Have you ever seen the PARC interface (from the Alto and the Star)? I have. It is nothing like the current WIMP interface that is so popular. Nothing! No overlapping windows, really strange mouse button concepts, much more. Apple licensed (not stole) certain parts of the interface and expanded greatly the rest. Things like window clipping (allowing overlapping), menus that are sane, the modernization of the scroll bar, and much more.
If you're going to deploy a really cool sound system, doesn't it make sense to buy a proven core and put your own interface on it? SoundJam provided the playing engine, and Apple made it a powerful, friendly program.
Do you know what that means? "Based on NeXT" doesn't mean anything. NeXT was a company.
Mac OS X is based on OpenStep 4.2, which, itself, was based on NEXTSTEP 3.3. NEXTSTEP is a BSD operating system running on a modified version of the Mach microkernel. OpenStep is a API specification and a set of libraries that conforms to that API. OpenStep 4.2 (the operating system) is an implementation of those libraries on top of NEXTSTEP.
When Apple bought NeXT, they planned to build on top of OpenStep. They first produced Rhapsody for PPC and Rhapsody for Intel. They were the same OS running on two hardware platforms. On top of Rhapsody, Apple put the Blue Box, which was a Macintosh compatibility environment. At no time was there any need for a "BSD compatibility layer." It was all software running on top of BSD. Apple then killed Rhapsody for Intel (and the Yellow Box, but that's tangential.)
What was left was released as Mac OS Server.
Mac OS X 10.0 and Mac OS Server 10.0 (and further versions) are also BSD operating systems. They have the Cocoa (OpenStep) and Carbon libraries available, and the imaging system is called Aqua (replacement for Display PostScript.) At no point in any of this is there a need for any UNIX compatibility layer, as it is all real UNIX. The only compatibility environment necessary is for Mac OS 9 (Classic.) Only certain older applications (Carbon) can run natively on OS X, so for running non-Carbon apps, Mac OS 9 is run in a compatibility environment (similar, but not the same as VMWare.)
I'm not sure how Aqua is the illegitimate child of GNU. The core of the whole shebang are the OpenStep libraries that Apple got with NeXT. The compiler is gcc, but that hardly implies parentage. In fact, A qua is the least third-party dependent component of the whole OS. And as Hurd uses the Mach in the same fashion as OS X, it hardly means that Mac OS is descended from the GNU effort. They're more akin to cousins.
I'm always impressed at the GNU folk's clamor to make everything appear to exist at the grace of Stallman. What he did is good for the world, but he isn't the second coming that he so often portrayed to be.
Also, all versions of Darwin (incl. Mac OS X) have apt available to them through the fink system.
There are so many problems with all of these arguments that I wish I had time to address them. First of all, the supported, unsupported thing is just plain braindead. For a company whose major sales point is usability, selling an unsupported OS is really dumb. Especially to an entirely new market.
All of this desire is driven by Intel people who are jealous of the Mac OS. Yes, jealous. It's the coolest thing on wheels, and the people who are used to all of the operating systems, all of the games, and all of the press are mad that they can't have it.
Apple sells hardware. Good hardware. Apple's budget goes to hardware R&D. They don't really need to worry about putting more money into the software. There is already plenty of effort going into OS X, especially now that OS 9 is largely shut down.
Apple is doing well. The world is watching and largely approving. The cadres of drooling i386 folks are evidence enough (OS X as a GUI for Linux? Come on.) I hope they stick to what is working so far.
Second of all, what a dreadful OS. I'm glad I don't have to think of anything like that on any of my computers.
I agree with the outrage at the lack of media, but I find it even more amazing that something so obviously faulty (a few reinstalls a week) could have so many people happy using it. Just because it's the best of the crap doesn't mean that it isn't crap, too.
That reminds me of when a friend of mine got a new computer. They read all of the documentation and licenses. They were so scared by the MS authenticity guarantees and product license (complete with holograms) that they taped the certificate to the monitor. Every time I went over to fix their computer or do something to correct Windows, that darned MS license was sitting there in what looked like a position of most adulatory celebration. I found it quite frustrating.
I have a reasonably-sized library and I just moved. I wouldn't trade those boxes of books (however heavy) in the spare room for any convenience. There are few things that beat sitting in a room full of good books that you've read.
Those points (save 'a,' which I can't decipher) don't stop armies of screaming kids yelling "I want it, I want it" at millions of frazzled mothers. It's a powerful force, and one that should not be trucked with by the unwitting.
