Slashdot Mirror
JKH on OS X
Jordan Hubbard, co-founder of the FreeBSD Project speaks out about OS X, its significance to the geek, and whether it may be the David that brings about Goliath Microsoft's downfall, in this Salon.com article.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
If Microsoft thought there was any chance of that, they wouldn't have propped Apple up with their development and money (Office suite, IE - both of which keep the Mac alive.)
How about the fact that M$ spent tons of money on the new Office (2001) yet somehow "forgot" to carbonize it in the process. This clearly will keep a lot of people from moving to OS X as quickly as they would otherwise have.
>MS only invested 1 million dollars in Apple which at the time
Actually, it was $150 million. Here's the press release from back then. It was at MacWorld in August 1997 -- I'll never forget Bill Gates suddenly appearing on the huge projection screen, suspiciously like the guy in the '1984' commercial.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Microsoft has absolutely nothing to worry about in terms of competition from MacOS X. The most significant reason is beacuse MacOS X currently runs on the PowerPC architechture only. I realize that Darwin has been ported to x86, but until the Aqua, Cocoa, etc. makes its way to another platform, it is going to be no real threat. It isn't like everyone is going to be so wowed by MacOS X and go out and buy a new G4.
Also, despite the fact that MacOS X is based on a BSD kernel, it lacks a lot of the features that you would expect from a *nix OS. Mainly it has pisspoor X11 support. That makes porting applications to MacOS X a bitch. It also doesn't come preinstalled with the development tools like gcc/cc/etc. So even if you did want to compile a program for your computer you'll have to go out of your way to do so. It obviously isn't intended to be much of a threat with its UNIX capabilities.
What MacOS X does offer however is a great interface. Admittedly, it will disturb many long term Mac users that are familiar with a platinum interface, but it seems to be much more efficiant and intuitive. Also the Mac will finally have all the features that a modern OS should have: protected memory, memory paging, preemtive multitasking, symmetric multiprocessing, the list goes on and on. It will be a gigantic, and long needed step in the right direction for the Apple platform, but it still isn't the überOS that is going to give Redmond something to worry about.
A lot of design concepts that came out of NEWS found their way back into Java, because both were designed by the same person. Unfortunately, the best bits died... For one, NEWS code on a (now ancient) SPARCstation 1 run circles around Java on my Pentium III performancewise...
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
Take QNX RTP/4 for example. It can stay up and functional regardless of the situation, even through hardware installations. This is an assett for many uses; Nuclear Fuel monitoring, etc... Try that with a monolithic kernel.
OK, FreeBSD is also very portable, but it is also a monolythic kernel design, like LINUX. (is FreeBSD also available on Mainframes ??) But do not assume, that Mach3 gains the protability of FreeBSD !! At last, please only count real distributions not possible hacks !!
It's NetBSD! Not FreeBSD!
On the MainFrame issue... Show me any corporation that uses Linux on a mainframe (for actual work), and I'll show you one poorly managed corporation. Anyway, to answer your question, NetBSD isn't available on a mainframe, but is Linux available (functionaly) on a VAX?
---------------------------
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire
The BeOS kernel is not a microkernel, it's straight monolithic. It does however do a lot of work in userland with system servers (daemons), like screen painting (app_server), input monitoring (input_server), networking (net_server), etc...
Do you even know what a microkernel is? The very essence of the design is that it incorporates the smallest amount of stuff into kernel space as possible, and still maintains functionality. An ultra-small kernel is *not* indicative of resource hogging, an ultra-large monolithic kernel (like Linux) *is*.
Last not least, the most portable OS is Linux. Hard to say, but this is the reality, and last not least it is faster.
Complete and utter bullshit, just like everything else you've said up to this point. Have you ever heard of NetBSD sir?
Nobody takes profit from the "adavantages" of the microkernel architecture, because erverybody uses a SVR4 or a BSD personality. The Mach seems only to be designed, to emulate off the self environments, thats not an advantage !!!
Everybody? I've never heard of any law or decree that states that you must incorporate a UNIX layer atop of a microkernel foundation, have you? See, there's this OS called QNX RTP/4 that doesn't actually do this, and is pretty much heralded as a microkernel done right.
---------------------------
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire
I'm sorry, but what you're saying is all completely irrelevant. Really, I'm sure Apple could care less about this microkernel vs monolithic debate. Yes, Mach is not a good microkernel. Yes, Mach's system call overhead is excessive. And yes, there are more efficient microkernels available today (like L4, QNX's). But it's not a big enough factor for Apple to need to care. Apple isn't trying to compete with Ultra Enterprise servers here. They're trying to make a desktop operating system. Besides, Digital UNIX (OSF/1) is Mach based, and it's worked well enough.
