Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses Operating Systems BSD

Mac OS Mach/BSD Kernel Inseparable 181

Posted by Nik
from the NP:-Sheriff-Fatman dept.
Anonymous Coward writes: "One of the more significant statements of the session [at Apple's WorldWide Developer's Conference] came when Magee told the audience that the Mach kernel and the BSD layer which lays upon it are inseparable. "Every application [that runs in Mac OS X] is a BSD application," said Magee. "You can't keep the system running without the Mach kernel and the BSD layer." This quashes the public rumour that Apple will be able to ship a "lite" version of Mac OS X which will contain only the smallest possible bit of BSD, or another that questions Apple reluctance to move its tools to Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS Mach/BSD Kernel Inseparable: No 'lite' vers

Comments Filter:
  • The entire article is GREEN is linkage!

    You're missing a "Left-Arrow-slash-A-right-arrow" after the link text.
    ___

  • by Darchmare (5387) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:05AM (#1058278) Homepage
    Remember, just because MacOS is a completely BSD-based system, doesn't mean you'll be able to tell it. Apple has stated that the Terminal won't ship with the OS, and you won't be finding very many Unixisms.

    Of course, the first thing some of us will be doing is installing a terminal and maybe a few other things, and we'll have all the gooey Unixness that we need. But really, Apple has no interest in scaring off their core markets...

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • I wonder how Apple will solve the adminsitration issue? IMHO any UN*X box needs some admin work now-and-then.

    Not that I mean to slight Mac users, but I don't see them playing sysadmin.

    Whatever the solution Apple comes up with, it might give us in the Linux community new ideas on how to make Linux boxen newbie-friendly.

    Roland

  • Hopefully this is exactly what they have spent the last year trying to solve.

    ;-)
  • Nik is probably too tired :)

    I fixed it.

  • by Pengo (28814) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:24AM (#1058282) Journal

    How long will it take before the gui interfaces, easy administration.. etc, is completely ripped off and used as a template of solid user interface design for unix. In something like kde/gnome/icewm .. whatever they have a great design and are technically there, but are lacking (IMHO) a bit in the ease of use dept. I believe that we are going to learn a LOT about how to do a simple interface and design on top of a unix core. (Though, I thought the same thing about BeOS.. (I know it's not Unix.. but unix-like).. and we haven't really taken much off of it)

    I just purchased a G4 for one of our graphics designers at my work and I must say .. it's fast. She is pleased with it's performance.. but it's still got OS/9.. which (IMHO) multi-tasks like Windows 3.11. Very sad.

    Anyways.. I hope that OS/X kicks some ass in the industry.. I hope that we can learn a lot from it. If it is everything that I hope it is.. (hehe).. I will probably be replacing my computer. BTW, does anyone know if this will spark more interest from the Adobe group to start portin their applications to Linux? (Should be easier with a BSD/Mach port already done...)

  • Everyone knows you can't do anything with Mach by itself. And if BSD is the OS server doing the work, it's pretty natural you'd need the whole thing. What could you possibly cut out? Networking? File systems? Nah.

    And whatever these questions are about why Apple won't put it's tools on Linux, I'd say they remain wide open since BSD and Linux and plenty close.

    I suppose it had to happen eventually. Mac running on Mach.
  • If the applications are truly BSD programs, then it's an almost trivial port to Linux.

    My guess is they are really BSD + Apple's Runtime programs, meaning that the runtime would need to be ported as well.

    At the API level, Linux and BSD are almost identical. They are Unixoid, after all.

    So don't discount the possibility that Apple programs on Linux are a compatibility library away.
  • by friedo (112163) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:29AM (#1058285) Homepage
    There will be very intuitive graphical interfaces to all the network services and other configuration things; rumor has it that they've also standardized all the config files into XML, which you can also edit by hand.
  • by gerti (22279) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:29AM (#1058286) Homepage
    MacOS X uses NetInfo and associated tools (commandline as well as gui-tools are available) to configure just about anything.

    There's also a gui Preferences application to configure things like monitor settings, date and time, apps to start at login, etcetera.

    More information about Netinfo is available here:

    http://til.info.apple.com/tech info.nsf/artnum/n60038 [apple.com]

  • by Vanders (110092) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:38AM (#1058287) Homepage
    Probably less trivial than you think.

    MacOS X has extra layers that many apps use/will use, such as Carbon, and the other Apple specific API's that they've included. You won't find these on anything but a MacOS X box. Don't think that Apple will make these API's & libraries available to BSD developers either. Without these libraries, the MacOS X programs arn't going to compile on your *BSD box.

    Doing it the other way & compiling BSD tools on MacOS X would be a trivial task though, with a suitable shell & compiler installed.
  • Actually, it probably won't help with Adobe.

    First, and most obvious, there is still a very small market in the Unix world that has anything to do with higher end graphics. Sure, there are those who do some web graphics, etc. but I doubt there are many Unix/Linux boxen in the print publishing worlds or anything.

    Second, while MacOS X is built on BSD, most developers will barely touch it. Carbon is more like programming on a cleaned up MacOS API, and Cocoa is still tied up in Mac specific APIs. Most Mac apps will behave as if there isn't a shell, and definately have nothing to do with the X Windowing System.

    But, I'm willing to bet that it'll be a lot easier to port Unix apps over to the Mac, although they'll be "second class citizens" unless they adopt the Mac specific APIs (which is fine by me - most of the main stuff I want are console apps and utilities).

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • by mfterman (2719) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:49AM (#1058289)
    The thing that GNU/Linux can learn is a cleaned up and unified configuration system. To my mind the area where GNU/Linux really needs to clean things up is over in /etc (and maybe /dev and /var and a few of the other utilitarian filesystems). Create a unified, consistant and extendable XML setup for system, application and user configuration files.

    The main advantage here is that it allows for the creation of universal configuration tools that don't have to be recoded every time a new application comes out. Just plop in a new XML file (and possibly a DTD) and all of a sudden you've got a whole new application to manipulate easily. Not to mention developers have a nice little API for creating and managing configurations that allows system defaults and user overrides of said defaults transparently.

    Little things like file bundles should be included in this restructuring as well. There are some nice nifty little bits in Mac OS/X. Apple really cleaned up some of the nastier bits of Unix when they tossed out historical precedents. Not that I totally agree with all of their decisions, but a lot of Unix simply evolved rather than was desgined coherently. It's time those parts were cleaned up. A lot of the usability issues with Unix are going to be stalled until they are.

