Merging Unix And Mac OS 197
martin writes: "Here's an interesting article on 32bitsonline writing up one of Apple's chief O/S engineers talk at Usenix2000 on how they produced Mac OS X. Interesting to see how the design elements of Mac OS have been merged into BSD to produce a hybrid of the the two OSs."
Some questions (Score:1)
Could I use a free compiler a la gcc on OSX? Is one likely to ship with OSX?
Can the gui (shell?) be altered to make an OSX desktop look like, for example, KDE? Is there support for themes, and does the word themes even apply?
I'd love to be able to run OSX on my P3 machine, but is S3 even going to think about putting out a driver for my Diamond video card? More succinctly, are hardware manufacturers going to be willing and/or able to ship drivers for PC hardware?
Is there a particularly good Mac site I can get this information from, so I can stop trolling /. for it? :P
Thanks in advance.
Re:deja vu again? (Score:3)
Repeat article (Score:3)
But since it is here, I did think it was rather interesting that they use their layers to deal with many of the problems. It sounds like the carbon layer is the one that will deal with some of the issues between aqua / cocoa and darwin. I am not sure about this. I know that in Linux the filenames that have spaces in them are quoted strings when used on the command line. I don't think that this should have been such a big issue for BSD or OS X. I am looking forward to seeing the finished product and it will be interesting if they have a version of OS X that runs on Intel as well. I have heard that darwin has been ported, but the question is will Apple port carbon, cocoa, and aqua to Intel as well. If OS X runs on Intel, I'd be interested in trying it out. I am not inteested in buying a new Mac box only to find out that I do't like OS X because of some reason.
send flames > /dev/null
Those "missing" OS 8 themes (Score:1)
This problem shows up to a lesser extent when running Classic apps with Aqua. When OS X does come out, I wouldn't recommend running Kaliedescope in the Classic environment until a complementary X version of it comes out.
Re:Is there a market for this? (Score:1)
DB
Merging of the OS' (Score:3)
But it would basically merge 2 separate operating systems together. The Unix/Linux world and the Mac world would no longer be separate identities. I admit that they both seem completely opposite, but it is possible. [Using the Mac interface instead of X or something].
This might even unite many users on the internet. Those who love macs for their simplicity and ease of use and those of us who value Unix/Linux for its stability and robust nature.
They'd just have to do something about the hardware on the macintosh before I would have no problem buying either one.
It's been that way since OS 8. (Score:2)
But as of Mac OS 9, "Eject Disk" ejects the disk and removes it from the desktop.
Works in good old 8.x too.
Cocoa for Windows (Score:1)
Apple's in the hardware buisness. Just like iTools main purpose was to sell OS 9. OS X's main and sole reason for existence is a sustainable market share for Apple hardware.
For Intel and maybe some other hardware platforms in the future the most you'll ever see is Darwin.
Question... (Score:4)
I also got to see Virtual PC. From my last experience with it (several years ago) it was a dinosaur and hardly worth using. But now it is fast as heck, and I think you can even install other OS's (Linux, BSD's, etc) under it as well.
Question: with OSX, will Virtual PC still be around? I would think that the challenges of getting a Windows system running when the entire underlying MacOS has changed would be formidible. Will OSX use something like WINE instead?
LL
Re:Can you imagine... (Score:1)
This tool is nearly 10 years old and it is by far the simplest clustering tool I have seen yet (I don't suspect it is necessarily the most efficient, but it does work). I really hope something like this makes it into the final release of OS X. It would be very handy for tasks like rendering that parallelize well.
Re:Typical Mac Basher (Score:1)
I was keeping the proceedings recent for simplicity. Eject Disk does indeed eject the disk. It's the *image* you need to trash... I know that's cheesy, but the disk is ejected. The image must be "disposed of" and the whole thing fits the desktop metaphor just that much better.
What you assume "Ejecting the Disk" is is actually removing the disk from the desktop. Slightly different, but it's still different.
Of course, I'm not usually this literal and I apologize. It's just one of those things people always bring up and are (even on a technicality) wrong.