Apple's choice of Mach made sense, and I'll tell you why because it isn't very obvious. First, Apple didn't have the resources to build an operating system from scratch. They wanted something free, which basically restricted them to BSD, Linux, Mach+BSD, or Mach+Linux. But they also wanted to be able to make proprietary modifications and not have to release the source code. That eliminates Linux. So now they're left with BSD, or a Mach/BSD combo. Now the problem with plain BSD is that there is still no kernel multithreading available. And FreeBSD SMP is still primitive, and will be completely overhauled when it's merged with BSD/OS. Apple needed something already proven. Mach gives you kernel multithreading and SMP, and it's BSD licensed. Mach 3.0 was finished years ago. It's known to work. And there has been a BSD-licensed BSD servers for Mach (called Lites) ever since 4.4BSD was released. So Apple didn't have to put much work into porting FreeBSD onto Mach either.
And then, of course, OpenStep/NeXTStep are Mach/BSD, so there isn't much application level porting to be done.
I'm not going to tell you that Darwin will be as fast and efficient as Linux. But even if it isn't, it doesn't matter. The performance difference will not be an important issue. The important issue is that Apple is able to focus more of their talent on what they know best: GUI design. And Darwin is still plenty compatible with FreeBSD and Linux. Mac OS X will sell because of Aqua, not because it used Darwin over some other UNIX OS.
People should really stop making a big deal out of this Mach thing. You're making mountains out of mole hills.
1) Comparing NeXTSTeP with Linux is a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic whatsoever! Does "Groovie" even understand that in Darwin an IPC call is merely a function call? The Darwin and NeXTSTeP kernels are not comparable. Do some research before posting in such an apodictic fashion!
2) KDE is a joke, Gnome is a worse joke. You're obviously not a programmer or have a clue about UI design. Both KDE and gnome are full of flash and no substance. GNUstep is another matter, but I see you failed to mention it.
GUIs pay no dividends until all applications in one user environment not only look but also behave the same. Only then is it easier to use a GUI because then you don't have to learn an interface from scratch. There are two methods to get programmers to adhere to such standards, either publish them and only buy products which adhere to the explicit (and often implicit) UI conventions or create an OO application framework whereby each graphical component (in appearance and behavior) is abstracted from the actual code. Apple Macintosh implemented the former while NeXT OPENSTEP implemented the latter.
Neither KDE or Gnome implement either.
Another reason OS X is a billion times better than your Linux/KDE2 environment is the display server Quartz. Quartz is designed for desktop publishing. Anything seen can be printed (rendered) as PDF, PS, or raster. It also supports Color Sync so when I send a smoke image to an OS X user he will actually be able to see it which is less than I can say about a GIMP user I know.
Kind evangelism of crap doesn't get you respect unless it's about Linux on slashdot it seems!
---
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
While I think Apple has no reason to give avain the cool parts of their new operating system, there are a few things that, if given away, could help both the Macintosh and the Unix community:
It would, in any case, prompt the debate about an alternative to X11 which would be a good thing.
I won't pretend that these will change the world or endanger Microsoft or whatever, but it could offer some opportunities for both communities. And it does not endanger any revenue streams from Apple.
> Take QNX RTP/4 for example. It can
...
This is a different market !!! OK, i accept, that
QNX may be a good solution for real-time
application.
But hardware installation is not a feature, that
is only available on mikro-kernel architetures.
The old SVR4 based reliant system made by
pyramid (now SIEMENS) offered a similar feature
for devices (i think also the CPU). You can be
sure, that this will be also available for
LINUX, cause this kernel support for late-device
driver binding, so called kernel-modules.
> It's NetBSD! Not FreeBSD
OK, sometime i get confused with the exisiting
BSD implementations.
> On the MainFrame issue... S
Actually, i can not! Be sure in future you will
find some users of Linux-390. IBM is willing to
bring this solution to the customer, by offering
a low price CPU bundeld with a Linux distribution.
They want to sell hardware, and the problem is
the license-model of third party software
suppliers. In order to bring down the high prises
they support LINUX and -you can be sure- customers
will buy it. They are looking forward to have
more choices in future !!!
((()))
Ahem, you also recognized, that we got out of
the origin scope of discussion. Maybe you can
life with a more moderate argument, that there
exist some use-cases for mikro-kernel architecture, i.e. real-time
... and there is also a product available called
BeOS, that seems to be also a micro-kernel
implementation with remarkable advantages over
traditional UNIX'e.
But, my old these still remains !!! The
MacOS-X is only used (and also presented within
the article) as a symbiosis between a modern
GUI and a well known BSD interface. OK, and my
stricture is found upon the conclusion, that
the use of Mach is a architecual overkill, with
no real gain(profit) for the customer.
Instead of this, he has to pay for the costly
architecutr by losing memory ressources and
performance.
Why did not use Apple a simple (and faster)
OS like Linux or xxxBSD ???