    Note that this does not mean babyfying Linux in any way. The thing with file bundles is you can open them up if you want granularity. Going to XML for all the configuration files in /etc (as well as pulling in configuration files from elsewhere and giving them structure) is there to make things consistant. If anything it will be easier for those writing administration scripts to work if said configuration files are standardized and organized. Quite the opposite.

    I'm using GNU/Linux here because some things are handled at the kernel level but a large chunk of it is in the GNU tools that are traditionally bundled with Linux. Both need some modification here to come up with a coherent and unified system.

    Migration is going to be a nightmare (remember glibc?) however once migration is done things can really start to move forward in terms of usability. The GNOME/KDE people would love to be able to set up pretty GUI-based configuration tools to manage everything, and the Perl/Python people would be in heaven because they could write real libraries to manipulate those things (not to mention all the people who use those libraries).

    Backwards compatibility is all fine and well, but we all know of how backwards compatibility can drag back progress in the computing world. This is one of those cases where things have reached the point that areas need to be scrapped and rebuilt in the name of future progress.
  • by i, Mac (1975) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:50AM (#1058290) Homepage
    While that may be true for many Mac users, I think you'll find those of us who have been working on them for as many years as you have been working on a PC are as competent on our OS as any Linux guru is on Linux.

    Having been using a Mac for 10-12 (I stopped counting after 7) years, when I decided to build myself a PC and install Linux on it, want to know what the only problem I had was? Didn't seat the RAM correctly so the computer beeped when I turned it on.

    If you want to talk about some Mac users, fine. But don't slight all of us because there are quite a few gurus.

    Now, if you're talking about Mac users coming to Windows or Linux, geez! Windows is nowhere near as intuitive or consistent as a Mac, and it does take people some time to get up to speed.

    As for Linux, there's a definite learning curve. If you don't believe that, you're deluded. But I'm a Mac user, and GEE, I figured it out. I'm posting this from Linux.

    Go back to your AC hole or limit your statement to the _subset_ of Mac users who are thick fuckers. And compare the size of that subset to the _subset_ of Windows users who are thick fuckers.

    And finally, recognize that when it comes to Linux, most all of us were thick fuckers when we started; the difference between us is how long it took to understand it all.
  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:54AM (#1058291)
    rumor has it that they've also standardized all the config files into XML, which you can also edit by hand.

    I don't think this is a rumor - I have seen this mentioned in Apple developer docs.

    XML has got to be the best config file format; other text formats have problems with being parsed after you hand edit them; this should not.

  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @03:56AM (#1058292)
    Apple has stated that the Terminal won't ship with the OS, and you won't be finding very many Unixisms.

    Latest I have heard is that Terminal won't be part of the standard install, but it will ship on the System software CD as an optional component.

  • I wonder how Apple will solve the adminsitration issue? IMHO any UN*X box needs some admin work now-and-then.

    Between NeXT and AU/X Apple has had more experience prettify-ing Unix than anyone else. Expect to see a Unix with real ease of admin.

  • by Darchmare (5387) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @04:03AM (#1058294) Homepage
    Let me guess, you think it's a good thing if people had to spend 10 minutes poking under the hood messing with stuff just to start their cars, right?

    Some people are more interested in getting work done than fucking around with machines that should be there to serve them instead. I personally have no problem screwing around with the innards of my OS, writing shell scripts, and so on. But should my mom be forced to? I certainly don't think so.

    To call people names simply because they want to get work done - the original intent of computing technology - rather than make it a hobby is pretty arrogant.

    (And yes, I've worked tech support in the past and have had a lot of laughs ... But the people I supported, albeit without any real computing knowledge, were some of the smartest people I've ever known. Lack of computing knowledge has no bearing on someone's intellegence or lack thereof.)

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • by Anonymous Coward
    this my friends is what happens when cousins marry cousins.
  • Based on what i've seen from the XServer box I've been testing, pretty much every administration task has been given a GUI frontend so that you never have to use the terminal. Indeed, a lot of the needed stuff won't run under Terminal, can't add users and so forth...
  • I'm not sure there is a reason for the *ix community to get all excited about this. Since Apple is still 100% committed to their highly proprietary hardware platform (remember, they killed all clones just last year!), all that the BSD kernel gives Mac users is better multitasking --which has been long overdue-- and the ability to run *ix utilities (nice for sysadmins, but totally irrelevant for the typical Mac end-user).

    There will be no cool Mac software coming back to the *ix community because of this, since all that cool software will still be tied to Apple's proprietary APIs that in turn are tied to their proprietary hardware. It's as simple as that: even Windows stuff will be easier to port than OS/X apps.

  • GUI/Friendly config files that are XML standard... now that opens up cool implications:
    Not only can you edit it all with simple, user-friendly tools, but with the same tool; an all-purpose thin-client XML-form editor.

    Let *nix rule in open programmability, and Mac in UI consistency; but a bridge like this could make for RAD development of UI-simple apps.

  • I've wanted a unified configuration system for a long time, the trouble is, anything sufficently flexable to deal with every app out there, is also going to be complete overkill for most other apps.

    XML may be a reasonable compromise, but its very verbose. I'm sure WindowMaker used some preference storage system, but I cant find any info on it at the moment. I know some people who'd like to use LDAP to store config stuff, I'm not sure if they're joking or not, I've not used ldap.

    As for the migration nightmare, I dont think it'd be that bad. I didnt find the glibc transition any problem (thanks debian) except for some motif libs.

    I can also think back the the a.out -> elf transition, which wasnt so fun.

    Maybe a library based off libxml, if its good, people will use it.
  • First, what is Apple's point in having a BSD kernel on top of a Mach microkernel? The usual reason for using Mach is (a)to achieve better portability, because Mach is ported to a great variety of architectures, (b)so you don't have to worry about the low-level details but can concentrate on the higher-level stuff when writing the (mid-level) kernel (e.g. Hurd), or (c)to take advantage of the microkernel abstractions (tasks and all that). But I don't see that any of these apply here: (a)doesn't because Apple is interested in a single architecture, (b)doesn't because the BSD kernel is already there, it is certainly more work to port it as a layer over Mach than to use it as such, and (c)is contradicted by the article in question (it seems that the Mach abstractions will be hid by the BSD level).