"Any and all paperwork, disks, patents, intellectual property, etc. is subject to be displayed in a court of law so long as there are proper non-disclosure agreements about core intellectual property (which by the way, the government doesn't even have to agree to... it could post the source code to the web if it wanted... b/c it has that power, but it wouldn't want to deprive the company of any property or cause harm to the business without due process of law"
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the building environment for something as complicated and huge as Windows would be extremely difficult to duplicate. If MS wanted to be difficult, they could easily make the build environment slightly funky.
And that doesn't even include the amount of time that will be necessary to actually build the damned thing. Think about how long an XFree86 build takes.
That's one of the first Slashdot topics in a while that's made me stop and say, 'wow.'
I might even buy one of those gizmos.
I have long hated the concept of e-books. They're expensive, they forgo all of the benefits of a book, a pile of e-book ram cards is nothing like a shelf full of paper books.
But I might buy one if that was the only way to get the next Harry Potter book, and I suspect that a lot of other people would, too. I'd hate having to do it, mind you, but it would be an amazingly cunning, effective way to get the readers into a broad range of people's hands.
God, I hope it doesn't happen, but "wow," nonetheless.
What I actually meant was "blatantly illegal to buy." I agree that Philips is doing what is legal.
My real wonder is about when I buy it on eBay. What could be done to me when I try and import it from cousin Miroslav in Eastern Europe? I suppose Customs could seize it, etc., but are there any "real" penalties for the consumer?
I think Apple's beef is that it could really hit their customers hard. Every Mac comes with FireWire and iMovie. If a group of suits starts defining "for-profit" differently, suddenly millions of Mac users would have to be paying royalties.
By moving the cost to the company, Apple doesn't have to worry about its user base going through licensing hell.
Right, sorry. I meant: That gnome gave me new respect for people of all shapes, sizes, and mutations. It's so good, it ought to be in the curricula of our fine schools.
Slashdot Mirror
Classic Mac OS has never had that feature. (Adding a special extension to turn a directory into a single icon/bundle.)
It's had resource forks, but those are an entirely different implementation of a similar concept.
Dude, you're ripping that off of Mac OS X =)
Oh, how fluidly ideas flow from one place to another...
Have you ever seen the PARC interface (from the Alto and the Star)? I have. It is nothing like the current WIMP interface that is so popular. Nothing! No overlapping windows, really strange mouse button concepts, much more. Apple licensed (not stole) certain parts of the interface and expanded greatly the rest. Things like window clipping (allowing overlapping), menus that are sane, the modernization of the scroll bar, and much more.
If you're going to deploy a really cool sound system, doesn't it make sense to buy a proven core and put your own interface on it? SoundJam provided the playing engine, and Apple made it a powerful, friendly program.
I don't see a problem there.
Do you know what that means? "Based on NeXT" doesn't mean anything. NeXT was a company.
Mac OS X is based on OpenStep 4.2, which, itself, was based on NEXTSTEP 3.3. NEXTSTEP is a BSD operating system running on a modified version of the Mach microkernel. OpenStep is a API specification and a set of libraries that conforms to that API. OpenStep 4.2 (the operating system) is an implementation of those libraries on top of NEXTSTEP.
When Apple bought NeXT, they planned to build on top of OpenStep. They first produced Rhapsody for PPC and Rhapsody for Intel. They were the same OS running on two hardware platforms. On top of Rhapsody, Apple put the Blue Box, which was a Macintosh compatibility environment. At no time was there any need for a "BSD compatibility layer." It was all software running on top of BSD. Apple then killed Rhapsody for Intel (and the Yellow Box, but that's tangential.)
What was left was released as Mac OS Server.
Mac OS X 10.0 and Mac OS Server 10.0 (and further versions) are also BSD operating systems. They have the Cocoa (OpenStep) and Carbon libraries available, and the imaging system is called Aqua (replacement for Display PostScript.) At no point in any of this is there a need for any UNIX compatibility layer, as it is all real UNIX. The only compatibility environment necessary is for Mac OS 9 (Classic.) Only certain older applications (Carbon) can run natively on OS X, so for running non-Carbon apps, Mac OS 9 is run in a compatibility environment (similar, but not the same as VMWare.)
I hope that clarifies things.
I'm not sure how Aqua is the illegitimate child of GNU. The core of the whole shebang are the OpenStep libraries that Apple got with NeXT. The compiler is gcc, but that hardly implies parentage. In fact, A qua is the least third-party dependent component of the whole OS. And as Hurd uses the Mach in the same fashion as OS X, it hardly means that Mac OS is descended from the GNU effort. They're more akin to cousins.
I'm always impressed at the GNU folk's clamor to make everything appear to exist at the grace of Stallman. What he did is good for the world, but he isn't the second coming that he so often portrayed to be.
Also, all versions of Darwin (incl. Mac OS X) have apt available to them through the fink system.
