What Apple's website says is a convenient fiction because the truth is
quite complicated. OS X is derived from nextstep. Nextstep was based on
plain 4.4BSD-Lite2 (iirc). Now Apple's taken that, and fancied it up
with Aqua, but under the hood all Apple has done (quite a lot, actually)
is insert Mach 3 in place of Mach 2.5 (iirc OS X Server uses 2.5), and
re-engineer FreeBSD back into the core, to replace the dodgy 4.4BSD that
was present in nextstep (not saying it was bad, it was just not quite
there with posix compliancy etc). Now this FBSD is not the entire thing.
It is just a FBSD personality on top of the Mach kernel. The BSD
personality runs in kernel space (for speed reasons -- look at MkLinux
if you don't believe me) but in user mode.
Who's lining up? Basically noone. Try www.openppc.org for details of the POP design, but a shortage of one component killed POP. Probably would have booted OS X/darwin just fine, though, so it's a shame...
How? I can just imagine Grove walking up to my door peddling P3/4s and RDRAM. Sure. I'm building my own Duron box... exactly how is intel going to crush me? Your call...
The POWER series and the PowerPC are no longer relatives; they're actually the same thing, from when the POWER2 was released (IIRC). The main difference between the PPC and the original POWER was a few instructions, and a few that worked differently; the PPC 601 was a bridge between the two architectures, and when IBM made big-iron from PPCs (e.g. 604-based servers), AIX had to have traps to handle the slightly different environments. Other than that, though, the PPC and the POWER2 and onwards share the same ISA.
Companies (an independent concern, Moto, IBM etc) could just turn out boards based on the CHRP spec, but the CHRP spec would need to be seriously rejigged - it needs AGP and USB, and needs to shed the old shit (ISA, for example).
>my interest in Linux was based on the fact that it was free software
I think that maybe software _quality_ (rather than a software's _license_) is a fairer and more reliable guide...
>OS X does not represent the end of Linux
True, but not for the reason you give ('my interest in Linux was based on the fact that it was free software')
With a trifling exception, the universe consists of others than you;)
>I don't think Apple owes me anything
Then why whinge about how some parts aren't open? After all... they don't _owe_ it to you, do they?
>If you like OS X, more power to you.
And that would be power you're willing to pass up because you sincerely believe that a software's _license_, rather than a software's _quality_, is a better judge of whether or not you should use it?
>>Oh, so Apple owe you something now, do they?
>*blink* Um, how on earth do you get that from the comment you're responding to?
If you wasted a neuron, you'd realize I was referring to the original poster who was whingeing about how he wasn't interested in OS X because it wasn't "free software". So presumably the poster _would_ be interested in OS X if it _was_ free software. Now, why does Apple owe the opening of the OS X source to _anyone_?
>>And NO, BSD is not "free software" in the sense which you mean "free", which is most definitely going to be RMS's "free".
>Strange, then, that the FSF's List of Licenses page describes the modified BSD license as "a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem [that is] compatible with the GNU GPL" -- how, then, is not free in RMS's sense? Perhaps you're thinking of the problems with the original BSD license, but I don't imagine any version of BSD is distributed under that license anymore.
*shrug* RMS still doesn't like it. And, if he doesn't like a license, it's not kosher, see...
>>Of course, you gave that no thought, and probably parrot some other guy (RMS) because his prattle sounds cool.
>Wait, you're contradicting yourself here...
Would you like to point out exactly how, because I can't see it myself.
>>There's nothing wrong with RMS's philosophy (who doesn't like the GPL?) it's just the amount of idiots following him...
>Okay, I'm lost; if "[t]here's nothing wrong with RMS's philosophy", how would one be an idiot for following him?
*sigh*
It's known as blind faith. I didn't say that _anyone_ was _automatically_ an idiot if they followed RMS; as I said, "it's just the amount of idiots following him..."
It's _certain_ followers of RMS's philosophy who shit me, because while their faith is in the right place, they can't _justify_ to themselves _why_ their faith is in such place, besides reasons like "it's cool" (because _everyone's_ doing it, see...)
>>Second, it makes no economic sense to make the GUI "truly free" as you say.
>And when exactly did economics enter into this branch of the discussion?
Because of the first point, which was about Apple 'owing' the OS X source to the world at large. First, Apple doesn't owe the OS X source to _anyone_. Second, Apple's not a charity; it makes no economic sense to open the GUI and make it truly free, _that's_ why Apple's not making the GUI free. Get it?
'if they open-sourced their system I would be interested'
/me rolls his eyes
Would you quit acting like Apple owes you something? Why does the general public (you in particular) _deserve_ access to the proprietary parts of OS X? You owe it to at least yourself to try OS X to see if you actually _do_ like it, rather than have `is it open-source' as a criterion on which you judge whether you like/use a piece of software or not. (quick question: if i'm illiterate, how did you understand me in the first place?)