    So, MkLinux uses Mach because of reason (a) essentially. Hurd uses it because of reasons (b) and (c) (reason (a) doesn't apply since the Hurd only runs on Intel so far). But why Apple? I mean, the BSD kernel runs very well by itself, doesn't it?

    The problem with Mach is that it tends to make everything so slooow whereas the pristine BSD kernel is quite fast.

    On the other hand, if they had some reason for using Mach, what was the point of BSD? Evidently they are not interested in the Unix aspect of things, and MacOS has always been radically different from Unix in its conception. Wherefore BSD? Why not port the existing MacOS superstructure on the Mach core?

    I fail to see how it all fits together. Will someone post a +2 (Informative), +1 (Interesting) reply to summarize the reasons?

    And, of course, to answer the question, won't MacOSX be insanely slow?

  • imho, hopefully some admins will get more *nix experience with this, and will see the advantages of such. If enough do, it might be able to convince them to either ask apple to go more bsd compliant or (even better) get them to switch to running a *nix box instead...
  • by Carl (12719) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @04:27AM (#1058302) Homepage
    You are right that the modern version of the classic MacOS libraries (Carbon) libraries won't be available (yet?) on GNU/Linux. But don't forget that the new Cocoa library is just a modern variant of the NextStep/OpenStep libraries that are already available as GNUStep [gnustep.org] that is under active development.
  • by FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @04:30AM (#1058303)
    This is not flamebait or a troll, but it is somewhat unkind to (current) Macs and other popular views. Deal with it.

    Up until now MacOS has had a good GUI only. The OS itself hasn't been very powerful. On the other hand, the various Unices have been the exact opposite. Windows has been a (not-so-)happy medium.

    So what happens when you put a good GUI on top of a good core? The obvious answer is: You take over the world. But what if you don't? That is, what if the real power of Unix is the combination of power AND the know-how of the people who took the time to learn it?

    If this happens, will we finally see an end to the countless "GUI for Linux" projects (not to mention advocates)? Or will these people never admit that a computer isn't like a car? (Cars provide a linear service--travel. Computers provide a non-linear service--emulation of any machine [in the mathematical sense]).

    If we look around at the non-computing world, do we see any simple AND powerful products in the hands of Average Joe? (A CD player is more advanced than a record player--but is it more powerful?) I can't think of any...

    I think the reason for this is clear: Powerful devices require thought. Simple devices are designed to not require thought. These goals don't mesh very well.

    Understand, though, I'm not saying "any GUI is a bad GUI" and I'm not saying "you can't get better than [cli|X|whatever]". I AM saying "Beyond a certain point, GUIs enter a region of tradeoff between power and simplicity. What is that point and how will we know when we've reached it?"
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
  • Apple is happy to deal with Linux when it's useful. MkLinux was funded by Apple until other Linux distributions came out for PPC hardware. Darwin and QuickTime streaming server have been released under a semi-open source license. Darwin helped get OS X on the radars of both geeks and the Linux happy investment community. QuickTime is currently second or third fiddle in the streaming world and Jobs wants to change that and steal a major chunk of the post-production market in general. Why not give away streaming server when the people with the money --read studios, networks, major websites-- are happy to pay money for shrink-wrap and support? I may be using a G3 laptop to type this, but I'm no fool. Apple fundamentally does two things: sell computers and sell web/video software. They want to create hype and move boxes of some kind or another. If giving away something helps in that regard, they'll do it. But usually for just long enough to accomplish the mission objectives.
    _____________________________________ __________
  • This will be the 1st time that a truly user-friendly Unix system will be publicly available.
    If Apple were 100% committed to their hardware, they wpould not have released Darwin.
    How about 95% committed?
    The other very important thing thet Mac users get is protected memory, which is sorely needed.
  • Thanks alot apple, for planting the 'kiss of death' on BSD. By acknowledging it's superior attributes, you have managed to class it in the 'wierd technical things' class, while linux-based-os will become the 'Windows of Unix'...

    And we all know what happened last time Steve tried to tout his technical superiority and ease of use over Bill...
  • Porting Mac software to another Unix will still be hard because most Unix systems use X, while the Mac software will be written to use Apple's new GUI API.
  • Alas, my impression of DR3 when I tested it on some of mancines was that the interface was one that was not going to fly anywhere. The average Mac user was going to get sick and then boot OS9 under OSX. Which of course basically states that the average Mac user is not going to run OSX at all until they do something to make it feel a bit more familiar, or even worse, dump Apple for the Gates of Hell OS. It is a shame that with all their long standing expertise in this area, we find Apple taking a leap backward in the user interface, it need not be.
  • Take a look at DP4. Apple is addressing many of the concerns users had about the new UI.

    --
  • by orabidoo (9806) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @05:06AM (#1058310) Homepage
    well, if x86 users have made WINE to run Windows apps under Linux, nothing's preventing Linux on Mac users to write a MacOS X compatibility layer...
  • I don't understand why having Mach/BSD linked tightly is a bad thing that will preclude a MacOSX Lite: NeXTStep ran on 33 MHz 68030s with 16M RAM while one can fit a working BSD system on a floppy (PicoBSD). It doesn't sound like its the kernel that's a problem. I think people in the Mac community who are writing this stuff are missing the fact that one of the beauties of UNIX is that the guts of the system are pretty darned small and that it's all the userland stuff that takes up space.
    Here's some data to back me up: I have the mach_kernel right here in front of my and I can assure you that it, even with x86 support compiled into it, would fit on a 6M flash ROM without any compression. Heading to the back room of my house, I can find a minimal install of NetBSD on a 40M Hard Drive, and that even includes X!
  • Hopefully Apple won't kill the elegance of the NeXT tools. NeXT is probably the most intuitive OS ever. Even more intuitive to use than a mac. The windirification of the macintosh disturbs me. Apple does not need to copy to compete. Ease of use seems to have taken a back seat.
  • Well the reason for using BSD is simply that NeXTStep on which OS X is based was a BSD system. And NeXT uses Mach for reason (a) presumably - they don't seem to have much problem porting it from those NeXT boxes to x86
  • XML has got to be the best config file format; other text formats have problems with being parsed after you hand edit them; this should not.

    Argh. XML is hardly any easier to parse than, say, .INI files. It's more verbose, i.e. wastes space and time (you need to close tags usually) and you also have to be careful with "" etc. XML is just so over-hyped that everyone thinks it must be the best file format for any content.