There are so many problems with all of these arguments that I wish I had time to address them. First of all, the supported, unsupported thing is just plain braindead. For a company whose major sales point is usability, selling an unsupported OS is really dumb. Especially to an entirely new market.
All of this desire is driven by Intel people who are jealous of the Mac OS. Yes, jealous. It's the coolest thing on wheels, and the people who are used to all of the operating systems, all of the games, and all of the press are mad that they can't have it.
Apple sells hardware. Good hardware. Apple's budget goes to hardware R&D. They don't really need to worry about putting more money into the software. There is already plenty of effort going into OS X, especially now that OS 9 is largely shut down.
Apple is doing well. The world is watching and largely approving. The cadres of drooling i386 folks are evidence enough (OS X as a GUI for Linux? Come on.) I hope they stick to what is working so far.
I, personally, wouldn't want an army of disgruntled people taking care of my expensive hardware.
First of all, that's hardly a troll.
Second of all, what a dreadful OS. I'm glad I don't have to think of anything like that on any of my computers.
I agree with the outrage at the lack of media, but I find it even more amazing that something so obviously faulty (a few reinstalls a week) could have so many people happy using it. Just because it's the best of the crap doesn't mean that it isn't crap, too.
Nah, the site was slashdotted after seven posts.
Well, yea, it's karma whoring, but at least it's useful.
That reminds me of when a friend of mine got a new computer. They read all of the documentation and licenses. They were so scared by the MS authenticity guarantees and product license (complete with holograms) that they taped the certificate to the monitor. Every time I went over to fix their computer or do something to correct Windows, that darned MS license was sitting there in what looked like a position of most adulatory celebration. I found it quite frustrating.
As long as it's a tobacco bong, you're okay.
You broke it. And a piece landed on my foot! You'll be hearing from my team of high-priced lawyers.
Take that up with those silly thermodynamics party poopers. I agree, but I may be breaking a law in doing so.
"Kathleen, I wanted to do this in this most potentially embarassing way possible"
The real question is embarrassing for you or for her? =)
Congratulations, if you are.
I have a reasonably-sized library and I just moved. I wouldn't trade those boxes of books (however heavy) in the spare room for any convenience. There are few things that beat sitting in a room full of good books that you've read.
Those points (save 'a,' which I can't decipher) don't stop armies of screaming kids yelling "I want it, I want it" at millions of frazzled mothers. It's a powerful force, and one that should not be trucked with by the unwitting.
As an earlier poster posted:
"Any and all paperwork, disks, patents, intellectual property, etc. is subject to be displayed in a court of law so long as there are proper non-disclosure agreements about core intellectual property (which by the way, the government doesn't even have to agree to... it could post the source code to the web if it wanted... b/c it has that power, but it wouldn't want to deprive the company of any property or cause harm to the business without due process of law"
I'm no expert, but I imagine that the building environment for something as complicated and huge as Windows would be extremely difficult to duplicate. If MS wanted to be difficult, they could easily make the build environment slightly funky.
And that doesn't even include the amount of time that will be necessary to actually build the damned thing. Think about how long an XFree86 build takes.
Hehe. Giggle. Chuckle. Snort.
Sorry =)
That's one of the first Slashdot topics in a while that's made me stop and say, 'wow.'
I might even buy one of those gizmos.
I have long hated the concept of e-books. They're expensive, they forgo all of the benefits of a book, a pile of e-book ram cards is nothing like a shelf full of paper books.
But I might buy one if that was the only way to get the next Harry Potter book, and I suspect that a lot of other people would, too. I'd hate having to do it, mind you, but it would be an amazingly cunning, effective way to get the readers into a broad range of people's hands.
God, I hope it doesn't happen, but "wow," nonetheless.
What I actually meant was "blatantly illegal to buy." I agree that Philips is doing what is legal.
My real wonder is about when I buy it on eBay. What could be done to me when I try and import it from cousin Miroslav in Eastern Europe? I suppose Customs could seize it, etc., but are there any "real" penalties for the consumer?
Is it me, or does this seem blatantly illegal?
It also seems like the big guys (Philips, etc.) could hit these things with all sorts of potential incompatibilities.
I think Apple's beef is that it could really hit their customers hard. Every Mac comes with FireWire and iMovie. If a group of suits starts defining "for-profit" differently, suddenly millions of Mac users would have to be paying royalties.
By moving the cost to the company, Apple doesn't have to worry about its user base going through licensing hell.
Right, sorry. I meant: That gnome gave me new respect for people of all shapes, sizes, and mutations. It's so good, it ought to be in the curricula of our fine schools.
Sorry.