The Happy Blues Man
Re:Mac (Score:1)
Besides, I didn't get moderator today, so I had to do something....
Re:Typical Mac User (Score:1)
[sarcasm] Maybe we need to be told to plug our computers in, but at least we know the name of the company that makes them is Apple, not Mac.
--
dman123 forever!
Re:Filenames.. (Score:1)
The "opaque folders" are bundles, basically a special directory containing a bunch of files, displayed as if it were a single file. You can use "cd", "ls" etc. to browse around inside them if you want.
What you're talking about in System 7 are called Suitcases. A suitcase is a single file that contains resources; when you open a suitcase the resources are displayed as if they were files within a folder. You can move a resource out of a suitcase, and it will be moved into its own stand-alone file (something that wasn't possible prior to System 7), and if you move it back, the resource will be copied back and the stand-alone file deleted. Prior to System 7, suitcases could not be opened in the Finder; their contents could only be managed using the Font/DA Mover utility. Trivia note: while moving files into/out of suitcases is the only time you will ever see a "Move" progress dialog box in the Mac OS 7-8-9 Finder.
Bundles are basically the opposite of suitcases.
--
PAM support in Mac OS X? Or LDAP support? (Score:1)
Re:UNIX Administration (Score:1)
My experience with NeXT was as a user on a pretty hodge-podge (but nifty) network. Apps generally went in one of several locations, which annoyed me--there were the traditional /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin apps, but then there were other directories for the GUI-ish applications, and yet another directory in which 3rd party-ish apps went, and a few others to boot. Now, while I prefer a Mac-ish feel to my filesystem, I'd much rather have the old-school UNIX system if it meant keeping everything in order. If they keep everything in order and pretty much in the right places, I'll be happy, regardless of whether it feels more like Mac or UNIX.
But that aside, I don't really think that it's disconcerting that Apple has designed it's filesystem in such a manner as to make it familiar to their existing user base. Doing so doesn't sacrifice any real functionality, and I'd argue that it's more in Apple's interest to cater to the familiarities and desires of their existing user base than to those of the UNIX community at large.
Re:Doesn't say much (Score:1)
It's in the process of being synced with the most current BSD, though it is written as a user-mode process which runs on top of Mach. You could run several such processes simultaneously. In short, no, the NeXT stuff wasn't dumped at all...it's just totally revamped.
Couple of corrections:1. s/BSD/FreeBSD,
2. Mach and the BSD kernel live in the same address space. The BSD kernel still calls all of the Mach interfaces, but does so directly and not through Mach messages as a user process. The "BSD as a user process" was brought up in the BSD kernel session at WWDC this year, and the Apple guys made sure everyone understood that BSD and Mach share the same kernel address space for performance reasons.
Re:Repeat article (Score:1)
Re:Is there a market for this? (Score:2)
Remember, this is Apple. The average Mac user won't even realize that it's running on UNIX underneath - it'll just be a Mac with a very pretty GUI that never crashes.
--
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:1)
I've heard of OS debates being refered to as "religious issues", but that might be getting carried away.
Then again, a lot of Microsoft techs tend to favor the goatee style that people used to call a "devil beard". Hmmm.
Why Mac OS X? (Score:1)
Re:first! (Score:1)
Interesting typo.
More Information (Score:1)
--
Doesn't say much (Score:4)
On the UNIX side, how are the problems of UNIX system administration handled? Are all the text configuration files gone, or did Apple just put GUI wallpaper over them?
For that matter, is it really BSD underneath? They don't mention Mach at all. Was the NeXT stuff dumped completely?
Re:Mac (Score:1)
Why? (Score:1)
Why? oh Why? because Apple doesn't want to die. (Score:1)
To do what you want, all they needed to do was to buy Yellowdog or LinuxPPC and make an appropriate theme for a window manager of choice.