  • be careful with "" etc

    That's a good example of things to watch out for when editing HTML or XML while thinking of the content and not of syntax... :-/

  • Hmmm, interesting.

    It looks a lot like the Windows registry to me.

    I don't think it is a good idea to store lots of system critical information in a single file, which is in constant flux. (see the part on making backups :-)

    IMHO it would be much cooler to make a hybrid of this database and the current UN*X /etc directory:

    • every program has it's own file in /etc.
    • all these files are in XML, and the system comes with a library that can parse XML.

    This would be a nice compromise, I think. Easy to parse and read.

    Roland

  • Mr. Advertisement?

    I'm not sure I'm following you...

    Oh well.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Right, and there are similar things that you do on other systems (example, on the Mac: desktop rebuilds, zapping parameter RAM, throwing away old pref files, etc).

    My point is two-fold:

    1. Some people should be able to pass this on to others as needed without being called names. Do some people go to the Lube Stop? Sure - but their cars usually get taken care of. Sure they pay a little extra, but if the person doesn't want to do it, why should they be expected to? They pay a little extra for the convenience to have someone else do it, and to save time doing it themselves.

    2. What if someone developed a car that didn't require oil changes, ran on solar power (so you never needed to get fuel), was incredibly solid, etc? By the attitudes of some here, this would be a bad thing. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing it's a combination of job security and arrogance.

    People shouldn't have to repair their computers any more than you should have to do their data entry. People each have their roles, and shouldn't ridicule someone if they don't have any interest in taking up someone else's.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • AFAIK, Apple has always presented their computer as just another appliance.

    While you can agree or disagree with this philiosophy (I, for me, prefer the methaphor of the computer as a toolbox of small tools, where it pays to learn your tools), that doesn't qualify people who adher to it as "thick".

    Let's stop this discussion at this point, please, since this is way off-topic.

    Roland

  • Some people are more interested in getting work done than fucking around with machines that should be there to serve them instead. I personally have no problem screwing around with the innards of my OS, writing shell scripts, and so on. But should my mom be forced to? I certainly don't think so.

    No. But by the same token, those people who want to screw around with the innards should not be prevented from doing so.

    I screw around with my OS, because the default environment doesn't accomplish want I want accomplished. Forcing me to stick with the default environment means that I can't get my work done. The default environment doesn't do what I want it to do. Forcing me to stick with it is just as unproductive to me as forcing your mom to have to constanly "poke under the hood" in order to get her work done.

  • the Mach kernel and the BSD layer which lays upon it are inseparable.

    I was just starting to enjoy BSD, and now I learn its inseparable from something I don't have yet!
  • The original intent of computing technology was to solve math equations that would take forever to figure out by hand. Not so your mom can have a pretty GUI and play solitaire.
  • Score: 5, Informative.
  • I don't believe the inseperable claim for a moment. Rather, it looks like a warning to any overexcited speculators. Maybe it's a sneaky way of announcing a code freeze?

    A possibility I wouldn't rule out for a while is that this is a case of employees not speaking for the employer.
  • by Moderator (189749)
    Yes.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I'm sick of beige computers.

    I want menacing, black computers with red pentagrams and inverted crosses painted all over them.

    I wonder if that would be a profitable market niche... selling computer cases with a satanist theme.

  • The problem with Mach is that it tends to make everything so slooow whereas the pristine BSD kernel is quite fast.

    In a short while, CPU speed won't matter -- IO will. It's already the main bottleneck. Another 18 months...another doubling...and who'll even notice?

  • To recap: the underlying MacOSX operating system is Mach 4.4, which is bsd based, and (believe it or not) does *not* use the Mach microkernel. Ask Avie Tevanian if you have to. Mach ideas, microkernel ideas, but not the Mach microkernel.

    This operating system has clever copy-on-write VM features and other things that mean that on some tasks it is severely performant.

    The Darwin project is distinct from MacOSX.

    To the best of my knowledge, Apple have never had any plans to ship their "tools", whatever they may be, on any but a few platforms -- MacOSX, and Win32 with some compatibility stuff running. The Win32 products appear now to be destined to become only a development platform for WebObjects. WebObjects deployment code, as distinct from the WebObjects or MacOSX developer tools, appears to be going highly-crossplatform with the pre-announcement of a pure-Java-only WebObjects5; but this has nothing to do with MacOSX.

    Apple appears to remain committed to opensource development of Darwin, and the bsd-layer CLI stuff which will be common to MacOSX will presumably be opensource and kernel-independent.

    Terminal.app will almost certainly ship with MacOSX; but probably as an optional administration package. Apple remains committed to a MacOSX in which the user need never see a command line unless they want to.

  • In a short while, CPU speed won't matter -- IO will. It's already the main bottleneck. Another 18 months...another doubling...and who'll even notice?

    Everyone keeps saying that, but emulators still suck in the speed department. CPU speed and memory improvements (ie, faster/cheaper CPU and more ram per dollar spent) ARE NOT an excuse for bloatware.

    The penalty we end up paying here is in actual application performance and functionality. If the Mach microkernel is sucking CPU cycles, its sucking them away from userland applications and interface components that aren't being extended because there's no CPU left for them or that they'd run so slow no one would use them.

    Unless there's a here-and-now need for something like Mach, I don't understand why you use it other than its yet another geekland toy that does nothing but waste CPU -- which takes away from the user experience by limiting performance.

  • Even though I only use linux myself, There
    is no reason for apple to move to Linux. The BSD
    operating system is an excellent choice as an
    operating system. It also comes with a much more
    business friendly license.

    --Twivel
  • Latest I have heard is that Terminal won't be part of the standard install, but it will ship on the System software CD as an optional component.

    I hope so. It would be best if there was some standard default terminal app, rather than everyone using a different one. If it sucks you can always get another, but sometimes it's easiest (especially if conversing with someone about what you're doing) if you can both get into the same environment.

  • I doubt it. If *n*x hackers had really wanted to implement a clean, usable UI, they could have been taking pointers from MacOS all along. Has it been done yet? Nope. I doubt this will change just because the new MacOS has a BSD foundation.

  • > Indeed, a lot of the needed stuff won't run
    > under Terminal, can't add users and so forth
    Aaaargh! So you can't administrate OS X
    remotely.
  • by Darchmare (5387) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @06:45AM (#1058334) Homepage
    ---
    No. But by the same token, those people who want to screw around with the innards should not be prevented from doing so.
    ---

    Of course not. And there have been plenty of Mac users who have screwed up their machines in the process of learning the voodoo that is ResEdit.