Oh, so Apple owe you something now, do they? And NO, BSD is not "free software" in the sense which you mean "free", which is most definitely going to be RMS's "free". Of course, you gave that no thought, and probably parrot some other guy (RMS) because his prattle sounds cool. There's nothing wrong with RMS's philosophy (who doesn't like the GPL?) it's just the amount of idiots following him... Second, it makes no economic sense to make the GUI "truly free" as you say. Not that you actually have a fuckin' clue what "truly free" actually _means_... but it sounds k3w|, r1g|-|7.....? (www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html).
P.S. Apple's already said that they will produce an xterm-ish deal for OS X. It's in the public knowledge (whoops, everyone _except_ you it would appear...)
Of course OS X has a command line. This moron's whingeing because he doesn't _know_ how to use one.
Don't you realize? The whole reason he's dribbling on about Aqua is because if he/she/it uses a Mac w/OS X he/she/it sure as hell won't be using a command line. Stuck in aqua. Too dumb, presumably.
chuck wasn't completely wrong. The processor is the PPC 7400 (more popularly known as the G4, granted) and the apple box bearing its name is known as the G4 only by virtue of the 7400's codename (which stuck...)
i386. Also (kiddie), it is difficult to run a whole computer from an ethernet card. If you don't know what I'm on about, ask someone who has actually has a clue about computers (i.e. probably every/.er except yourself).
I can tell you're a foreigner, you speak like one, you're probably french, no wonder I dislike french people. Of course you don't know anyone with a mac, duh, you're too busy trying to get 600fps in *cough* qwank *cough* 3.
you don't use a mac? oh, well, certainly its destiny is death, we all know the world revolves around you and your BSoD/OS installation (dear BSDI lovers: i know that may be a bit close for comfort, nuffin' personal heh)
Slashdot Mirror
What Apple's website says is a convenient fiction because the truth is
quite complicated. OS X is derived from nextstep. Nextstep was based on
plain 4.4BSD-Lite2 (iirc). Now Apple's taken that, and fancied it up
with Aqua, but under the hood all Apple has done (quite a lot, actually)
is insert Mach 3 in place of Mach 2.5 (iirc OS X Server uses 2.5), and
re-engineer FreeBSD back into the core, to replace the dodgy 4.4BSD that
was present in nextstep (not saying it was bad, it was just not quite
there with posix compliancy etc). Now this FBSD is not the entire thing.
It is just a FBSD personality on top of the Mach kernel. The BSD
personality runs in kernel space (for speed reasons -- look at MkLinux
if you don't believe me) but in user mode.
Hardware acceleration has been in OS X since DP4.
Who's lining up? Basically noone. Try www.openppc.org for details of the POP design, but a shortage of one component killed POP. Probably would have booted OS X/darwin just fine, though, so it's a shame...
... and if you compared a 5400rpm/ata33 drive to a 5400rpm/ata100 drive, you _wouldn't_ "consider that an increase in speed and performance..."
dude: if i wanted a 16-bit memory bus i'd dig up
a 286. Technical superiority?
DDR companies paying royalties? Rambus is already
dying. These lawsuits are their last gasp.
How? I can just imagine Grove walking up to my
door peddling P3/4s and RDRAM. Sure. I'm building
my own Duron box... exactly how is intel going
to crush me? Your call...
The POWER series and the PowerPC are no longer relatives; they're actually the same thing, from when the POWER2 was released (IIRC). The main difference between the PPC and the original POWER was a few instructions, and a few that worked differently; the PPC 601 was a bridge between the two architectures, and when IBM made big-iron from PPCs (e.g. 604-based servers), AIX had to have traps to handle the slightly different environments. Other than that, though, the PPC and the POWER2 and onwards share the same ISA.
Companies (an independent concern, Moto, IBM etc) could just turn out boards based on the CHRP spec, but the CHRP spec would need to be seriously rejigged - it needs AGP and USB, and needs to shed the old shit (ISA, for example).
>The Unix behind OS X isn't exactly BSD (although thats what it is based on).. its OpenStep, which is their variant.
There's a lot of FBSD reengineered in there, as I hear...
As far as source code meddling goes, you can always fiddle with Darwin...
>my interest in Linux was based on the fact that it was free software
;)
I think that maybe software _quality_ (rather than a software's _license_) is a fairer and more reliable guide...
>OS X does not represent the end of Linux
True, but not for the reason you give ('my interest in Linux was based on the fact that it was free software')
With a trifling exception, the universe consists of others than you
>I don't think Apple owes me anything
Then why whinge about how some parts aren't open? After all... they don't _owe_ it to you, do they?
>If you like OS X, more power to you.
And that would be power you're willing to pass up because you sincerely believe that a software's _license_, rather than a software's _quality_, is a better judge of whether or not you should use it?
>>Oh, so Apple owe you something now, do they?
>*blink* Um, how on earth do you get that from the comment you're responding to?
If you wasted a neuron, you'd realize I was referring to the original poster who was whingeing about how he wasn't interested in OS X because it wasn't "free software". So presumably the poster _would_ be interested in OS X if it _was_ free software. Now, why does Apple owe the opening of the OS X source to _anyone_?
>>And NO, BSD is not "free software" in the sense which you mean "free", which is most definitely going to be RMS's "free".
