Slashdot Mirror
Linux and Mac OS X
William J writes "Here is an article with an interesting slant on the relationship between the Mac OS and Linux. The author suggests that Gnome and KDE developers can learn from the Mac GUI. Worth quoting: 'It is amazing to me that an OS which was developed largely by volunteers (and which is essentially free) can run with unprecedented stability on the same hodgepodge of PC hardware on which another company has spent billions of dollars in R&D costs and is still unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing -- and it costs hundreds of dollars.'"
I'll tell you what, I don't really like all the eye candy that goes on in MacOS, but if we can get Gnome or KDE to be as easy to use/learn, it would definately be a great thing.
What the heck is the point of this article? OS X is more polished than KDE/Gnome, Windows is not so stable, you can use Linux as a server for Macs... News at eleven!
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
why?
/. crew.
so mac's use BSD code
so does windows and we don't have "woo those windows boxes are so cool, I'm drooling" from the
Well we did when DiabloII came out..
Wel in fact lets just change it do DosDot and have done
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
That's the whole thing about Linux, KDE and Gnome... You're not limited to one combination of hardware and software. All these articles which put KDE and Linux together are missing that point.
> I was unable to get a Windows 2000 PC to see any
> Macs (OSX or 9) on the network or vice-versa.
I don't want to be tough, but I've had no problems getting my Mac to load Windows servers via SAMBA. I do it every day, and I'd hardly say I'm an expert at SAMBA. So I'd say that rather than this being an OS X or Windows limitation, this guy may just "lack the skills to pay the bills". What was the point of the article again?
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Really, people don't need management to accomplish something. Given the resources (money and time) people can and will do productive things for society.
Monkey sense
Why isn't someone undertaking a port of Aqua to Linux? It is build on top of a Unix system, after all. It wouldn't have to be a perfect copy, maybe just a set of APIs mostly compatible with Carbon APIs.
:
.Net clones, why not do someting actually useful?
The advantages of this are
(a) you have sound user interface design for free
(b) you have an instant installed base familiar with the user interface
(c) you have many applications which can be ported possibly with a minimum of effort.
Something like this would definately put it up Apple. But it does make sense. If people can rush off and build
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
The deal is, OSX is cool.
I was a mac hater, but OSX + mac hardware was enough to make me switch from Linux as my primary platform. It's the best of both worlds, eye-candy with a large application base.
"unable to produce a product which can run for more than a few days without crashing"
Has the submitter even used OSX? I've been using it daily since October and it has only crashed on me once. The majority of OSX users do not rebooted their Macs, they just put them to sleep. Remeber, Macs have instant wake-up from sleep, unlike Windows or Linux.
OSX uptime is typcially measured in weeks, not days.
Has the submitter even read the article? I've read the article and it was talking about MSWindows and not OSX. The majority of UNIX users do not rebooted their boxes, they just leave them running. Remember, UNIX stay running without crashing and memory leaks, unlike Windows or MacOS.
Linux uptime is typically measured in months not weeks.
This was in fact a reference to Windows, not Mac OSX.
On the subject of Windows stability. If you're not using that crap VIA puts out, but instead use tested Intel solutions, it is not an issue. Since my migration to Windows 2000, I have had a total of eight memory dumps. That is since my initial use of Windows 2000, RC2. As a desktop OS in the Intel world, nothing comes close(available software versus stability). Eight memory dumps over twelve systems in a period of Three years seems like a good track record to me.
I will probably be modded to hell for posting anything positive about Windows, but these are the facts.
Um...let me get this straight, you're claiming that >>OSX has "a large application base"? ROFL!!! What are you smoking?
I think you're a bit off on this one. I don't know about the DVD mastering issue, but the rest of what you're talking about is rather skewed.
Apple's licensing of Amazon's one-click service doesn't do anything other than make Apple's online store easier to use for their customers. Amazon has a patent on that technology whether Apple licenses that technology or not, so it really makes no difference. Besides, you seem to forget that Apple's DELAYING the release of QuickTime 5 indefinitely because of the MPEGLA's licensing scheme for MPEG 4 -- not because Apple doesn't want to pay the MPEGLA for the technology, but because they don't want any content providers (including Apple, I admit) to have to pay streaming fees to the MPEGLA. I think it all evens out in the end.
Apple's legal threats on skinners I don't care much for, but as a business Apple has every right to want to protect their intellectual propertey. If they've spent millions of dollars designing a hot new interface for their operating system, why should anyone else be able to rip it off at whim?
Apple "screwed over" the clone vendors because they had to. The clone licensing deal was a badly engineered move, and Apple wasn't competetive enough at the time to resist being clobbered by the clone makers. If Apple had gone under, the clone makers would have gone under as well anyway. Steve Jobs did what he had to do to ensure the health of the company.
Now let's name a few of the GOOD things Apple as a company has done.
o Open-sourced Darwin. Sure, it isn't Aqua/Carbon/Cocoa, but it's a good start.
o Released a free speech, free beer Quicktime Streaming Server that runs on multiple platforms.
o Contributed PPC optimizations to GCC, which benefits LinuxPPC just as much as it does OS X.
o Given away sophisticated developers tools so freeware and shareware developers can program for OS X easily and cheaply. Let's see Microsoft try that.
And of course Apple's continuing to develop high-quality, innovative products. They could become another Microsoft if they had the chance, maybe, but the fact is that they're NOT, and they won't be for a long time simply because of market pressures. Don't let anti-business "open source" zealotry get in the way of reason and understanding facts here.
Regards,
Jared
I was just wondering if anyone would notice!
OS X runs Microsoft Office. Like it or not, that's the office suite that +90% of the world uses. Until Office runs on Linux, you won't see most desktop users switching to Linux, plain and simple.
Beyond that, there's already tons of great desktop software available for OS X, with more and more coming out all the time. Between OS 9 and OS X, the Mac platform has so much more desktop-oriented software than Linux, it's not even funny. If you think Linux is a more viable desktop OS than Mac OS X at this point in time, then *you're* the one who's been doin' some real powerful smokin' lately.