The problem would of course that this would effectively maroon the existing Mac community and ultimately bury Apple as well. Like they say on Pokemon, a lot of dotters don't seem to "get it." Right now, for the most part the only people who use Linux, are sysadmins, programmers, and other types of gearheads who live to take apart their OS day to day. Apple's core market are people who USE computers, primarily for creative/publishing work. OS X is going to have to sell to the people who've used Quark, Photoshop, SoundEdit, and a bit of Office. They're not particurlarly interested in gcc or the Gimp, nor would they look forward to recompiling a system kernal just to make network changes.
There are things that need to be done with Aqua and the public beta should generate some useful feedback in tuning the Consumer Release.
Re:Random considerations (Score:1)
Sounds like you didn't bother to actually read up on it. There are no dotfiles involved. Speaking as a Mac OS X developer, it's a very good solution. Not perfect, but given the constraints, very good.
Re:Permissions? (Score:1)
Re:Question about VirtualPC (Score:2)
Given how much work Apple has done with Classic integration into DP4, particularly the fact that Classic apps show up in the dock along with the native apps, I expect VirtualPC for OSX to run very smoothly. And I'd really like to see Windows apps show up along with Mac apps in the dock. But we'll just have to wait and see.
And btw, Office98 runs just fine in Classic.
Re:Merging of the OS' (Score:1)
1. MacOS has had command line shells that you can add to it since forever. The fact that most people have not chosen to do it is beside the point.
2. The latest skinny is that you will be able to get a shell tool in OS X, it just won't be the #1 window you open like it is in most X desktops.
3. Some of us love MacOS for its stability and robustness too. MacOS 8.1 virtually never crashes on me. MacOS 9, strangely, is not so solid.
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:1)
No kidding. I just started a Unix sysadmin job and after one month I found a little pot belly forming around my skinny body. I've since stop snacking with the other admins in my group (they've got full Unix guts) and started drinking water anytime they want to take a break. The weight is staying off and I don't plan on putting it on anytime soon.
As for the comment on facial hair, when I interviewed for this job the first thing the interviewers pointed out was my goatee. "He's got facial hair, he passes the first test for new admins!"
Re:Apple package management? (Score:1)
From the GPL [gnu.org]:
You don't have to release the OS under the GPL just because you bundled a GPL utility with the OS, unless the OS and the GPL'd app are released together in the same package.
Sorry that I was unclear. I meant they could write their own package manager using the concepts and features of previous systems - not the code of the previous systems.
Sorry that I was unclear; you're correct, but Apple would have to take steps to ensure that they weren't inadvertently including code from dpkg when they wrote their own package manager, by giving a group of programmers who'd never seen the source to dpkg (and who could sign an affidavit to that effect) a specification of what it's supposed to do and having them write their own version. This would probably be a rather annoying undertaking, I would imagine.
--
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:1)
Doc Martins or sandals. Hiking boots are for mainframe guys.
deja vu again? (Score:2)
Re:Mac (Score:1)
Re:Apple package management? (Score:1)
Apple's problem is the viral nature of the GPL. This topic has been bludgeoned to death far too often. Here's the gist - the GPL's definition of "derivate works" is too vague. If the Operating System relies on the package management system to work, it might theoretically be construed as a "derivate work". Yes, it sounds idiotic, but what matters is how it can be cast legally. And the GPL has never been tested in court. Apple, understandably, is reluctant to use an install system that might cause their entire product to be placed under the GPL.
Re:Random considerations (Score:1)
Mac OS-X is NeXTSTEP/OpenStep 6.0 (Score:2)
It does have Mach and 4.4 BSD at the bottom. You can download all of the source to this, known as Darwin, from the Apple web site. It's the same source being used in OS-X. Since OS-X is still 'alpha' I'm not sure how current it is, but they are making efforts to keep it up to date with what is currently shipping.
The important thing to remember is that despite having a Mach/BSD core, Apple stresses that it is a BadIdea(*TM) to write anything that relies on Mach or BSD interfaces. Apple has created an operating system independent abstraction layer on top of Mach/BSD known as "CoreFoundation". CoreFoundation provides basic operating system services such as process control, file system access, networking access, etc... and also provides primitives used for foundation level API's such as string handling and file package stuff.