> Actually this is quite ignorant, many of the > features needed to deliver the higherlevel > services depend extensively upon the mach > message passing (wich is extremely high > prefromance). No, absolutly not !! A simple UNIX-byte bench shows the difference. A Mach system is half as fast like a modern monolythic OS like Linux. You need specific instructions, to profit from a message-passing system (like transputers). Today's processors are not well designed for to support the message passing architectures, so they are slower !!
I expected a better quality of that article, but
unfortunately the author is only scratching
the very surface of the Mac-X, getting excitet
by simple eye-catcher. He absolutly fails to take
a critical look behind the curtains, so this
publication is simple propaganda.
Let me explain wy.
=(1)= The author seems not to be interested in the
kernel design, especially the differences between
a monolythic and a mikrokernel architecture. He
seemed, willing to sell us this system as a
feature mixture of FreeBSD and Mach3, ignoring
the adantages and disadvantages for the user.
He failed to explain, that a microkernel is
a message passing architecture, that deals with
mutlithreading, serveral basic kernel serices,
that are running as a kernel-process.
A simple Mach-Mirkokernel comes with very basic
functionality, on this ground there a futher
so called personalities, that provides a known
OS interface to the running applications.
The FreeBSD Code is split up into a Kernel-Driver
Part, and a BSD-personality, that provides a
system, that is similar to the well known BSD-API.
So up to know, there is no real advantage over a
traditional BSD System, because most Implementations
only suppots one personality, that is common
with a traditional off-the-self OS, so the arcticle
did not left out any advantages, cause there exist not
any !!!
All the time, UNIX-microkernels OS'ies do not
profit from their adavantages, they almost spent
their time, emulating known UNIX layer, congratulation !!
Now, lets face the disatvantages, and there are two
of very importance:
1) Memory usage: Hey in oder of keeping your inefficient
circus running, you need also memory. So thats a
real disadvantage !!!
2) Efficiency, Performance: Yeh, and also you need
computing ressources, to get these inefficent operatins
running, to get you simple UNIX-call running.
So wy, and that is the question Jorda barly forgot
to ask us, why should it not be better to use the
original ????? OK, he got excitet with the graphical
representation of the start-up, but this is only
a nice gimmick, but not a quality feature !!!
A simple performance comparison makes clear what
i mean. Some years ago, i had a Intel-i486 based
Workstation with NextStep (Mach2.5) and a similar
Linx-Box on a similar hardware configuration. With
the Byte-Becnmarks, the Linux box outperforms the
NextStep platform by 2 times !!!
Hey Jordan, thst's an argument !!!
=(2)= Let's see what he thinks abount GUI.
Nice to recognize, that he believes in the open source
community, especially he mentioned KDE and Gnome. The situation
can be better analysed by a visit of a professional computer
exposition like the Systems2000 (in Munich, Germany/Europe).
Fact is the acceptance of the KDE-GUI (more than Gnome) several
exposition-booth of Software Tools AND some Application vendors.
Apple-GUI did not play a role on this exposition, in contrast
to especially KDE. So Jordan's GUI-argument is histroy, absolutely.
No question. Apple-Boxes have a good design, are reliabel and offer
a good performance. This is good platform for me, to install Linux
with KDE2 on it !!! (or BSD iff you really want this)
That's all folks !!!
True, OS X won't topple microsoft, but it could play a key role. The fact is that Apple is a hardware manufacturer filling a niche market for higher priced / higher quality machines aimed at graphic designers and desktop publishing. OS X is a great move by them to get a more powerful OS underneath and form a great path into taking over another niche market - the one SGI once held so well - namely the higher priced / higher quality machines used for 3D and other movie magic.
The iMac is their product for the consumer 'microsoft' market and while doing well it's never going to be a 'killer' threat to the budget PC market where microsoft lives. If Apple ever moves out of being a hardware manufacturer things may change, but I can't see it happening any time soon.
Technical superiority has never been the key factor in dominance - just look at Win3.1 vs. Mac, or indeed Dos vs Mac.
This is an excellent point and one that has been proven time and time again by the console wars, and truely hammered home by microsoft's dominance. It's not the specs of the console, or the smoothness of the OS. It's the software (and games) you can get for it. Now this is a key point because Apple has just brought across some major players into the UNIX world.
We've now got software companies like Adobe porting to UNIX and I've just finished reading that Maya has been announced for Linux (to be release 'about the same time as the Mac OS X version').
Basically this helps to take out one of the major hurdles to any OS, getting the software there, as once you have ported to one flavor of UNIX it's a small step to port to another. There's more to winning the consumer market that just this but it's one of the biggies.
I'm personally interested to see who will take the next step (ie. show an impressive advantage/reason for the average user to switch from what's pre-built on their machine) and am curious to see if it will be Linux or if some other UNIX (QNX , GNU/Hurd, other) will manage to get in.