Jared
I love Mac OS-X, i am a UNIX geek and i really like linux. But i have to get work done and i can interopperate with the buisness world on a g3 notebook running OS_X pretty well.
k de
as far as gnome and kde, one does run on OS_X with the help of fink and that is GNOME, i would really like to see the day that KDE runs on OS_X as well.
http://fink.sourceforge.net/faq/usage-fink.php#
Jared, considering that you attempt to change the subject several times, and retreat from your original claim by throwing in special qualifications, you're only getting farther away from making that claim believeable. I'm not going to wait around for you to come up with evidence. Let's just leave it with the understanding that your "large application base" claim is BS. Nice try, but no sale.
No MS Office for Linux? A lot of us think that's a Good Thing! A major part of what makes Linux and OSS in general desirable is that you don't have to spend hundreds of dollars to write a letter. But if that's the way you want to play it, then you'd better get your Windows PC, because 95% of the world uses Windows!
I never said anything about Linux being "a more viable desktop OS than Mac OS X", but since you brought it up I'm happy to share my thoughts. Yes, I would consider Linux to be more viable than OSX for desktop use. Linux is a kernel that has proved itself on many platforms. Linux is ubiquitous right now! OTOH, OSX is locked into Apple's Mac marketing strategy, which has perpetually failed to grow beyond its token 5% share of the desktop market in any sustainable way.
I've switched over to KDE for my own personal use because it's that good. KDE is emerging as a first class user interface, and right now it's exclusive to Linux. I believe that KDE will emerge as the "killer app" for Linux that puts it in the mainstream.
Apple hasn't come out with any really big, fresh ideas since 1985. That might not mean that Apple will go out of business, but it has become clear over the last 15 years that the cool left Apple about the same time Woz did. The future is elsewhere. The future runs on Linux.
Dude, just calm down. The fucking deal with Apple is that it is a FUCKING CORPERATION. It was made to make money. They put immense time, effort and money into developing software that they can sell to any moron who can press a button. You CANNOT say that about Linux, it is just to hard to set up for grandma to check her e-mail. She has no idea what the fuck a kenel is. Hell if she knows that AOL isn't the whole internet. Neither MacOS or Lunux will replace each other ever. Their niches are too diferent. Though their markets are overlapping with the powerful CLI in the FreeBSD core, Apple is not interested in killing or replacing Linux. I don't particularly care for your Linux zealot point of view but I can respect it as long as you don't go off on your whole free software kick. I love free software but you cannot bring head to head a free program with an expensive one and try to give a bang/buck ratio because dividing by zero is impossible. My calculator says so.
The last person made an unfortunate comparison. PCs can do sleep too. They come back instantly, just like Macs. No surprise, since it's the exact same technology.
Hibernate is a PC technology that's been mostly limited to laptops, until recently. Hibernate allows you to remove all power, then restore without losing data or state. Sleep is more convenient, so long as your power is always there.
This is nonsensical. The fact that no one else makes an OS for the Mac in no way makes Apple a monopolist, unless of course you think that Ford is a monopolist because no one else makes engines for Fords.
In a commodity market, differentiation is a major way to lure customers. "Computers" is the commodity here, and the Mac is just one part of the market for computers. Apple protects those things by which they attempt to differentiate their products. Love it or hate it, that does not constitute monopolist action.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
"Dude, just calm down."
Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself.
"The fucking deal with Apple is that it is a FUCKING CORPERATION. It was made to make money. They put immense time, effort and money into developing software that they can sell to any moron who can press a button."
And I should care because.....?
"You CANNOT say that about Linux, it is just to hard to set up for grandma to check her e-mail."
Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either.
"She has no idea what the fuck a kenel is. Hell if she knows that AOL isn't the whole internet."
So what's your point? That you come from a family that's not too bright?
"Neither MacOS or Lunux will replace each other ever. Their niches are too diferent."
Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?
"Though their markets are overlapping with the powerful CLI in the FreeBSD core, Apple is not interested in killing or replacing Linux."
Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance.
"I don't particularly care for your Linux zealot point of view but I can respect it as long as you don't go off on your whole free software kick."
Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!
"I love free software but you cannot bring head to head a free program with an expensive one and try to give a bang/buck ratio because dividing by zero is impossible. My calculator says so."
Your calculator lacks the intelligence to evaluate that. That leaves you stuck.
"When does Linux become the standard as oppossed to Posix?"
Your first mistake is to assume that it's one or the other. That's simply not true. Linux has become a de facto standard because a lot of people use it and develop for it first. The POSIX standards were supposed to be standards, but nobody has to use it.
"As a practical matter it might be argued that Linux has already achieved that status when you consider that both BSD and Solaris have Linux compatibility libraries!"
If you mean that Linux is what everybody's following, then you are correct.
An AC wrote:
;):
" and search for "emulator". I found about 29 entries for different computers and video game consoles.
> you're claiming that >>OSX has "a large application base"? ROFL!!!
> What are you smoking?
Okay, you asked for it
1) Most Mac applications ever written. I've found very few that don't run well under the Classic environment. This includes popular commercial packages and tons of shareware and freeware.
2) New and ported Carbon and Cocoa Mac OS X applications. This is increasing in number daily, especially since the development tools are free. Again, this includes popular commercial packages and tons of shareware and freeware.
3) Most Java J2SE applications, and J2EE applications if you obtain the necessary libraries. The first Airport utilities that were in use on OS X were Java apps originally created for Windows. OS X has the best Java 2 on the desktop.
4) Various Unix applications, many Open Source or GNU, ported for OS X/Darwin. Some of these beloved programs come with OS X, such as the Apache web server and Emacs. Others (like an X server or postgresSQL) are available for the download.
5) If you care to plunk down around $200 (ranges from about $99 for DOS to $249 for Windows NT, per operating system) for Virtual PC 5.0, you can run most any Windows, DOS, or Linux application.
6) Go to "http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/index.shtml
In short, OS X can pretty much run whatever you want it to run. I've been using it for nearly a year now. It is great, and getting better all the time.
OS X: the Apple of Mothra's Aqua eye.
I suppose that I would be quite impressed if I were a hayseed. I'm not that naive.
First of all, the subject wasn't how many ways you can find to kludge non-OSX apps to work with OSX. Seems that you're evading the subject. It's not like OSX is the only one with emulators. That's a pissing contest that you'll lose anyway.