Built on top of CoreFoundation are all of the NeXT frameworks such as Cocoa (formerly AppKit), Foundation, EOF, etc... as well as Quartz. Also built on top of CoreFoundation is Carbon (the legacy MacOS "toolboxes"). Apps built to the Carbon API's will run on either MacOS 9 or X! There is also "Classic" which is an emulator for old apps that use the old Mac Toolbox API's. Any existing ISV's are strongly encouraged to port their apps to Carbon. Classic is for old orphaned apps that people still need to run (but can't port to Carbon since they aren't Open Source).
So while Apple is building OS-X on top of Mach/BSD, they are not tied to it. They can port everything to a different OS with relatively little pain. Apps will just recompile unless they do sneaky stuff like access Mach or BSD api's directcly. Even drivers will be semi-portable since Apple has a very advanced driver achitecture known as "IO Kit"...
Mac OS-X is way cool, Linux folks would be wise to learn more about it and borrow the better features. I would especially look at the Framework system which are the coolest shared libraries around.
Burris
Re:When do you suppose... (Score:1)
I've been keeping up with the development of OS X (as I will probably at least consider buying a Mac when it has matured a bit) and everywhere I see the same statement from Apple. They say that while Darwin (the open source underbelly, so to speak, of OS X) will run on x86 (already runs on ?), the Aqua interface and APIs will not run on x86. Apple wants to sell Macs, making OS X on x86 just doesn't make sense to them (well, at least not to Jobs, maybe to marketing). They don't want to support all of the hardware in the x86 world, and they don't see the point in porting Aqua to x86.
While speculating about x86 MacOS X is all well and good, let's not jump the gun and say that they have confirmed it. They haven't confirmed it, in fact, they have flat out denied it. While it would probably be trivial for them to compile Aqua on Darwin once it is reasonable stable on x86 (a distinct possibility later on), I don't think they are going to do so immediately. They probably want to see Darwin bring in the hardware support first, then see if porting the commercial parts of OS X is worthwhile. For a business, this only makes sense.
Don't let the occasional "OS X on x86 would rock!" comment throw you off. It isn't confirmed, and as of this moment, it isn't even publicly acknowledged as an idea (from Apple).
Re:deja vu again? (Score:1)
Indeed. See for instance, Slashdot's earlier coverage [slashdot.org] of the USENIX paper this article is about.
Re:Apple package management? (Score:1)
In any case, the GPL is not about interoperating with other licenses; it is a strong political statement about rights and freedoms -- use accordingly!
Re:It's been that way since OS 8. (Score:1)
When do you suppose... (Score:1)
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:1)
the biggest challenge (Score:5)
p.s. no offence to anyone, i'm a fat unix guy with a beard. aren't we all?
Filenames.. (Score:1)
[stripeditorial.gif]
[stripsoftreview.gif]
[str
[striptechnical. gif][striphumour.gif][stripcontacts.gif] and stripcontest.gif too
Re:"The power of Unix, the ease of the Mac" (Score:1)
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:1)
Re:Permissions? (Score:1)
-Bill
Re:Doesn't say much (Score:1)
This link [arstechnica.com] may provide some answers (check out question 3 [arstechnica.com]).
Re:Doesn't say much (Score:3)
JA
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:1)
It'll only take a few years for you to develop the full Unix gut, trust me.
Re:Merging of the OS' (Score:2)
Re:Is there a market for this? (Score:1)
I don't think most average home imac-owning types are really aware that there'll be that much of a difference in the underpinnings of their OS. Nor do I think they'll care really.
All of the interface complaints and the mouse button battles et. al. don't really matter to most of Apple's target market. they just want to be able to email thier kids at college on something that'll be easy for them to use.
As for the hardcore, the sysadmin's are psyched and the graphic designers are pissed. You get used to all the shortcuts and crap in an OS and it's a huge, time-consuming pain to relearn them all. Just listen to the whining about the loss of the Apple menu.
