Something I never quite understood....

[GMcG]

If OS-X is based upon BSD, and BSD is based upon Unix just like Linux. Why don't Mac programs run on Linux? Surely only the tiniest bit of tweaking should be necessary?

[M-Saunders]

Mac OS X isn't really 'based' on BSD -- it uses the Mach kernel with some BSD userland utilities and libraries.

BSD, Linux and Unix are similar operating systems, in that they generally adhere to certain standards and specifications (eg POSIX), but that doesn't make them compatible in every way. For instance, some Unix-like OSes run the X Window System for the GUI (eg FreeBSD and Linux), whereas Apple Mac OS X uses something else entirely.

So, in a nutshell, all Unix-like OSes share similar characteristics, and you can port simple command-line software between them very easily, but on the GUI level they sometimes have completely different frameworks.

M

[GMcG]

Thanks!


Or should that be 'Bah'?

[wyliecoyoteuk]

Maybe I shouldn't mention this, but windoze NT has it's roots in BSD.....

[towy71]

Maybe I shouldn't mention this, but windoze NT has it's roots in BSD.....

only the networking bits IIRC what they "borrowed" all cobbled together with bits of M$Dos code and tied with baler twine and sticky back plastic, and still the continuing basis of XPee

[M-Saunders]

And even then, according to most sources the network stack has been almost/completely rewritten and doesn't contain any BSD code.

M

[towy71]

And even then, according to most sources the network stack has been almost/completely rewritten and doesn't contain any BSD code.

M

Who would know

[nelz]

Why? Was it too secure?

[towy71]

Why? Was it too secure?

Who would know

[wyliecoyoteuk]

But then, MS would say that wouldn't they
Net BSD was mentioned as the kernel basis in the foreword of "Networking NT4" -the book I used as a guide to set my first NT network up with, when we moved on from Novell, DOS and WFW.
Nostalgia- IIRC our first NT server was a pIII 250MHz with a massive 128Mb of ram and mirrored 8Gb disks- Installing SCSI on NT4 was not for the fainthearted.

[jbennet]

well ms own some system v code dont they?
they had a licence to make Xenix afterall (yes, ms did make a unix once)

why dont they make a new, unixey windows

[Rhakios]

why dont they make a new, unixey windows

Sure, why not, they've copied everything else Apple have ever done.

[jbennet]

well really, whats to stop them, they can use opernsource bsd code or buy the real thing if they want to. You know what i reackon someday ms will make a linux distro and it will be bad so it will kill linux

[jjmac]

jbennet wrote:
>>
well really, whats to stop them,
.
.
.
You know what i reackon someday ms will make a linux distro and it will be bad so it will kill linux
>>

Oh, i think it probably has crossed their minds


Bill and his bouncing monkey, spend long hours at night, going over the gpl, and pondering while muttering to themselves ... 'damn, damn' ....

And go to sleep, with the rotational thought ... 'must remember to smile and be nice at the Linux expo this week ... damn, damn'

I'm not that great a fan of the bsd licence. I tend to think that not a lot of long term thought was put into it. You can basically do whatever you want except claim authorship. It doesn't require code visibility, and allows other licences to override itself, ... thus its' preference by proprietary companies i guess.

Big business, currently, seems to be going the way of absorbing, or rather, assimilating open source projects rather than trying to compete head on it would seem ... Novel anyone ....


jm

[guy]

I'm not that great a fan of the bsd licence.

The BSD license is a great license. What sucks is the commercial world it has to survive in.

Big business, currently, seems to be going the way of absorbing, or rather, assimilating open source projects rather than trying to compete head on it would seem ... Novel anyone ....

Big business can be part of the open source community if it wants. Who else is going to feed us? ... RedHat anyone....