Here's some truth:
1. The sum total of all old Mac OS applications pales in comparison to the base of Windows applications out there.
2. So-called "carbon" apps are the only ones that really count. Everything else is legacy support. The truth is that there are far fewer carbon apps than there are legacy apps. Filter out all the "I wrote it in 5 minutes" demo apps, and there's very little.
3. Java? That's an OSX claim to fame? Pretty lame. And how many useful Java apps are there? Three?
4a. OSX supports absolutely no UNIX environments. No AIX, no HP-UX, no Solaris. How can you run a UNIX application without being able to read the binaries? You can't!
4b. How many "Open Source or GNU" apps do you use? Face it, this claim is something like piano lessons for dogs. It might be fun to brag about, but everybody knows that their dog isn't going to be able to play dinner music.
4c. Apache comes with OSX, good. But X doesn't. X is the basis of any meaningful Linux, *BSD or UNIX app, so not having native X means that all those apps aren't OSX apps. I can cobble together the same collection of freeware on Windows, big deal. Frankly, I doubt that you or many other Mac fanboys have the skills to get these professional-grade tools working.
4d. PostgreSQL is a database, not an application.
5. If I plunk down money, I can run Windows for real. OTOH I can run Windows (DOS too) apps directly under Linux without having to pay a cent. You chose to nitpick, so don't cry when it's discovered that your nits are inferior.
6. Big deal. That many game emulators come with most Linux distros. Again, you're acting as if OSX is unique with this. In truth, it's yesterday's news for the rest of the world.
In short, many operating environments can run a hodgepodge of emulators, support programs and compatibility layers. It doesn't take any talent to slap a bunch of stuff together.
Getting back to the subject, how come OSX has so few native apps after so long?
NOW who's the idiot? "...perpetually failed to grow beyond its token 5% share of the desktop market..."
do you have the slightest clue what those bogus claims are based on?
i thought not. and i shall not bother to enlighten a troll bent on darkness.
rest assured the Apple market share is under-reported as much as Linux' market share is, if not more so.
oh by the way, BSD is not dying, Apple is and has been since 5:00 AM this morning, EST.
pfffft! fool.
Of unices & unix like systems... Linux is probably the most wide spread at this point in time...(maybe it's solaris, [..])
Wide adoption of a particular product at a particular moment in time a standard does not make. Standards (and compatibility) and implementation speficics are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Nevertheless, if the widespreadedness of a particular technology would be what makes it a reference standard in its kind, then Mac OS X would be (at this point) the reference standard for Unix systems, with over ten million users at this point, and hundreds of thousands new users every month.
"Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself." Point taken. "And I should care because.....?" Because you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software. They fucking need to make money. That's what companies do. "Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either." My point is that Linux IS a kenel as you said. Setting up peices of an OS is something Grandma cannot do. She's confused when her ISP disconnects her or MS comes out with a new version of Outlook express. The only reason she can run a computer is that someone took the pains to make it easy for her. Those pains cost money. Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking. "Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?" Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here. The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS. It is free while MacOS costs money. I thought I had established that. And yes, Linux is currently limited to the niche maket of those who feel like dealing with it's setup shennanagins. You get what you pay for (unless you are buying MS products). MacOS is computing for those who don't care, Linux is. "Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance." Did I say it was? I was talking about MacOS X. Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI. Yes, there are GUI shells. I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog. "Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!" I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass. You combonation is as much Linux as my brew of MacOS X is UNIX. Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core. Any my calculator is just fine. It told me that free software is an infinitly better deal. Unfortunatly dollar value tends not to convert well to productivity.
"Ah, you're the one swearing, shouting and spitting. I hope you're saying that to yourself."
Point taken.
"And I should care because.....?"
Because you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software. They fucking need to make money. That's what companies do.
"Linux is a kernel, checking e-mail involves applications. Sane people don't expect electricity to come out of their water faucet either."
My point is that Linux IS a kenel as you said. Setting up peices of an OS is something Grandma cannot do. She's confused when her ISP disconnects her or MS comes out with a new version of Outlook express. The only reason she can run a computer is that someone took the pains to make it easy for her. Those pains cost money. Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking. "Non sequiturs aside, Linux isn't a niche product. Heck, it's not a product at all. If you can't understand that, you're not fit to comment on it, are you?"
Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here. The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS. It is free while MacOS costs money. I thought I had established that. And yes, Linux is currently limited to the niche maket of those who feel like dealing with it's setup shennanagins. You get what you pay for (unless you are buying MS products). MacOS is computing for those who don't care, Linux is.
"Oh joy, more ignorant "Linux is a CLI" nonsense. OK, it's clear that you don't know Linux from a hole in the ground, just like your grandma. At least grandma doesn't flaunt her ignorance."
Did I say it was? I was talking about MacOS X. Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI. Yes, there are GUI shells. I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog.
"Hold on, you're reciting the vapid EvangeLista tripe, and have the gall to call me a zealot? Puhhhlllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee!"
I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass. You combonation is as much Linux as my brew of MacOS X is UNIX. Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core. Any my calculator is just fine. It told me that free software is an infinitly better deal. Unfortunatly dollar value tends not to convert well to productivity.
De facto means "in reality", which is as far from a Machead's fantasy as you can get. And in fact, wide adoption is precisely what makes standards. You can publish all the grandiose treatises you want to, and write "standard" all over them. But unless you can get others to subscribe to it, there's no standard; you're all alone. I think you need to make another trip to the dictionary.
Since OSX is not a UNIX system, it can't be a standard for UNIX systems. And where are all those users? Who do you think you're fooling? Not me!
you are denoucing Apple for chrarging money for software.
No, I'm not. Please stick to what I actually say. I don't appreciate being stereotyped. It doesn't reflect well on you, for that matter.
My point is that Linux IS a kenel...pains cost money...
Then you're woefully ignorant of what's available for free. Unless you want to be dismissed as a fool, I suggest that you research things first.
Could you hook my grandma up with a Linux box that will boot into a gui, never make here use a console, will allow here to plug and unplug USB devices (and have them work), and make the system stay current with no human intervention. I don't think so. Not without months of tweaking.
Those kinds of devices already exist, and yes, many of them are running Linux. If it takes only a few months to create a product like that, it's doing a hell of a lot better than Apple! After 10 years of trying, OSX should be better than perfect, and it isn't.
Sorry, I didn't notice that I had to watch my EXACT word selection around here.