Is display PDF all that much different than Display PostScript that the NeXT machines used? Using a vector-based format for display is a cool idea (iirc ps and pdf were vector-based, but maybe I'm just smoken dercrackenpipen).
Anyway, since display postscript hasbeen around a while, that might be a better canidate for some open source activism, rather than the company's latest and greatest. (There may already be a free analog, not sure. If so then even better, the code release would help the free project.) :-) Besides, I think that the possibility of Apple ever being really openis minimal, one second spent with MaCOS or Apple hardware will convince you of exactly how Closed their design philosophy seems to be...
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
[quote]
GUIs pay no dividends until all applications in one user environment not only look but also behave the same. Only then is it easier to use a GUI because then you don't have to learn an interface from scratch. There are two methods to get programmers to adhere to such standards, either publish them and only buy products which adhere to the explicit (and often implicit) UI conventions or create an OO application framework whereby each graphical component (in appearance and behavior) is abstracted from the actual code. Apple Macintosh implemented the former while NeXT OPENSTEP implemented the latter.
[end quote]
typical Apple/M$ fan bullshit. Consistency is nice, but don't presume to tell me what is more or less usable for my windowing environment. I personally like having a very minimal window manager and a shit load of xterms, which most MacOS nitwits would decry as being abyssal in the usability category. Useability depends on the user, you turd!
[quote]
Another reason OS X is a billion times better than your Linux/KDE2 environment is the display server Quartz. Quartz is designed for desktop publishing. Anything seen can be printed (rendered) as PDF, PS, or raster. It also supports Color Sync so when I send a smoke image to an OS X user he will actually be able to see it which is less than I can say about a GIMP user I know.
[endquote]
Yes, we all know how often we need to send screenshots to grandma as PDF files. Color sync is irrelevant unless you want everyone to use the eaxct same OS. Personally all the color sync I need is 16 shades of gray.
On a side note, attacking his English skills is pretty fucking low since he's obviously not a native speaker by his word ordering. I'm sure he speaks English a damn sight better than you speak his native tongue. Expecting all the world to speak flawless English is incredibly arrogant, and unfortunately that's what most of the world associates with English speakers thanks to people like you. Try taking a Russian or Asiatic language class before you upbraid someone on linguistic matters again...
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I have two computers at home, one with MacOS X PB and one with BeOS 5 Pro. BeOS is nice, easy to use, and fast....but.....it lacks something that MacOS OS X PB does have, utilities. There is currently a movement to "Macify" Unix utilities in MacOS X. One can already get GUI NFS managers, GUI Firewall setups, etc that use the standard BSD utilities that ship with OS X. Along with Carbonization of apps (which are already showing up), MacOS X PB already has more easy to use utilities and apps than BeOS. This isn't meant to knock Be. Be can't control what it's user/developer base does, but the Mac developer base has YEARS of experience in developing easy to use apps, while the Be community does not.
Burn Hollywood Burn
OS X will not be the thing that topples Microsoft.
If Microsoft thought there was any chance of that, they wouldn't have propped Apple up with their development and money (Office suite, IE - both of which keep the Mac alive.)
OS X is very nice, but so is BeOS, and that's not about to topple MS either. Microsoft's genius (or rather IBM's laxness when they made the original IBM PC) is making the software for 30000 different manufacturers - the competition means that 30000 different ads advertise MS-based PCS, whereas only 1 advertises Apple.
Technical superiority has never been the key factor in dominance - just look at Win3.1 vs. Mac, or indeed Dos vs Mac. The technical gap was bigger then - and MS didn't have the vast, vast armies of products tieing people into its OS - server products like Exchange and NT Server, or even a dominant office suite - and it didn't happen then, so it sure as hell ain't going to happen now.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
Jordan writes that open-sourcing OS X would be a "very bold and aggressively forward-thinking" thing for Apple to do. That may be an understatement; I'm sure there are many at Apple who feel it would be suicide.
Apple makes a lot of their money from selling hardware. Say what you want about the price/performance of that hardware, people buy it not just because of its looks (perhaps in spite of them), but because it is the only way to obtain the Mac GUI and run Mac apps. Open-source all of OS X, and in a matter of weeks the Mac GUI will be running on non-Apple hardware that costs a third of Apple's prices, and in a matter of months the Mac apps will start to follow. At least this would be their fear, and it is hardly a groundless one.
I agree with Jordan that leveraging OS X's open-source-friendly Unix base with the Mac GUI and apps would create a major force to be reckoned with -- perhaps even the Microsoft-toppling force he envisions. But I don't think Apple sees their share of that potential market as offsetting the downside to their hardware business. Perhaps there is a way they can assure a sufficient fraction of the resulting software market to make up for that loss, but I've yet to see a convincing argument of how they could do so.