    But in the end, there are different operating systems for different people. Some are better for those who don't want to poke around (MacOS), and some are better for those who do (Unix/Linux).

    That's why MacOS X should be so interesting - can Apple pull off both, making an OS simultaneously intuitive and usable for the masses, while still giving tons of power to those who want to customize their experience? Maybe, it's hard to say. I have used recent developmental versions of OSX and yep, the shell and everything it entails is still there if you want it.

    I have some issues with the new UI (Dock sucks, lack of Apple menu, etc) but it has some time for improvement. I can imagine Unix/BSD types swarming over it and making a pretty good high-end user environment, though...

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • by Read The Fine Manual (27464) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @06:57AM (#1058335)
    I am speculating here, but my guess is that MacOS X's kernel is a descendant (at least in spirit) of the old NeXT OS (NeXTStep?) which was a Mach-2.5-based BSD system. When Apple bought NeXT, they probably decided to use NeXT's existing OS technology and talent to build their own new OS; I guess that is about the only reason why Darwin (the BSD OS core MacOS X uses) today is Mach-based.

    So why did NeXT use Mach in the first place? I'm speculating again. I guess they started out from OSF/1, and the OSF/1 developers had your goals (a) and (b) in mind.

    Remember: The Open Software Foundation (OSF, now a merged with the Open Group [opengroup.org]) was a group of vendors that wanted to develop an Unix platform independent from then-AT&T's UNIX. OSF/1 was to be their kernel. DEC used it to build DEC OSF/1 (now Compaq Tru64 UNIX [digital.com] or whatever it is called this week), and I guess that NeXT took it to build NeXTStep.

    The first version of OSF/1 (the one out of which vendors made successful products) was a BSD single server on top of Mach 2.5. At the time it was developed, it was not yet well established that Mach-based systems are slow. In fact, the Mach-2.5-based OSF/1 probably was not that slow: Mach 2.5 had considerably less bloat than Mach 3.0, and it was not really a microkernel-based system as it was closely integrated with a BSD kernel - that is, the microkernel and the BSD server shared the kernel address space (this is sometimes called ``colocation''; the OSF recently rediscovered this technique to speed up MkLinux on top of Mach 3.0). Only with the advent of Mach 3.0, the first ``real'' microkernel, people started to notice that there is something wrong with Mach's original approach.

    That said, it does not necessarily follow that microkernel-based system, or even Mach-based systems in particular, need to be slow. I do microkernel-related research myself, and my group has shown with L4Linux [tu-dresden.de] that a Unix single server can be implemented with very reasonable overhead on top of a ``real,'' second-generation microkernel - in this case, L4 [tu-dresden.de] (macrobenchmarks indicate that L4Linux has an overhead of about 2% to 3% when compared to the original monolithic Linux kernel).

    I do not really know MacOS X's architecture well enough to give a well-informed statement, but my guess is that they have enough talent to avoid the most stupid mistakes.

  • Calm down, grasshopper, useradd exists as does the entire arsenal of BSD admin programs. He's talking Mac-specific programs that require a GUI will not run on the command line.

    --
  • This "anoymous coward" report is taken VERBATIM from MacNN.com. Just thought we should give credit where credit is due. You can see the full article here:

    http://www.macnn.com/feature.php?id=10 [macnn.com]


    ----------
    Jeff Croft
    http://jeffcroft.com
    http://industrystandard.org
    http://newbeetle.org
  • They may do an x86 later, but keep in mind, they started with BSD-on-mach running on 68k and x86. The PPC *is* the "new" platform. As to why they want to stick with it, probably because they've got a lot of useful hooks there that they've slowly been building over the last umpteen years, and they see no reason to change.

    BSD kernel only? Wouldn't give them access to some of the mach features and device drivers they've put some effort into. Mach without BSD? Nothing would run.

    BSD-on-mach is hardly a unique idea, and it's not a totally silly one, even.
  • Lite as in modular as in being able to run any API besides BSD in the kernel. Not lite as in smaller in file size. The point of this is that people can't take out the BSD API layer and put in one for say Win32, Linux, or Be. The people writing OSX realize that the guts of a Unix system are tiny (they still are on OSX). Your symantics are wrong.
  • This is incorrect. Apple has never stated ANYTHING on this matter.

    The rumor sites indicate that the terminal will likey be included on the CD as part of an optional install, but there has been no confirmation of this from Apple.

    Apple won't say anything until the day the beta gets here. Dp4 ships with a terminal program, and I think it's a safe bet to say the final will as well (wether it's in the default install or not), but to say that "Apple has stated that the Terminal won't ship with the OS, and you won't be finding very many Unixisms. " is incorrect in every way.
    ----------
    Jeff Croft
    http://jeffcroft.com
    http://industrystandard.org
    http://newbeetle.org
  • by rabidMacBigot() (33310) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @08:19AM (#1058349)
    The Apple is again back to its old tricks, namely copying Microsoft's innovations. First Microsoft announces that Windows and IE are inseparable, and what you know, Apple follows their lead.

    Ridiculous!

    Tell me - how long have you thought that MacOS X's BSD layer is a web browser?

  • by Graymalkin (13732) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @08:22AM (#1058350)
    What kind of power are you talking about that a Unix with a GUI lacks? A GUI is nothing more than a graphical way of communicating with your computer. The OS itself has almost no power, it's job is to provide applications with resources to compute what they need to compute. The real work gets done on the applications and the ability of the OS to keep those applications running. The OS is the road while the applications are the cars that get your ass from point A to point B. There is no reason that the road should have no signs telling you where you're going or be a stetch of dirt just because some people don't want a smooth ride. These kind of Unix arguments make me think of the "..when I was a lad we didn't have..." stories. I'm tired of hearing them. Unix like anything else has to evolve to fit a new set of needs. OSX is designed to let people work graphically. Letting people do that does not take away from the "power" of the machine. The point of the computer is to have its processor used to its fullest extent. What good would a grand new G4 do me if I were typing up docs in emacs or pico?
  • To recap: the underlying MacOSX operating system is Mach 4.4, which is bsd based, and (believe it or not) does *not* use the Mach microkernel. Ask Avie Tevanian if you have to. Mach ideas, microkernel ideas, but not the Mach microkernel.