Sorry, but I'm not a mind reader. I don't know anybody who really is. Therefore I don't think it's asking too much to expect you to say what you mean. It's certainly my fault if you don't.
The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS.
Have you been paying attention at all? Linux is a kernel! It's not an application, so it's certainly not a "productivity solution"! Get a clue. And stop shouting.
Linux is a kernel that is traditionally accessed through a CLI.
You need to learn some history, and the difference between Linux and UNIX. UNIX started off using CLIs, because that's all that was available back then. Linux was born at a time when graphical tools based on ncurses and X were commonplace. So Linux traditions are very different than UNIX traditions.
I'm saying that in order to install them without a cli you must have another OS, GUI, or bought package from RedHat or Yellow Dog.
And I know that's BS. A little advice, it's not too smart to try to fool someone who knows the subject matter.
I was saying that I can respect yu as lond as you don't go out trashing other OSs. Don't be an ass.
No, you were making a false claim that I have read, word for word, many times before from other EvangeListas. Instad of attacking me without cause, try working on your own integrity.
MacOS X is UNIX.
That's not true.
Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS.
That's not true.
Linux is a great core as is Unix, just don't be an ass and argue you kernel bullshit when you know damn well that I'm talking about everything above the core.
First of all, "core" has a very specific meaning, and I doubt that you mean that. Again, I urge you to research before you start writing, because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. And if you can't conduct a civil conversation, I'll leave you to swear at yourself.
Well, your claim would be worthy of consideration, had it not been couched in so much verbal abuse. It's clear who the troll is.
And Apple is not the University of California. The U of C closed the CSRG in 1993. No amount of flaming changes that fact.
Yet another mis-understanding... Sigh... I said Linux is a kernel. The MacOS X is a GUI on top of a version of Unix. That shell took pains to make. The pains and money are for MacOS X GUI.
"Those kinds of devices already exist, and yes, many of them are running Linux. If it takes only a few months to create a product like that, it's doing a hell of a lot better than Apple! After 10 years of trying, OSX should be better than perfect, and it isn't."
My point exactly! A few months = $120. Hell yeah. The problem is that Apple not only pulled together an OS from free sources, they also wrote a substantial amount of their own code. The product you spoke of would have to be built on it's target machine. Moving it to another system would never work without tweaking.
The Linux kernel is ONE of many COMPUTING PRODUCTIVITY SOLUTIONS.
Yet again with the words. What I mean is that the OS talks to the hardware. I would sure as hell get nothing done if I had to punch in macine code for every task I wanted the hardware to perform.
And I know that's BS. A little advice, it's not too smart to try to fool someone who knows the subject matter.
Please show me somewhere where they give away for free Linux install packages on bootable CD-ROM that contain drivers for every stupid thrown-together config and boots into a polished GUI. IT DOESN'T EXIST! If it does please point me in that direction and I'll happily switch my homebrew Linux boxes to their version.
Mine just came prepackaged while you built your OS. That's not true.
What do you run off of then? Please tell me.
First of all, "core" has a very specific meaning, and I doubt that you mean that. Again, I urge you to research before you start writing, because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. And if you can't conduct a civil conversation, I'll leave you to swear at yourself.
I guess core isn't an OK word either. Instead of picking at my language as Linux zealots tend to do, understand that main and core are synonyms, the kernel is the main part of an OS. You ignore my points and dodge questions. Stay still and behave for some nice Q&A. I'm not attacking you (anymore) or your choice in OS. My sole point is that Linux and MacOS should be respected for what they are. I'm sorry if you feel treatened by me or the fact that a commercial OS is coming too close to being exactly what you want. (Which I would also like to know) Just don't resort to your sly personal attacks. For those it's much more fun to have an outright swearing and pissing contest. I would like to know what you have against Apple. I look forward to some sort of nice resopnse. Also, instead of saying: do your research, throw those exact facts in my face. It's helpful to me and more satifying for you.
Also, the Carbon (and Cocoa) APIs are not part of Aqua, think of Aqua as the MacOS's window manager (in fact, that's eactly what it is). You seem to be talking about a port of the entire proprietary "front-end" to the OS, for which you'd also need the QuickTime and Quartz layers as well, which now house some of the essential MacOS services, even if they are accessed indirectly though Carbon and Cocoa. This "Aqua on Linux" would mean who needs OSX's $149 proprietary interface, API, and kernel? No one, if you can get a just-as-good for free. Apple only holds a 5% market share and they're very careful to make any move, however aswome it would make the world, that will put them out. Apple can't create cool stuff if they're out of business.
After what happened with the MS Windows GUI vs. MacOS GUI back in the 80s, can you really blame then for guarding their IP like hawks? Had that turned out differently, we might all be rooting for Miscrosoft to "relieve the industry of the monopilizing Apple computer". Think about it.
...and yes, I am a die hard Mac fan. 'nuff said.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The MacOS X is a GUI on top of a version of Unix.
w .caldera.com/e dhat.com/
Bzzzzt!!! Wrong. OSX is a product that includes a desktop GUI, a baffling array of APIs and subsystems, and no UNIX whatsoever.
That shell took pains to make. The pains and money are for MacOS X GUI.
So what? The worth of OSX as a product is what it can do for me, the consumer. And in a free world, I can look at the competition. Right now the competition has a better deal for my money.
The problem is that Apple not only pulled together an OS from free sources, they also wrote a substantial amount of their own code.
Ah, considering that those "sources" all had their own independant operating systems, in a high state of development, saying that Apple made them into an OS is a falsehood. Give credit where it's due, please!
The product you spoke of would have to be built on it's target machine. Moving it to another system would never work without tweaking.
I'll take that to mean that you don't know what a cross-compiler is. And seeing as how I never mentioned a specific product, you're really just babbling.
Yet again with the words. What I mean is that the OS talks to the hardware.
Yes, those are words that you're using. If you want to be understood, try saying what you mean. If you don't know what you're saying, try shutting up and learning. If you want to mis-understand, then STFU and go away.
Please show me somewhere where they give away for free Linux install packages on bootable CD-ROM that contain drivers for every stupid thrown-together config and boots into a polished GUI.
Well, I don't have a clue what "every stupid thrown-together config" is supposed to mean, but Mandrake, Caldera, SuSE and Red Hat are a few distributions that come to mind.
