just don't have the grace to admit you're wrong.
>>> The hell I have and the hell I don't.
>> Your credibility and quality as a poster have taken a real nose dive.
>>
>>>> Apple's OS is BSD,
>> The references I gave you say otherwise. That's why you snip and ignore
>> them.
>>
>>>> its environment is BSD,
>>> It shares some similarities sure...a given since it's based on something
>>> that's somewhat based on BSD...
>> It's based on something that is exactly BSD. Even Apple says so.
>>
>>>> and its kernel is BSD.
>>> Just because something is under BSD license doesn't make it BSD.
>> Nobody but you mentioned the BSD license.
>>
>>> Some BSD components also do not make it BSD.
>> You ought to remember that argument for when your fellow Maccies are saying
>> Windows is a copy of Mac OS...
>>
>> Apple itself says Darwin has BSD underneath.
>>
>>> Znu is a heavily modified, custom kernel somewhat based on Mach....
>> That's Xnu, and the facts I quoted you show it's derived from both Mach and
>> BSD.
>>
>>> which itself is not the kernel of any BSD.
>> Wrong. It's the kernel of Apple's BSD variant, and the facts I quoted to you
>> showed that the Mach creators used BSD to make the first Mach-based OS.
>>
>>>> Darwin and Mac OS X are nothing without BSD.
>>>
>>> Oh absolutely, given that without the parts they took from it they'd not
>>> work.
>> Right, they'd have no OS, or kernel, or environment, without the BSD parts
>> they took.
>
> Who are you and what have you done with the real Edwin?
This is hardly the first time I've made logical arguments backed up with
references. For all the good it does me...
Sandman
Edwin <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> > Who are you and what have you done with the real Edwin?
>
> This is hardly the first time I've made logical arguments backed up with
> references. For all the good it does me...
Yeah, I've seen it once before, too. :)
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/fdb99b5e064c8
5cb>
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
TheLetterK <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> > Yes, linux remains strong in the server and embedded
> > space, but in terms of a single person using Linux as a personal system,
> > most all of them are moving to OSX.
>
> I can't think of *any* of the local Linux users who have abandoned Linux
> in favor of OS X. I can think for a few who added Macs to their
> collection, but none of them actually dropped Linux.
All my Linux using friends have moved completely to OSX now, and I
have fewer references for my Linux inquiries. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Edwin
http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_fs.html
"Like most modern day operating system implementations, Mac OS X uses an
object-oriented vnode layer. xnu's VFS layer is based on FreeBSD's,
although there are numerous minor differences..."
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/2q00/macos-qna/macos-x-qa-3.html
"The Kernel
Q: I have read that Mac OS X uses the BSD kernel, but I have also read
that it uses the Mach kernel. Which is it?
A: The Mach microkernel is the foundation of Mac OS X. (A brief
introduction to Mach is available at Stepwise.) Mach provides basic
hardware abstraction, memory allocation, process management (including
threads), and interprocess communication. But Mach by itself is not a
complete kernel. It does not provide device i/o, networking, file system
support, high-level APIs suitable for application development, or many
other services associated with a full-fledged operating system kernel.
Mach is designed to host these missing services on top of its
platform-independent base functionality. The most common source for
these services has historically been BSD Unix. The BSD subsystem
implements the full set of APIs and services provided by BSD Unix, but
it leverages Mach to perform memory allocation, process management, and
so on. In an operating system with a real BSD kernel (e.g. FreeBSD,
NetBSD, OpenBSD), the BSD kernel does all this heavy lifting itself..."
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/mosxgeeks/
"If you're one of the many Unix developers drawn to Mac OS X for its BSD
core,"
http://loadaveragezero.com/app/drx/Software/Operating_Systems/Unix/Mac_OS_X
"The Apple Mac OS X operating system is built from the Open Source
Darwin Mach 3.0 microkernel and FreeBSD architectures."
http://www.samspublishing.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0672327465&rl=1
"Written by Unix/BSD experts and Mac users, John Ray and William C. Ray,
you will go inside the Mac OS X Tiger operating system and the
underlying BSD environment. "
"There are many mini tutorials about various BSDs across the web, but
they never seem complete or all that easy to follow. BSD Guides was
created to bring them all together and make sense of them for you. We
want to be your one stop to know how to do stuff with FreeBSD, NetBSD,
OpenBSD, & Mac OS X."
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/5610
"OS X is built on Darwin, an open-source implementation of BSD on a Mach
kernel."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596006071/102-5727155-8700129?v=glance&n=283155
Mac OS X Panther for Unix Geeks (Paperback)
by Brian Jepson, Ernest E. Rothman (Publisher)
"...The Mac has always been an efficient tool, pleasant to use and
customize, and eminently hackable. But now with Mac OSŽ X's BSD core,
many a UnixŽ developer has found it irresistible..."
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3092
"Tuesday - June 26, 2001
BSD guru to guide Apple on Unix
By Macworld staff
Apple has recruited FreeBSD founder Jordan Hubbard to its team, in a bid
to steer its Mac OS X BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) efforts.
In a letter circulating within the FreeBSD community, Hubbard announced
his plans to head-up this work for Apple. Primarily interested in Mac OS
X and its BSD sub-system, he will also help develop Darwin. FreeBSD is
the flavour of Unix chosen by Apple to act as the core of Mac OS X.
BSD is an open-source UNIX resource for users of the various commercial
and freely-available BSD operating systems.
"Those who've been following my writings about, and enthusiasm for, OS X
lately won't be surprised by my going to work for Apple," Hubbard said.
"OS X has finally managed to achieve the Holy Grail of the Unix
community - a powerful Unix core [BSD] combined with a usable desktop,
graphical user-interface development tools and real applications,
without sacrificing access to Unix's underlying features."
Until recently, Hubbard was principal technologist at Wind River
Systems. He also co-founded the FreeBSD project, and will continue to
work with that project. "
Snit
I51Lf.15863$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com on 2/22/06 10:22 AM:
> TheLetterK wrote:
Is TheLetterK *still* denying that OS X is partially based on BSD (esp.
FreeBSD)? Holy cow. The man does not have the capacity to learn!
--
Sex-based crimes are not synonymous with sex
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account