    You're not right, I think you've got to read the documentation that come from Apple developper website about the kernel,
    http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Syste m/Documentation/Developer/Kernel/KernelEnv ironment.pdf
    The MacOSX operating system is based on the MACH 3.0 microkernel, which is compatible with BSD 4.4. Maybe you should check the source code of the Darwin projkect to be convinced?
  • I've had MacOS X installed on my computer since DR2, when it still looked like OSX Server. DP3 was a drastic new interface, that unfortunately, had some very rough spots, and could not really replace the MacOS as the next viable interface. I complained to Apple about my problems, and most were fixed in DP4. I have DP4 installed, and I can say, that if there were more apps for it, I could drop the MacOS and survive in OSX. There are still a few problems, but if the progress from DP3 to DP4 is any indication, I strongly feel these will be addressed by the time it goes beta, and surely by the time it goes final next winter. DP4 is very usable, and they've really made some good changes since DP3. I think Apple will take a stance similar to ResEdit with the Terminal.app, having it available on its website, and not advertise it in any way, but make it available for their advanced users. The terminal is an essential tool for OSX, to compile apps, see and manipulate invisible files and folders, and do any other basic things you can't practically do in the GUI (or maybe you can, and a good way hasn't been implimented yet). This is going to be a great OS, no doubt about it. Even if Apple messes it up, the file that contains the interface resources has been located, and hackers are busy hacking away at it, and alternate interfaces will emerge soon enough, as well as all the tools to do anything. This OS is much more flexible and a much better foundation than the current MacOS by orders of magnitude. With the current one, it seems like it's one big hack, and there's so much crap in the Extensions folder, it's hard to keep track any more. It used to be really simple. Let's hope OSX gives us a good foundation to go on for a while into the future.
  • Not true.

    Mac OS X's got a Java 2 VM. Apps could be seen that way. Secondly, Cocoa (Yellow Box) was created to be highly portable. So, while it's not necessarily an open API, Apple's not tying it to hardware. Consider if you will the demo projects of i386 based Mac OS X... Plus, Darwin should be booting on i386 systems in the very near future.

    Also, Apple didn't just kill clones last year. They killed them back in 1996/7 when they were in the process of bringing out the early Mac OS 8 series. Apple refused to license the OS.

    Finally, don't be so quick to dismiss what BSD will do for the average mac user. I'm betting someone (and I'm looking at this on the low end), will be looking at creating Perl and/or shell based system utilities.

    It may not do everything that you want, but it will do more than you think.

  • From all I've heard, Apple is planning to unify MacOS X Server and Consumer, with no differentiation between the two, unlike NT workstation and server. (*cough* grab ankles). *not* including the terminal would be a major affront to the server market, a needless impairment.

    ----
  • "BTW, does anyone know if this will spark more interest from the Adobe group to start portin their applications to Linux?"

    I wouldn't expect Adobe to port anything to Linux for a long time. The last year or two has seen Adobe not even make their Mac products have the same features as their Windows versions, at least upon release.

    For better or worse, Adobe seems primarily interested in the corporate market, which is dominated by Windows. InDesign was their hope to keep abreast on digital press and while that field is predominantly Macintosh, InDesign has been largely ignored by the professional community.

    Besides, what do you want ported? Photoshop and Illustrator are about the only products worth using, Adobe having neglected GoLive, having canned the GoLive publishing system. Acrobat is primarily marketed as a business document solution and hasn't really advanced much over the last 18 months (although you may have to upgrade a bunch of printers cuz of Postscript L2 and L3 requirements - especialy if you are on a Mac). OpenType was supposed to have premiered in 1998, but I haven't heard much on that. LiveMotion is an expensive combo of ImageStyler (which hasn't been updated) and Flash and doesn't seem to have any advantage over Flash itself. ImageReady has been tacked onto Photoshop 5.5. The only thing coming down the pipe that looks interesting is Illustrator 9 which will support SVG. Too bad no browsers will support that for some time.
  • ---
    People make fun of mac users because the macies rave on about how wonderful their system is...
    ---

    That's a pretty gross generalization. Mac users tend to like their systems, but not all of them are complete zealots about it. Those who are the most annoying are generally swept under the rug when and if possible.

    ---
    and this is the same system that goes down completely, or locks hard, if an application screws up, or if the system runs out of memory, or....
    ---

    Compared to Linux and NT, sure. Remember, MacOS X is supposed to fix all of this - and yet we still see flames coming from various people simply because the user isn't a computer expert. Even if OSX is rock-solid, some people feel threatened in that a given operating system doesn't need to be obscure to be powerful.

    ---
    Happily, 'THe next revision should fix all that' ;-) But people DO have justification for their macuser humor.
    --

    Humor? Maybe - But some people are particularly anal about it. Lots of inflammatory name-calling. It sucks, from both sides of the fence.

    Remember, most Mac users are normal people - not idiots, and not zealots. They are professionals of one kind or another, and know what they like (generally for user interface purposes). Usually when someone rails against them, it's due to some sort of insecurity on their part (not you specifically, but...).

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • by xenotrope (86854) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @09:54AM (#1058371)
    What if someone developed a car that didn't require oil changes, ran on solar power (so you never needed to get fuel), was incredibly solid, etc? By the attitudes of some here, this would be a bad thing. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing it's a combination of job security and arrogance.

    You bet it would be a bad thing, and not because of "job security" or "arrogance." I don't know who you think you are to tell us what is and isn't an acceptable amount of system maintenance. You forget that your audience here consists wholly of geeks, of hackers, and of like-minded joes who are curious enough to want to know the intimate details of their system and possess the brains to figure out how to learn them.

    To suggest that we are bitter and spiteful people who demand complexity or lack of user-friendliness in order to preserve our careers is a lie and an out-and-out insult to me and everyone else here who is like me. Your analogy of the no-maintenance supercar isn't just a good one, it's a great one, and I will tell you why.

    Would you be comfortable driving around in something which you didn't have the first clue about how it worked? Perhaps. A lot of people would, but not here. Not on Slashdot. We're geeks, hackers, and like-minded joes, remember? We don't only want to know how this supercar can do what it does, we have to. Not a hacker alive would be content to drive around and not wonder about what sort of mechanical magic that pulsed and purred under the hood of his vehicle.