IT DOESN'T EXIST! If it does please point me in that direction and I'll happily switch my homebrew Linux boxes to their version.
Yes, they do exist:
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/
http://ww
http://www.suse.com/
http://www.r
I don't know what you're doing wrong, to have Internet access and never have heard of any of these, but there they are.
What do you run off of then? Please tell me.
Ask a question that makes sense, and I will answer it.
I guess core isn't an OK word either.
There's nothing wrong with the word. There is something wrong with your use of the word, which happens to be exactly the same gibberish that's on Apple's website. If you know what you're talking about, then it will be simple for you to amend your statement. If you're mindlessly repeating Apple's marketing tripe, then you're in deep doodoo.
Instead of picking at my language as Linux zealots tend to do, understand that main and core are synonyms, the kernel is the main part of an OS.
You wrote it; it's not my fault that it's meaningless gibberish. Try thinking for yourself, instead of repeating from the EvangeList boilerplate.
You ignore my points and dodge questions.
Where? How do you explain my very complete posts? Enough of the lies, already.
Stay still and behave for some nice Q&A.
Need I remind you again that you're the one with the behavior problem? I do notice that you have cut back on the swearing, but you're still highly antisocial. Don't preach to me about your failings.
My sole point is that Linux and MacOS should be respected for what they are.
You'd better scroll up and delete all those other points then.
I'm sorry if you feel treatened by me or the fact that a commercial OS is coming too close to being exactly what you want.
Enough fantasy; stick to reality please.
Just don't resort to your sly personal attacks.
I will not start. In return, please stop the not-so-sly personal attacks on your part.
Also, instead of saying: do your research, throw those exact facts in my face. It's helpful to me and more satifying for you.
Like I said before, if you want to learn, stop laying on the marketing hype, and start paying attention. Ask questions about things that you don't understand.
You've made one of the classic blunders. The first is never get involved with a land war in Asia. The second is never debate an Anonymous Coward when your karma's on the line.
Linux is not UNIX, it's a Unix-like operating system. BSD is UNIX, and since OS X is based on BSD and NeXTSTEP/OpenStep it is indeed UNIX. I'm not sure how Posix compliant OS X is, or even doubt Apple makes any claims that it is.
One thing I do know is that Macs are the standard in a lot of industries, such as the one I work in, publishing.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
BZZZZZZ!! Wrong! From Getting Started With Darwin
Q: What is Darwin, and how does it relate to Mac OS X?
A: Darwin is an open source, UNIX-based operating system built on BSD 4.4 and Mach 3.0 which forms the core of Mac OS X. Darwin is primarily what is called the "core operating system" (i.e, the kernel, drivers, and command-line utilities common to UNIX distributions), but a Darwin release includes several other pieces, including the compiler toolchain, a security framework based on CDSA, and parts of the Mac OS X "Core Foundation" framework. When we say a "Darwin system", we usually mean one built only using Open Source code, though technically every "Mac OS X" system is also a Darwin system, since it is built on top of Darwin.
Q: How hard is it to port BSD or Linux applications to OS X?
A: Given Mac OS X's strong BSD roots, this is actually very easy. Thousands of existing BSD and Linux applications (as well as Solaris, SCO, etc...) have already been ported to Mac OS X. Our dedicated Darwin developers are constantly striving to simplify portability, since they use these applications themselves and frequently are the first to encounter any problems. With their help, portability will surely get easier over time.
If you are interested in porting BSD or Linux applications to Mac OS X yourself, here are some common gotchas:
The latest GNU configure supports Darwin, so check to see if your package is using an up-to-date version (currently version 1.2). Usually, it's just a matter of typing "./configure ppc"
On Mac OS X, "GCC" is called "CC," and some common libraries and headers (e.g. "-lm", "stdio.h") are implicitly included in the System.framework, which can confuse hard-coded Makefiles. You can always create a symbolic link from GCC to CC (i.e. "ln -s /usr/bin/cc /usr/local/bin/gcc")
Our dynamic library mechanism (dylib) and executable format (Mach-O) differs considerably from other UNIX implementations, so applications that require detailed knowledge of runtime and user loadable modules may need to be modified.
We currently offer limited support for POSIX threads, so some thread-intensive applications may encounter problems. We are working to address this over time.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
A "Standard" like POSIX is according to the ISO, International Standards Organization... they are the ones that define what is a standard is, not just because something is widely used.
What a quaint notion! No, ISO isn't some god on a mountain, handing down standards. The only thing that gives ISO its power is the acknowledgement of the people who subscribe to ISO standards. And guess what? Most of those people are the very ones who make the specifications! ISO is just a clearing house.
BSD is UNIX, and since OS X is based on BSD and NeXTSTEP/OpenStep it is indeed UNIX.
Wrong. BSD was a UNIX distribution, back when AT&T owned and licensed UNIX. NeXTSTEP did license UNIX code from USL, back when they owned UNIX. But AT&T is out of the UNIX business, BSD is defunct, and so is NeXTSTEP. You're committing the fallacy affirming the consequent by claiming traits from old, defunct things for new things that aren't identical. Furthermore, OSX isn't nased on the now defunct BSD UNIX, it's based on FreeBSD et al, which are descendents of 4.4BSD-Lite, Berkeley's non-UNIX distribution. Flawed reasoning, through and through.
One thing I do know is that Macs are the standard in a lot of industries, such as the one I work in, publishing.
Dead trees, that's one. However, one does not "a lot" make! Name a few more, and I might not debunk the fallacy about Mac being standard in publishing.
(In other words: "Give it up, the Mac is a fading star and we all know it.")
OK Define UNIX then... I think you'll see all flavors of xBSD, NEXTSTEP and MACH 3 on this list.
....
...)
....
:-)
s c}.
Subject: Main Unix flavors.
6.3) Main Unix flavors.
The following is very much an early '90s view.
Until recently, there were basically two main flavors of Unix:
System V (five) from AT&T, and the Berkeley Software Distribution
(BSD). SVR4 is essentially a merge of these two flavors. End
'91, OSF/1 from the Open Software Foundation was released (as a
direct competitor to System V) and may (future will tell) change
this picture.
The following lists the main releases and features of System V,
BSD and OSF/1.
