Understanding OS X Kernel Internals

jglidell writes "The OS X kernel has been in the news alot this past year, whether it's why its slow, Mach/micro-kernel makes it bad, it's going closed source and what not. Amit Singh has put up a new presentation on the innards of OS X. It does a pretty good job of summing up the OS X kernel architecture, and has some pretty detailed diagrams... for instance they show that there are so many process/threads layers in OS X. So if you are in the mood for doing some OS studying then head over."

Comments

Re:Spelling

[mangu]

"alot" isn't a word! It's "a lot."

I also get kinda pissed off because lotsa people write it that way.

Re:Needs more editor.

[OECD]

Do the editors even look at submissions any more?

I'm afraid they do. I think the problem is that they're not as skilled in writing english as they are in writing PERL. (That's not a slam, by the way. I suck at PERL.)

And before anyone goes on an "Off Topic" jag, it really does make a difference if the readers can understand what's being written. I stumbled over the "that there are so many" sentence a couple times trying to make sense of it. There are so many process threads layers in OS X that what? It slows it down? It's hard to program? Or is there simply a gee-whizz lot?

Yeah, I know, I'm off to R the FA. I just wish I had a better idea of what's in there.

"OS X is slow" claims investigated

[Logic and Reason]

Before anyone starts spouting off again about Mac OS X being "slow by design" or somesuch, read this article by an Apple engineer that investigates those claims.

Underpowered Little Machine

[Beefslaya]

As the purchaser of a brand new Core Duo Mini, (my first Mac, I feel "as happy as a little Gurlll!") I noticed that my system out of the box with 512 of RAM was dog slow when you start loading iPhoto, or any more then 2 apps.

Initial startup yielded a smoking fast web browser, and other single line items.

I purchased the 2GB Ram upgrade (not from Apple at 600 USD, 280USD from Crucial) and I noticed such a difference, that I couldn't understand WHY they would even consider shipping that little silver wonder with less then 1GB of RAM.

It's not the kernel, it's the apps... They just don't give enough power to the off the shelf machines to support the great apps that come with it.

Vive le Mac... Thanks for putting excitement back into computing for me.

Closed?

[ShadowBottle]

Riiiight. Just because some idiot alarmists say that the kernel has gone closed when it simply just hasn't been released yet, the media and clueless bloggers start crying that it's gone closed source.
"Well... it hasn't. It's still open. IT JUST HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET.
OSNews is reporting that Ernest Prabhakar, Apple's Open Source and Open Standards product manager, has stated in the Fed-Talk mailing that Apple has not actually closed Mac OS X's Darwin kernel for the Intel version of the OS; they simply haven't released it yet. Speculation about Apple closing the kernel arose from the fact that other non-kernel Darwin sources actually have been released, and the previous PowerPC-based kernel is still available as open source as well.Ernest wanted to make sure that tech media didn't confuse 'speculation' with 'fact'. A good lesson we all could benefit from...."

God damn alarmist idiots.

Re:Needs more editor.

[gowen]

I think the problem is that they're not as skilled in writing english as they are in writing PERL.

I've seen slashcode.

I think the problem is that they're exactly as skilled in writing english as they are in writing PERL.