    Likewise, a computer system or car that requires attention and tuning is infinitely better, simply because we, as geeks and hackers, are capable of understanding what needs attention, what needs tuning. And we thrive upon it. To perpetuate the car analogy, it is that need to know what kind of oil the car needs, and how often it needs it, that fulfills us, emotionally and spiritually.

    Perhaps you may want to invest some time into reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. You can find a copy at amazon, or possibly even your local library. It will help you to understand this, at least to some small degree. Don't worry. I recommend this book to emphasize the Zen, not the motorcycle maintenance. This entire discussion isn't about "ease of use" or "user-friendliness." It's about value. It's about the meaning of things, not the things themselves.

    I wouldn't drive your supercar if it meant I couldn't look under the hood. Similarly, I wouldn't trust a computer system if I couldn't pick it apart. I agree with you on the first point of your so-called argument. The amount of service a machine needs should be variable dependent on the user. However, on your second point, you fall flat on your face.

    Never forget that while you are here, reading Slashdot, you are shoulder to shoulder with thinkers, puzzle-lovers, and people who cannot leave a mystery unsolved. If you are only capable of seeing this love of knowledge as "arrogance," I can only conclude that you are the arrogant one.



    ---
  • by Shadow Knight (18694) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @10:15AM (#1058375) Homepage

    The Darwin project is distinct from MacOSX.

    I'm afraid this is completely incorrect. Darwin == MacOS X - Quartz and everything on top. For reference, I suggest you look at: Apple's Public Source website [apple.com], Apple's MacOS X website [apple.com], this block diagram and page [apple.com], and Fred Sanchez's Advogato diary [advogato.org]. The gist of all that is that MacOS X kernel developers and Darwin developers use the same CVS sources. The kernel is identical. Also, all of Darwin is included with MacOS X, as the underlying foundation.


    Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

  • Didn't you read the article [slashdot.org] about XFree being ported to Darwin? That's a first step toward putting the "X" in Mac OS 10.
  • by John Carmack (101025) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:02AM (#1058386)
    I specifically asked Steve Jobs about this last time I talked with him (several months ago), and he said that terminal won't be hidden away.

    Not that he isn't allowed to change his mind about things...

    I was pushing for including at least the command line compile/link tools with every install, but NeXT had an established history of having the development tools all on a separate CD, so it doesn't look like that is going to happen.

    John Carmack
  • by John Carmack (101025) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @11:18AM (#1058389)
    The real answer is just inertia from NeXT, but there are some true technical advantages to the mach base.

    The mach interfaces for virtual memory and task communication have more scope than the standard unix ones. I was rather surprised when I found out that linux memory management is still basically based on sbrk (although you can fake up virtual memory objects with mapped files yourself).

    There definately is some weirdness when you can have so many different types of threads: mach threads/tasks, unix tasks (threads also?), AppKit threads, and possibly some form of Carbon threads. They all come down to mach primitives, but they aren't interchangable.

    John Carmack
  • This question was asked multiple times at WWDC this past week. The answer given was that the Terminal.app would be included on a separate Developer CD, which wouldn't be included in the box you would buy at your local retailer, but you could get it (which would include the development tools) from Apple. Presumably you could download them all, as well (since most of them *are* GNU-based and part of the Darwin project, to boot). But the story itself is that MacOS X will include a full BSD environment, just no command line tool :). The BSD Support session on Friday was pretty cool and interesting, with part of the talk by Jordan Hubbard (of the FreeBSD Core team, for those who don't know).
    --
  • The ".app" files are bundles, and they're a replacement for mulitple-fork files, since only HFS(+) supports two forks, and OS X supports POSIX VFS type file systems, which don't support two forks. The ".app" files (directory trees) can be moved to any fs without worrying about losing the resource fork...
    --
  • XML may be a reasonable compromise, but its very verbose.

    Whats verbose about it? An XML DTD doesnt have to be verbose at all. Maybe slightly more verbose than the original /etc file, but we're talking no more than a coupla dozen bytes per line. And if it helps organise the data more succintly, and is more easily parsed, then perhaps its worth the trade-off.

    What would probably need to happen is that existing unix code gets adapted to first try the XML datafile, and if that doesnt exist, try a standard config file. A smarter tool would also parse from one form to the other, to build the XML files in the beginning. Best for the code to do it such that if /dev/registry/etc_group exists, use it (via a 'unified XML Configuration Interface'?) or else, use the standard file...

    Hell mebbe in Linux you could even make a device for it.. /dev/registry. That way, if etc/group exists as a link to /dev/registry/etc/group the parsing is done on-the-fly, otherwise its done as normal.

    All you'd need in the XML file would be lines, for example, something like...

    < BASE_CONFIG_FILE = "/etc/group" >
    < GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="research" GID="27" />
    < GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="development" GID="28" />
    < GROUP_CONFIG_ENTRY GROUP_ENTRY="marketing" GID="666" />
    < /BASE_CONFIG_FILE />
    That sound rational or possible to anyone?

    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • XML data formats can be precisely definable, which is what you want from parseable text.

    As compared to, say, the config files for apache, where certain entires could be anywhere within the file...

    Pax,

    White Rabbit +++ Divide by Cucumber Error ++

  • That is just plain wrong, I don't know where you did get your infos from, but: - MaxOS X is based on Mach 3.0 plus some additions (mostly real time) from mach 4.0 (which is _not_ a newer version of Mach but a separate branch) and some Apple custom additions. This _is_ the Mach microkernel. However, they have made all sorts of optimisations to reduce the overhead of having a separate BSD layer, and so BSD is not implement as a server process but is somewhat "wired" into Mach. (Mach IPC-based API is turned into direct function calls and BSD is co-located in the kernel address space). Apple did already experiment with this technique on MkLinux. - Darwin and MacOS X are not distinct. Darwin is the foundation of MacOS X, there are not 2 different kernels. - They do, indeed, have nice copy-on-write features, and a bunch of other cool stuffs like the IOKit
  • Argh. XML is hardly any easier to parse than, say, .INI files. It's more verbose, i.e. wastes space and time

    So you're saying Apple should define yet another config file format? Have you look in an /etc/ directory of any Unix dist recently?

    XML is perfect for this type of stuff. I don't see how it is overhyped. It's a definition for definitions -- exactly what we need. What is the alternative? Every programmer int the world making up their own file formats?

    - Scott

    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • It looks a lot like the Windows registry to me.