System V from AT&T. Typical of Intel hardware. Most often
ported Unix, typically with BSD enhancements (csh, job
control, termcap, curses, vi, symbolic links). System V
evolution is now overseen by Unix International (UI). UI
members include AT&T, Sun,
Newsgroup: comp.unix.sysv[23]86. Main releases:
- System III (1982): first commercial Unix from AT&T
- FIFOs (named pipes) (later?)
- System V (1983):
- IPC package (shm, msg, sem)
- SVR2 (1984):
- shell functions (sh)
- SVID (System V Interface Definition)
- SVR3 (1986) for ? platforms:
- STREAMS (inspired by V8), poll(), TLI (network software)
- RFS
- shared libs
- SVID 2
- demand paging (if hardware supports)
- SVR3.2:
- merge with Xenix (Intel 80386)
- networking
- SVR4 (1988), mainstream of Unix implementations, merge of
System V, BSD, and SunOS.
- From SVR3: sysadmin, terminal I/F, printer (from BSD?),
RFS, STREAMS, uucp
- From BSD: FFS, TCP/IP, sockets, select(), csh
- From SunOS: NFS, OpenLook GUI, X11/NeWS, virtual memory
subsystem with memory-mapped files, shared libraries
(!= SVR3 ones?)
- ksh
- ANSI C
- Internationalization (8-bit clean)
- ABI (Application Binary Interface -- routines instead of traps)
- POSIX, X/Open, SVID3
- SVR4.1
- async I/O (from SunOS?)
- SVR4.2 (based on SVR4.1ES)
- Veritas FS, ACLs
- Dynamically loadable kernel modules
- Future:
- SVR4 MP (multiprocessor)
- Use of Chorus microkernel?
Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). Typical of VAXen, RISCs,
many workstations. More dynamic, research versions now than
System V. BSD is responsible for much of the popularity of
Unix. Most enhancements to Unix started here. The group
responsible at UCB (University of California at Berkeley) is
the Computer System Research Group (CSRG). They closed down
in 1992. Newsgroup: comp.unix.bsd. Main releases:
(much reorganized wrt dates and releases, hope it's converging)
- 2.xBSD (1978) for PDP-11, still of significance? (2.11BSD
was released in 1992!).
- csh
- 3BSD (1978):
- virtual memory
- 4.?BSD:
- termcap, curses
- vi
- 4.0BSD (1980):
- 4.1BSD (?): base of later AT&T CRG versions
- job control
- automatic kernel config
- vfork()
- 4.2BSD (1983):
- TCP/IP, sockets, ethernet
- UFS: long file names, symbolic links
- new reliable signals (4.1 reliable signals now in SVR3)
- select()
- 4.3BSD (1986) for VAX, ?:
- 4.3 Tahoe (1988): 4.3BSD with sources, support for Tahoe
(32-bit supermini)
- Fat FFS
- New TCP algorithms
- 4.3 Reno (1990) for VAX, Tahoe, HP 9000/300:
- most of P1003.1
- NFS (from Sun)
- MFS (memory file system)
- OSI: TP4, CLNP, ISODE's FTAM, VT and X.500; SLIP
- Kerberos
- Net1 (?) and Net2 (June 1991) tapes: that portion of BSD which
requires no USL copyright
- 4.4BSD (alpha June 1992) for HP 9000/300, Sparc, 386, DEC, others;
neither VAX nor Tahoe; two versions, lite (~Net2 contents plus,
fixes and new architectures) and encumbered (everything, requires
USL license):
- new virtual memory system (VMS) based on Mach 2.5
- virtual filesystem interface, log-structured filesystem, size
of local filesystem up to 2^63, NFS (freely redistributable,
works with Sun's, over UDP or TCP)
- ISO/OSI networking support (based on ISODE): TP4/CLNP/802.3 and
TP0/CONS/X.25, session and above in user space; FTAM, VT, X.500.
- most of POSIX.1 (esp. new terminal driver a la SV), much of
POSIX.2, improved job control; ANSI C headers
- Kerberos integrated with much of the system (incl. NFS)
- TCP/IP enhancements (incl. header prediction, SLIP)
- important kernel changes (new system call convention,
- other improvements: FIFOs, byte-range file locking
Official 4.4BSD release was expected within 6 months of above.
The Open Software Foundation (OSF) released its Unix called OSF/1
end of 1991. Still requires an SVR2 license.
Compatible/compliant with SVID 2 (and 3 coming), POSIX,
X/Open, etc.. OSF members include Apollo, Dec, HP, IBM,
- OSF/1 (1991):
- based on Mach 2.5 kernel
- symmetric multiprocessing, parallelized kernel, threads
- logical volumes, disk mirroring, UFS (native), S5 FS, NFS
- enhanced security (B1 with some B2, B3; or C2), 4.3BSD admin
- STREAMS, TLI/XTI, sockets
- shared libs, dynamic loader (incl. kernel)
- Motif GUI
- Release 1.3 (Jun 94)
- Based on MACH 3.0 Micro-kernel
- Conformant with current draft of Specification 1170
(considered for standardization in X/Open's Fast Track process)
- Data Capture I/F, Common Data Link I/F,
- ISO 10646 and 64-bit support.
- OSF/1 MK (mikrokernel) based on Mach 3.0
This list of major flavors should probably also include Xenix
(Microsoft) which has been the basis for many ports. Derived from V7,
S III and finally System V, it is similar externally but significantly
changed internally (performance-tuned for micros).
Two very good books describe the internals of the two main flavors.
These are:
- System V: "Design of the Unix Operating System", M.J. Bach.
- BSD: "Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD Unix Operating System",
Leffler, McKusick, Karels, Quaterman.
For a good introduction to OSF/1 (not quite as technical as the
previous two), see: "Guide to OSF/1, A Technical Synopsis",
published by O'Reilly. On SunOS, "Virtual Memory Architecture in
SunOS" and "Shared Libraries in SunOS" in Summer 1989 USENIX
Proceedings.
A good set of articles on where Unix is going is "Unix Variants"
in the Apr 92 issue of Unix Review. Other good sources of
information include the bsd-faq file, and many of the newsgroups
mentioned in the text.
Subject: Brief notes on some well-known (commercial/PD) Unices.
>From: "Pierre (P.) Lewis" <lew@bnr.ca>
Date: Tue Aug 15 15:14:00 EDT 1995
X-Version: 2.9
6.6) Brief notes on some well-known (commercial/PD) Unices.