I'm going to lose a handy little add on (GoMac) that puts a windows-esque start bar on my Mac. I can guarentee you I'll be wasting valuable mouse time wondering why nothing's popping up when the cursor's sitting in the bottom of my screen, but you know, whatever. Muscles are retrainable, habits are breakable and power users are notorious cry-babies.
Re:Permissions? (Score:1)
--Paul
Re:Merging of the OS' (Score:2)
I can't touch a Mac without making it crash. First Mac I ever touched, I tried to make it dial the net and it crashed right there and then. Completely froze. Took 2 seconds...
Re:Doesn't say much (Score:1)
Most of the issues you mention are emulation issues - handled inside "Classic", which is old MacOS 9 (complete with separate system image and boot sequence) running as a separate process, with no UNIX visible to the apps. Not only are such questions beyond the scope of the article, but they are particularly uninteresting given that Classic is basically old MAE (that thing Apple sold eons ago that allowed you to run MacOS inside a window on your Sun) on steroids. New Mac apps talk to "Carbon", a cleaned-up version of the APIs with none of that gunk in there, which are full UNIX processes with all the niceties (eg PMPM) that entails.
Beyond those, the text config files are there, but modified to use NetInfo (XML-based config files and a GUI over them). And yes, it's BSD, with a Mach kernel.
I mean, really, all those questions are thoroughly answered in Apple's developer documentation; go to the Mac OS X Developer Site [apple.com] and start reading. To have talks like this cover topics which are handily dealt with by RTFM would be a total waste.
Okay, then. (Score:1)
/* TNW */
Re:A/UX? (Score:1)
John
Re:Why? (Score:3)
Is this from personal experience or are you just pulling this out of your hat? Note: Unless you have personal experience with OS X and know that this is an effiency issue, then you shouldn't proclaim it as such.
Re:Why? oh Why? (Score:2)
You're forgetting something: X sucks. It would be very difficult to make an operating system that works as smoothly and easily as a Mac if it were tied down to compatibility with clunky old X Windows. And the three-button mouse thing would kill them.
If you want something that uses X and uses standard GNU software, why don't you just run Linux [apple.com]?
--
Re:Is there a market for this? (Score:2)
It is not being touted as UNIX. It is being touted as something that gives you a more stable, more modern Macintosh. Trying to explain exactly how it is more stable and more modern is the difficult part, and understandably so. Most Mac owners are content with what they have.
Re:Doesn't say much (Score:2)
Will MS Office for Mac work in the penalty box, or do users have to buy a new version of Office?
Office worked fine even in DP3, although it hadn' t been prettified. In other words, the fonts in the windowbar and stuff like that looked wrong running beside OS X-native apps...you could tell it was foreign somehow. I suspect they'll clean up Mac OS 9 so that when it runs under the "penalty box," as you call it, you won't be able to tell the difference.
On the UNIX side, how are the problems of UNIX system administration handled? Are all the text configuration files gone, or did Apple just put GUI wallpaper over them?
It's all XML .plist (property list) files. Very cool. The system admin stuff is all graphical, and nicely done. I dare say you won't need to touch any text files to administer an OS X box...you can do a whole network's admin tasks through NetInfo...legacy NeXT system that was tres cool. "GUI wallpaper" is a gross oversimplification.
For that matter, is it really BSD underneath? They don't mention Mach at all. Was the NeXT stuff dumped completely?
It's in the process of being synced with the most current BSD, though it is written as a user-mode process which runs on top of Mach. You could run several such processes simultaneously. In short, no, the NeXT stuff wasn't dumped at all...it's just totally revamped.
P.
More answers to Mac OS meets Unix (Score:5)
There is also a LOT more information at MacSecurity.org [macsecurity.org] which goes into much more detail regarding all the ill-informed posts here on permissions and questions regarding security.
The optional installs will make the box as secure, or open, as you would imagine. But like an true server, the knowledge of the admin/user is the crucial part in the safety of the system.
All in all, these two articles and one site will give you the answers to most of the questions regarding how this project is coming together.