    I believe NeXT had NetInfo way before the Windows registry existed. I'm sure this idea, like so many others (Project Builder -> VB, all GUI widgets, etc) were taken directly from NeXT into Windows 95.

    - Scott

    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • I screw around with my OS, because the default environment doesn't accomplish want I want accomplished.

    I'm not questioning the validity of this, but just out of curiosity, what is it that you have to do to the environment to make it acceptable? It seems like default installs of distributions should be sufficient to get just about anything done, especially since things like RH come with some many packages.

    - Scott

    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • by TheInternet (35082) on Sunday May 21, 2000 @02:27PM (#1058411) Homepage Journal
    People make fun of mac users because the macies rave on about how wonderful their system is... and this is the same system that goes down completely, or locks hard, if an application screws up, or if the system runs out of memory, or....

    So you're suggesting that Linux would actually be a suitable replacement for most Mac users?

    I don't think people like the poor memory management and CPU time slicing of Mac OS, but they (errr.... "we"), consider the user interface, manageability, and workflow aspects of it to be worth it. Aside from consumers, creative content people like Macs because the technology doesn't get in the way of the creative process. By contrast, a programmer's job is the techology, so it can't really get in the way.

    I wish I could understand why people occassionally believe that no viewpoint other than their own could possibly have any validity, particuarly on issues like this which are very much subjective and reliant on personal tastes. It's such a sterotypical thing to hear on slashdot that appearance and ease-of-use are irrelevant as long as it runs from the command line and is open source.

    Do you hang up code printouts on your wall instead of paintings? :) (kidding!)

    - Scott


    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • But what if you could stand in your garage in front of your car with the hood open while a little animated paper-clip ran around in the engine fiddling with stuff...

    That would kick ass, but I don't think the paper clip really has anything to do with system configuration. It's a glorified user manual.

    - Scott

    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • Have you actually run and looked as OS X Server? It is the worst I have ever seen for lack of standard file locations, and lack of man pages to explain it.

    No one here is talking about OS X Server. We're discussing Mac OS X (sans "server"). The latter handles a lot of system configuration with XML. The former does not, and was basically intended as a stopgap to the latter.

    - Scott

    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • GNOMEs (specifically hp) are working on a solution, called GConf.

    It seems like this has to happen at a lower level then gnome. To me, it seems this has to be a distribution-level thing.

    - Scott
    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • Quartz and Cocoa? Aren't those already being cloned [gnustep.org]?
  • Apple just slipped the ship date for the new OS again, just like they've been doing every half-year or so since 1991. Apple has zero credibility in this area. Let me know when the new OS comes preloaded on a majority of the retail machines.
  • On any Mac I have ever seen, the paperclip is for getting the diskette out of the drive after the (inevitable and regular) OS crash.

    Ummm, the floppy ejects at boot time. Also, try using a version of the OS newer than 3 years old. Crashes are neither inevitable or regular on the average Mac OS 9 equipped machine. Tevanian's crew fixed a lot of stuff.

    - Scott

    ------
    Scott Stevenson
  • Crashes are neither inevitable or regular on the average Mac OS 9 equipped machine. Tevanian's crew fixed a lot of stuff.

    Well, they didn't fix Netscape, so I'm afraid I still have to claim that crashes are indeed inevitable and regular (Communicator 4.7; Mac OS 9.04 on an iMac DV.) Not especially frequent, mind you, but annoying none the less. As an amusement (and a test of my cable modem :-)), I 've been using lots of nightly builds of Mozilla. Recently, those have made NS 4.7 look stable. My favorite recent glitch is the "two quit items on the menu" problem. If you choose the wrong one (or the keyboard accelerator), it's reboot city.

    This is not a flame, but I have to point out that it's still way too easy to take down the machine these days. When Mac OS X finally ships, having the browser not crash the box will be the killer app. :-)

  • ---
    Never forget that while you are here, reading Slashdot, you are shoulder to shoulder with thinkers, puzzle-lovers, and people who cannot leave a mystery unsolved. If you are only capable of seeing this love of knowledge as "arrogance," I can only conclude that you are the arrogant one.
    ---

    Nope. I simply understand that 'we' (I hesitate to use the term inclusively as Slashdot is not some collective sharing a single mind) are not everyone, nor are we all that matters. The point is, I don't believe anyone should be calling someone names and looking at them derisively simply because they choose not to have to mess with the same stuff we do. Not everyone takes pleasure in extensive daily administrative tasks - and if they can be taken out of the picture, that'd be great for those people.

    If you're the kind of person who likes to do stuff manually, that's fine. But don't speak for me, Slashdot, or the average person who simply wants to do their job.

    Sorry you were offended, but I stand my my original statements.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Not my problem. Slashdot provides a field for your email address, I put it in. Slashdot provides a place for your web site, so I put it in. Slashdot provides a place to put a signature - as I don't have any particularly clever quotes, I put it in.

    Here's an idea: don't click on it.

    Anyhow, this is way off topic... Back to our reguarly scheduled flamefest...


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Like Linus, you mean ?

    Simon

    PS. He said, when last asked, that he uses RedHat
  • That more than triples the filesize!

    Not a huge effect on /etc/group, but imagine it on things like the termcap/printcap/fontcap databases.

    I also would be *strongly* against having it in kernel space. Thats not what the kernel's meant to be handling.
  • Apple will be providing it as an optional install, or a download from their site (basically, just like they did with ResEdit). I'm pretty sure this is public record.

    Of course, as you said, if they don't then there will be a freeware/shareware/open-source terminal available within a day or two. I seriously doubt the 'new Apple' would keep people from mucking around if they want to (remember, they are mostly old NeXT people).

    The issue has nothing to do with that. I'm defending the average Mac user, not the actual OS (I believe OSX can stand on its own, for both 'regular' people and techies alike). I just don't think it's right to blame someone because they're not as interested in poking around config files or compiling new kernels on a regular basis. For the vast majority of people out there, a computer is something to get work done, not a hobby.

    Anyhow, you're right - the flaming is pretty old. Hopefully all the trolls have left to more recent articles. :>

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
  • Was there ANY MENTION ANYWHERE regarding licensing of Cocoa for Windows (ie. openstep NT runtime?).

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
  • Actually, unless your retailer has Oil on sale, it's frequently cheaper to get your oil changed at the jiffy-lube, etc.

    Another bad analogy; when you change your own oil, you have to take it in somewhere for recycling. Thankfully, there is no such concept in computers. (yet).

    I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...