(I am not at all satisfied with this section, unfortunately I
have neither the time nor the documents to make it much better
(wrt contents). Should only list Unices known by a reasonably
wide audience. Small and non-US Unices welcome, e.g. Eurix. In
need of reformatting)
This section lists (in alphabetical order) some of the better
known Unices along with a brief description of their nature.
Unfortunately, it's out-of-date almost by definition...
(sorted alpha, ignoring numbers and other chars)
AIX: IBM's Unix, based on SVR2 (later up to SVR3.2?) with varying
degrees of BSD extensions, for various hardwares. Proprietary
system admin (SMIT). Both 850 and Latin-1 CPs. Quite
different from most Unices and among themselves.
Newsgroup: comp.unix.aix.
- 1.x (for 386 PS/2)
- 2.x (for PC RTs)
- 3.x (for RS/6000), paging kernel, logical volume manager, i18n;
3.2 adds TLI/STREAMS. SV-based with many enhancements.
4.1 is latest (includes support for PowerPC?)
- AIX/ESA, runs native on S/370 and S/390 mainframes, based on OSF/1.
AIX was to have been base for OSF/1 until Mach was chosen instead.
I hope this subsection is converging
AOS (IBM): 4.3BSD port to IBM PC RT (for educational institutes).
Don't confuse with DG's proprietary OS of same name.
Arix: SV
A3000UX (Commodore): 68030-based SVR4 Unix (?) for the Amiga.
A/UX (Apple): SV with Berkeley enhancements, NFS, Mac GUI. System 6
(later System 7) runs as guest of A/UX (opposite of MachTen).
Newsgroup: comp.unix.aux.
- 2.0: SVR2 with 4.2BSD, system 6 Mac applications.
- 3.0 (1992): SVR2.2 with 4.3BSD and SVR3/4 extensions; X11R4,
MacX, TCP/IP, NFS, NIS, RPC/XDR, various shells, UFS or S5FS.
System 7 applications.
- 4.0 will have/be OSF/1. But I hear Apple has decided to drop
A/UX (will go for AIX now that they're together with IBM on
the PPC)
3B1 (680x0): SV-based, done by Convergent for AT&T.
Newsgroup: comp.sys.3b1.
BNR/2: stands for BSD Net/2 Release? Includes NetBSD/1, FreeBSD.
BOS for Bull's DPX/2 (680x0)
- V1 (1990): SVR3 with BSD extensions (FFS, select, sockets),
symmetric MP, X11R3
- V2 (1991): adds job control, disk mirroring, C2 security,
DCE extensions
- There's also BOS/X, and AIX-compatible Unix for Bull's PPC
workstations. How it relates to above two is unknown.
386BSD: Jolitz's port of Net/2 software. Posix, 32-bit, still in alpha
(now version 0.1).
BSD/386 (80386): from BSDI, with source (augmented Net2 software)
Newsgroup: comp.unix.bsd.
Chorus/MiXV: Unix SVR3.2 (SVR4) over Chorus nucleus, ABI/BCS.
Coherent (Mark Williams Company): For 80286. Unix clone compatible with
V7, some SVR2 (IPC). V4.0 is 32-bit. Newsgroup: comp.os.coherent.
Mark Williams closed down early '95.
Consensys: SVR4.2
CTIX: SV-based, from Convergent
D-NIX: SV
DC/OSx (Pyramid): SVR4. Newsgroup: comp.sys.pyramid.
DELL UNIX [DELL Computer Corp.]: SVR4
DomainIX: see DomainOS below.
DomainOS (Apollo, now HP): proprietary OS; layered on top is BSD4.3 and
SVR3 (a process can use either, neither or both). Development now
stopped, some features now in OSF/1 (and NT). Now at SR10.4.
Name for SR9.* was DomainIX. Newsgroup: comp.sys.apollo.
DVIX (NT's DVS): SVR2
DYNIX (Sequent): 4.2BSD-based
DYNIX/PTX: SVR3-based
EP/IX (Control Data Corp.): for MIPS 2000/3000/6000/4000; based on
RISC/OS 4 and 5, POSIX-ABI-compliant. SVR3, SVR4 and BSD modes.
Esix (80386): pure SVR4, X11, OpenLook (NeWS), Xview
Eurix (80?86): SVR3.2 (Germany)
FreeBSD: 386bsd 0.1 with the patchkit applied, and many updated
utilities.
FTX: Stratus fault-tolerant OS (68K or i860-i960 hardware)
Generics UNIX (80386): SVR4.03 (Germany)
GNU Hurd (?): vaporware from the Free Software Foundation (FSF):
Unix emulator over Mach 3.0 kernel. Many GNU tools are very
popular (emacs) and used in the PD Unices.
HELIOS (Perihelion Software): for INMOS transputer and many other
platforms.
HP-UX (HP): old from S III (SVRx), now SVR2 (4.2BSD?) with SV utilities
(they have trouble making up their minds).
- 6.5: SVR2
- 7.0: SVR3.2, symlinks
- 7.5
- 8.0: BSD based? for HP-9000 CISC (300/400) and RISC (800/700),
shared libs
- 9.0: includes DCE
Interactive SVR3.2 (80x86): pure SVR3. Interactive has been bought
by Sun; will their system survive Solaris?
Idris: first Unix clone by Whitesmith. A small Unix? For INMOS
transputer and others?.
IRIX (SGI): Version 4: SVR3.2, much BSD. Version 5.x (current is 5.2)
is based on SVR4. Newsgroup: comp.sys.sgi.
Linux (386/486/586): Unix under GPL (not from FSF, though). Available
with sources. POSIX compliant w/ SysV and BSD extensions. Being
ported to Alpha/AXP and PowerPC (ports for 680x0 Amigas and Ataris
already exist; a port is also being done to the MIPS/4000).
Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.{admin,announce,development,help,mi
MacBSD, ?: works on Mac II (directly on H/W).
MachTen, Tenon Intersystems: runs as a guest under MacOS; 4.3BSD
environment with TCP, NFS. Scaled down version: MachTen Personal.
MacMach (Mac II): 4.3BSD over Mach 3.0 microkernel, X11, Motif, GNU
software, sources, experimental System 7 as Mach task. Complete
with all sources (need Unix license).
