[nycbug-talk] RE: Max OS X and BSD

G. Rosamond george
Sun Apr 11 22:36:04 EDT 2004


This post is from the FreeBSD-advocacy list. . .

But also a discussion here. . . 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Edward Eigerman [mailto:eigerman at apple.com] 
>Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:47 AM
>To: george at sddi.net
>Cc: talk at lists.nycbug.org
>Subject: Re: Max OS X and BSD
>So, OS X isn't BSD, it's Darwin. Darwin is a BSD derivative, 
>but likes to think of itself as it's own project. It does have 
>binary compatibility with BSD, to a large extent. System V is 
>not involved, that was the now gone and very occasionally 
>lamented A/UX. 
>You sort of have to think of Darwin as the BSD kernel running 
>on top of the Mach Micro Kernel. So it is both BSD and Mach. 
>Mach is the core layer of a couple of OSs, but is only the 
>actual center of HURD, as far as I know.
>NextStep is the core of OS X, but BSD code has been 
>re-introduced with each revision. If you look at that horrible 
>family tree I put up in my presentation you'll see multiple 
>arrows showing code pollination coming over from other BSD 
>projects into OS X and Darwin.
>NetInfo is, for instance, a pure NeXT technology, but is now 
>supported in OS X as a legacy technology. We've moved to LDAP 
>as a directory service, but also support BSD flat file 
>directory services.
>OS X is FreeBSD. Primarily it is. It contains a lot of the 
>code of FreeBSD. There are also elements of NetBSD. All that 
>sits on top of Mach. What it really is is Darwin, a posix 
>compliant BSD derivative. But BSD binaries will usually 
>re-compile and execute and most of what you know about FreeBSD 
>(besides directory locations, which is not a small piece) does apply.
>OS X is BSD Unix. For most intents and purposes it is. It is 
>actually a separate project, called Darwin, but Darwin is 
>probably only slightly further from FreeBSD than NetBSD is, or 
>OpenBSD. It might be closer for all I know. Also, OS X is 
>posix compliant, but not posix certified. So you will only 
>ever hear Apple say that OS X is Unix-based. We don't legally 
>have the right to represent it as Unix.
>You are not completely off base, but the press and your 
>friends aren't either.
>On Apr 9, 2004, at 6:42 AM, G. Rosamond wrote:
>		-----Original Message-----
>		From: owner-freebsd-advocacy at freebsd.org 
>		[mailto:owner-freebsd-advocacy at freebsd.org] On 
>Behalf Of John Von Essen
>		Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 11:47 PM
>		To: freebsd-advocacy at freebsd.org
>		Subject: Max OS X and BSD
>		I need to get something cleared up in my head 
>because it is driving me 
>		nuts. It has to do with the relationship 
>between Mac OS X and BSD.
>		For starters, I am an "old" NeXT user. I used 
>NeXTSTEP 3.x and 
>		4.2. I remember back in 97, Apple acquired NeXT 
>software and thus 
>		acquired the OPENSTEP 4.2 operating system. At 
>the time I was running 
>		OPENSTEP 4.2 (along with the ill-fated WebObjects) on a 
>		Pentium II box, 
>		and running NEXTSTEP 3.3 User on a NeXTStation 
>Mono Slab. Around that 
>		time, Apple started work on rhapsody - their 
>next generation OS. I was 
>		under the assumption that rhapsody (and later 
>darwin) was basically an 
>		OPENSTEP derivative with a brand new graphics 
>layer. Its obvious to 
>		anybody who uses OS X currently, and who used 
>to use OPENSTEP 4.2. In 
>		OS X, the app NetInfo is strikingly similar to 
>the NetInfo app in 
>		NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP. A ps -ax lists a whole bunch 
>of processes that are 
>		also strikingly similar between the two. The 
>there are things like 
>		WebObject which came from OPENSTEP 4.2, 
>Objective-C framework 
>		which was 
>		present back in NEXTSTEP versions.
>		I was under the impression that OS X was a 
>derivative of OPENSTEP - 
>		which means from a kernel standpoint it is NOT 
>BSD and NOT System V, 
>		rather it is a MACH kernel (which sort of is a 
>BSD kernel derivative). 
>		Apple scraped the graphics layer and made their 
>own. And this is where 
>		the BSD connection comes in, Apple scraped 
>OPENSTEP's TCP/IP and opted 
>		to use the one from FreeBSD - which is the best!
>		The problem is I hear things from people, and I 
>read things from 
>		prominent sources, that completely make no 
>sense. Things like:
>		OS X is FreeBSD
>		OS X is BSD Unix
>		Apple uses the FreeBSD kernel
>		And today I got a security email from 
>WatchGuard (the crapy firewall 
>		people) with the statement:
>		"With OS X, Apple changed the core of its 
>operating system to 
>		a version 
>		of
>		Unix known as BSD."
>		Then colleges of mine read that, and they come 
>to me and say, 
>		"Hey, did 
>		ya hear? Apple uses FreeBSD"
>		Its driving me nuts, when are people going to 
>get things straight? Or 
>		am I completely off base here?!
>		-john
>		_______________________________________________
>		freebsd-advocacy at freebsd.org mailing list
>		To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
>		"freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

More information about the talk mailing list