I think we may be in for a surprise when OS X comes out. Good or bad is yet to be determined.
More articles with explanations.... (Score:3)
Re:Random considerations (Score:2)
I am an admitted compleat Unixhead, but I've long felt that case-sensitivity is more of a problem than an asset on Unix filesystems; people simply don't tend to think of case as a distinguishing feature, and it bites them more often than it serves a useful purpose. Those few cases where case is the sole distinction between two filenames generally just represent someone's bad judgement. Note that this isn't the same as case preservation, which is important (and as mentioned in the article, has always occurred on HFS and HFS+ filesystems).
Re:Typical Mac User (Score:2)
Re:Is there a market for this? (Score:2)
I think most knowledgable Mac users will appreciate the stability and performance of BSD, while the less sophisticated users will be wowed by the Chewy GUI Goodness (tm) that is Aqua. Apple knows what it's doing. Now if they'd just do something about Cocoa for Windows...
Re:Random considerations (Score:2)
Actually this [apple.com] might interest you.
--
Re:Some questions (Score:3)
An Apple-extended gcc is what builds OS X. Project Builder is the looks-too-damn-much-like-VC++ IDE front end to it.
Is one likely to ship with OSX?
There will almost certainly be no standard BSD kit shipping on the Consumer distribution CDs. It will almost as certainly be a free download in the same fashion as MPW is now, since it is the development environment, as mentioned above.
Can the gui (shell?) be altered to make an OSX desktop look like, for example, KDE? Is there support for themes, and does the word themes even apply?
Officially no
I'd love to be able to run OSX on my P3 machine
Give it up. Apple makes money on hardware. It is remotely possible you will see specific preconfigured x86 systems, but there will be no shrinkwrap OS X for Intel. Ever. Anyone who thinks different (hee hee) either is utterly ignorant of Apple's business model, or is on crack.
Now, the open-source Darwin runs on Intel. But Quartz, Cocoa, etc. won't. Even Yellow Box for Windows is being EOLd in September, which I think is a mistake, but whatever.
Is there a particularly good Mac site I can get this information from
You could always try the mothership. [apple.com]
Déjà vu (Score:5)
Dammit, you got me whistling a CSN song!
Anyway, this story has already been posted, as "The Challenges of Integrating Unix and Mac OS" [slashdot.org].
Suggestion to the Slashcode developers: add something like this in the next release!
$rh = $db->query("SELECT s FROM stories WHERE s.category = $newArticle{category}");
while ($rh->fetch()) {
$c = isect(@{$newArticle{keywords}}, @{$_{keywords}});
warnMsg("This article looks like $_{name} (at $_{url}), with $c matched keywords.\n") if $c >= $SOME_ARBITRARY_CONSTANT;
}
(Ghod, I still remember some of this stupid database programming... I've been trying to forget the horrible memories for half a year now. Urgh.)
Re:Is there a market for this? (Score:2)
Now, as for how this will bear out is something completely different. From what I've used of DP3 and DP4 (which is little as I have to remove my Voodoo3 to use it), it is a bit of a culture shock, not only because it's BSD, but also because of how different everything feels. The columned windows to Single Window Mode, the lack of popup folders in the Finder to even the lack of the Apple Menu (which is both a good and bad thing, but my opinion is that it leans toward bad for consistency's sake)... they'll all make a semi-veteran Mac user feel odd. The Veterans (read: those who have been forced to use more than just MacOS) can put up with it and the real newbies won't have known OS9 (let alone any before), so it doesn't matter. I still think it feels weird, just like it's weird when I use Windows or Unix, even if I can use them effectively.
The hostile ones like the ease and are probably scared that Apple won't be able to get that ease back, especially since they've heard of how hard Unix is and how different OSX is from OS9. Different is bad, right?
The skeptical ones anticipate the good things (SMP, preemtive multitasking, etc) even if they don't know what those terms mean, but also don't think Apple can pull it off...