>Strange, then, that the FSF's List of Licenses page describes the modified BSD license as "a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with no particular problem [that is] compatible with the GNU GPL" -- how, then, is not free in RMS's sense? Perhaps you're thinking of the problems with the original BSD license, but I don't imagine any version of BSD is distributed under that license anymore.
*shrug* RMS still doesn't like it. And, if he doesn't like a license, it's not kosher, see...
>>Of course, you gave that no thought, and probably parrot some other guy (RMS) because his prattle sounds cool.
>Wait, you're contradicting yourself here...
Would you like to point out exactly how, because I can't see it myself.
>>There's nothing wrong with RMS's philosophy (who doesn't like the GPL?) it's just the amount of idiots following him...
>Okay, I'm lost; if "[t]here's nothing wrong with RMS's philosophy", how would one be an idiot for following him?
*sigh*
It's known as blind faith. I didn't say that _anyone_ was _automatically_ an idiot if they followed RMS; as I said, "it's just the amount of idiots following him..."
It's _certain_ followers of RMS's philosophy who shit me, because while their faith is in the right place, they can't _justify_ to themselves _why_ their faith is in such place, besides reasons like "it's cool" (because _everyone's_ doing it, see...)
>>Second, it makes no economic sense to make the GUI "truly free" as you say.
>And when exactly did economics enter into this branch of the discussion?
Because of the first point, which was about Apple 'owing' the OS X source to the world at large. First, Apple doesn't owe the OS X source to _anyone_. Second, Apple's not a charity; it makes no economic sense to open the GUI and make it truly free, _that's_ why Apple's not making the GUI free. Get it?
'if they open-sourced their system I would be interested'
/me rolls his eyes
Would you quit acting like Apple owes you something? Why does the general public (you in particular) _deserve_ access to the proprietary parts of OS X?
You owe it to at least yourself to try OS X to see
if you actually _do_ like it, rather than have
`is it open-source' as a criterion on which you
judge whether you like/use a piece of software or not.
(quick question: if i'm illiterate, how did you understand me in the first place?)
Don't know if this is relevant, but OS X and
;) )
Darwin don't need any particular firmware to boot
(besides Open Firmware, I suppose).
Classic Mac OS relies on a section of firmware
tagged Apple_ROM IIRC. OS X and Darwin don't
access or need to access that.
Second, the CHRP spec is sorta old. It'd need
revision (AGP and USB need inclusion, ISA needs to be shot in the head etc
Oh, so Apple owe you something now, do they?
And NO, BSD is not "free software" in the sense which you
mean "free", which is most definitely going to
be RMS's "free". Of course, you gave that no thought,
and probably parrot some other guy (RMS) because his prattle
sounds cool. There's nothing wrong with RMS's
philosophy (who doesn't like the GPL?) it's just
the amount of idiots following him...
Second, it makes no economic sense to make the GUI
"truly free" as you say. Not that you actually have a fuckin' clue what "truly free" actually _means_... but it sounds k3w|, r1g|-|7.....? (www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html).
XFree86 is being ported to OS X.
BSD won't be able to run OS X apps, because of the
gui and other closed-source libs, sure, but in
case you haven't noticed yet, OS X is _PPC_ only.
If you want OS X sans GUI then run Darwin, idiot.
P.S. Apple's already said that they will produce
an xterm-ish deal for OS X. It's in the public
knowledge (whoops, everyone _except_ you it would
appear...)
Of course OS X has a command line. This moron's
whingeing because he doesn't _know_ how to use one.
Don't you realize? The whole reason he's dribbling
on about Aqua is because if he/she/it uses a Mac
w/OS X he/she/it sure as hell won't be using a
command line. Stuck in aqua. Too dumb, presumably.
You obviously haven't tried to _edit_ a pre-existing MPEG
stream...
IMHO code quality is a shining goal; coders are a dime a dozen now so we may as well only pass the best...
;)
If they can't write code stringently compliant w/all the relevant buzzwords (ansi-compliancy comes to mind) then why should they pass?
Excepting, of course, those weird glibc bugs that pop up from time to time...
It's an IEEE standard, moron. What, you've never noticed it called 'IEEE 1394' before?
Wasn't Ultrix based on (some release of) BSD?
chuck wasn't completely wrong. The processor is
the PPC 7400 (more popularly known as the G4, granted)
and the apple box bearing its name is known as the
G4 only by virtue of the 7400's codename (which
stuck...)
It's a fucking joke...
i386. Also (kiddie), it is difficult to run a /.er except yourself).
whole computer from an ethernet card. If you don't
know what I'm on about, ask someone who has
actually has a clue about computers (i.e. probably
every
I can tell you're a foreigner, you speak like one,
you're probably french, no wonder I dislike french
people. Of course you don't know anyone with a
mac, duh, you're too busy trying to get 600fps
in *cough* qwank *cough* 3.
you don't use a mac? oh, well, certainly its
destiny is death, we all know the world revolves
around you and your BSoD/OS installation
(dear BSDI lovers: i know that may be a bit close for comfort, nuffin' personal heh)