Mach386: from Mt Xinu. Based on Mach 2.5, with 4.3BSD-Tahoe
enhancements. Also 2.6 MSD (Mach Source Distribution).
Microport (80x86): pure SVR4, X11, OpenLook GUI
Minix (80x86, Atari, Amiga, Mac): Unix clone compatible with V7.
Sold with sources. Being POSIXified (sp?). For PCs, and surely
many others (eg. INMOS transputer). Newsgroup: comp.os.minix.
MipsOS: SVish (RISC/OS, now dropped, was BSDish)
more/BSD (VAX, HP 9000/300): Mt Xinu's Unix, based on 4.3BSD-Tahoe.
NCR UNIX: SVR4 (4.2?)
Net/2 tape (from Berkeley, 1991): BSD Unix, essentially compatible with
4.3BSD, includes only sources free of AT&T code, no low-level code.
See 386BSD and BSD/386 above.
NetBSD 0.8: is actually 386bsd in a new suit. Ported to [34]86, MIPS,
Amiga, Sun, Mac. What is relation to Net/2?
- 1.0 came out in '94.
NEXTSTEP (Intel Pentium and 86486, Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC, NeXT 68040):
BSD4.3 over Mach kernel, own GUI.
- 1.x, 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, 3.1 (old)
- 3.2 (current version,
Intel Pentium and 86486,
Hewlett-Packard PA-RISC,
NeXT 68040)
- 3.3 (shipping; SPARC-version available)
- 4.0 (to be announced, will include Sun SPARC version and
will be OpenStep compliant
- no NEXTSTEP for PowerPC or DEC Alpha yet announced (are there plans?
NEWS-OS (Sony)
- 3.2
OSF/1 (DEC): DEC's port of OSF/1. I think this is now (4/93) available
on DEC's latest Alpha AXP (64-bit machine).
OSx (Pyramid): Dualport of both SysV.3 and BSD4.3. Newsgroup:
comp.sys.pyramid.
PC-IX (IBM 8086): SV
Plan 9 (AT&T): announced 1992, complete rewrite, not clear how close to
Unix it is. Key points: distributed, very small, various hardwares
(Sun, Mips, Next, SGI, generic hobbit, 680x0, PCs), C (not C++ as
rumors had it), new compiler, "8 1/2" window system (also very
small), 16-bit Unicode, CPU/file servers over high speed nets.
SCO Xenix (80x86): Versions for XT (not robust!), 286, 386 (with demand
paging). Today bulk of code is from System V. Stable product.
SCO Unix (80x86): SVR3.2 (stopped taking USL source at this point).
Sinix [Siemens]: System V base.
Solaris (Sparc, x86):
- 1.0: essentially same as SunOS 4.1.1, with OpenWindows 2.0 and
DeskSet utilities.
- 1.0.1: SunOS 4.1.2 with multiprocessing (kernel not multithreaded);
not for 386
- 2.0: (initially announced as SunOS 5.0 in 1988) based on SVR4
(with symmetric MP?), will include support for 386; with
OpenWindows 3.0 (X11R4) and OpenLook, DeskSet, ONC, NIS. Both
a.out (BSD) and elf (SVR4) formats. Kerberos support. Compilers
unbundled!
- Solaris is OpenStep compliant (non-NeXT, but with NEXTSTEP API)
with latest (1994?) version.
- Sun will ship its OpenStep-implementation with project DOE for
Solaris. First versions will be for SPARC-based Suns, but a
version for Solaris 2.4 for x86 and PowerPC will appear later.
SunOS (680x0, Sparc, i386): based on 4.3BSD, includes much from
System V. Main Sun achievements: NFS (1984), SunView (1985), NeWS
(1986, postscript imaging, now in OpenWindows), OpenLook GUI standard,
OpenWindows (NeWS, X11, SunView!). Newsgroup: comp.sys.sun.*.
- 3.x: SV IPC package, FIFOs
- 4.0.3: lightweight processes, new virtual mem, shared libs
- 4.1: STREAMS & TLI, 8-bit clean?, async I/O, ms-dos file system
(continues as Solaris -- see above).
UHC (80x86): pure SVR4, X11, Motif
Ultrix (DEC): based on 4.2BSD with much of 4.3.
Newsgroup: comp.unix.ultrix.
- 4.4 is latest
UNICOS (Cray): System V base. Newsgroup: comp.unix.cray
- 5.x, 6,x, 7.0
UnixWare Release 4.2 [Univel]: SVR4.2; over NetWare. Univel no longer
exists.
UTEK (Tektronix)
- 4.0
VOLVIX (Archipel S.A.): UNIX-based OS built around a communication
based, distributed, real-time micro-kernel. SVR3.2 system calls,
BSD4.4 file/network system calls (VFS, FFS). Also NFS and X11.
Vanilla VOLVIX is for transputers.
Xenix (80x86): 1st Unix on Intel hardware, based on SVR2 (previously on
S III and even V7). Newsgroup: comp.unix.xenix.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
Funny,
I'm running Gimp on my os x box right now. My X window apps are running side by side with my Aqua apps and I put no more effort into getting it to run this way than I did getting WindowMaker to run on my Mandrake x86 box at home. I have Abiword installed too, but I don't have it launched at the moment. Just downloaded ettercap source last week compiled and started using it in 5 minutes (probably less- I didn't time it).
Fact is, most anything that will compile for BSD under x86 will compile for Darwin/OS X. Some without modification, some with a little, few with major modifications. There are hundereds of X-Windows and CLI apps available today for OSX and the list is growing pretty damn fast. For those who lack the skills or desire to compile, there are already three very good package managers on the platform by my count, (My favorite is Fink, which is based mostly on the debian package manager.)
Down to your last question, "...how come OSX has so few native apps after so long?"
Umm....because they've only just started marketing it as the OS for the common Mac user. Prior to now it has been an early adoptor OS. Most of the major apps have already shipped. The only hold outs that I can think of are XPress and Photoshop (Shipping in April- already have it on order) Until then, I don't suffer a noticible performance hit for Classic apps, so I'm not bothered. If you want to take Classic emulation away as a consideration, then you will have to also eliminate anything running under DOS and Win 9x emulation in Windows.
Of course Windows emulation in Linux or Linux emulation in Windows is out too.