And then people like me who know computers, and know the strengths and weaknesses of Unix and MacOS... they can't f---ing wait to get ahold of this (or maybe that's just me
The Happy Blues Man
Re:When do you suppose... (Score:2)
I can't believe the number of people that have themselves convinced that OS X is going to be running on x86's.
One of the favorite sports of the computer nerd is trying to figure out what Apple is going to do next. There is nothing good on TV, let's try to figure out what is going on deep in the bowels of 1 Infinite Loop. This has been going on as long as I can remember.
You know Jobs loves this. He knows we enjoy it too. Apple gets good press when they release something elegant like that beautiful charcoal iMac, but then they get good press when we hear nothing. When they are quiet, we think they are up to something outrageous.
Security is so tight at Apple, they could be making a port and we not know it. We won't know until they are ready to tell us. You notice how well they kept the iMac, ibook and the G4 underwraps.
They know how to yank our chain, and we eat it up. That's fine with me, the industry would be boring if not for Apple and the new kid on the block, Linux.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
DOS succeeded because, largely, it stayed compatible with it's predecessors (except when Microsoft wanted to break a competitors app)
OS/2 ran DOS and Windows apps just fine, to allow people to transition from Windows to it.
Windows succeeded because it allowed people to run multiple DOS apps while they were waiting for Windows apps to arrive
Windows 95 succeeded because it allowed people to run 3.1 apps while they waited for 32-bit apps to appear.
Ditto NT 4.0
Windows 2000 still runs Win 95 and Win NT apps as it waits for it's own apps to arrive.
Linux is based on Unix, which makes it basically backwards compatible in spirit with 20 years of Unix-ness.
About the only operating systems I can think of that have been introduced in a LONG time are the Palm OS (which doesn't count, since it's a completely different platform altogether) and BeOS (Witness how the BeOS is spreading like wildfire).
Among other things, the reason that Intel's platform has stayed popular for so long is because it's stayed compatible with users' devices and software.
Same for the Mac... Apple performed nearly seemless transitions in the moves from 68040 to PowerPC (less floating point dependant apps) and from NuBus to PCI...
Moral: If you want to keep your users, you need to stay compatible.
Re:Apple package management? (Score:2)
Apple employees have discussed this issue several times on the Darwin-Development mailing list. Here's the latest, which was in regards to the GPL licensing of dpkg and why Apple couldn't use it for their installer.
Peter Bierman wrote:
Later in the thread, Wilfredo Sanchez also followed up:
Re:It's been that way since OS 8. (Score:2)
Re:Some questions (Score:2)
Mac Central [maccentral.com] is updated daily, and hosts Andy Inahtko's columns.
Low End Mac [lowendmac.com] Posts links to everything interesting about macs (including the occational link to /.) and has detailed specs for the entire mac line, 1984 - today.
MacWeek [zdnet.com] sucks, but they cover the trade shows fairly well.
Mac News Network [macnn.com] seems to me like it is mostly a forum for product releases and press statements, but a lot of people consider it a favorite. (They were the first one I saw publish the ETA for the Diablo II port, so there's one notch on their belt, anyway.)
And of course, there is the new kid on the block, MacSlash [macslash.com], who took the slash code, and added ugly aqua-themed graphics to it.
UNIX Administration (Score:3)
Disclaimer: it's been a while since I sat down behind a box running OS X Server, so I may be remembering some stuff wrong . . .
I've dealt with OS X Server a bit, and some of the standard text config files are still hanging out, but not very many. Almost everything you need to configure (well, that I needed to configure) was configurable through relatively intuitive GUI tools. From what I've heard, there are ways to accomplish administration from the command line, but I never played around enough to figure out how to do so. Documentation is scarce.
What I found most disconcerting about OS X Server was the way they "Mac-ified" the filesystem . . . by default, hard drives are mounted on the root with terribly descriptive names like "Server_HD3" instead of putting them somewhere really useful (i.e., make the second drive /usr/local/share or /usr/local or something . . .). Stuff like Apache ended up in /Local/Library/WebServer, CommuniGate Pro was in /Local/Communigate . . . apps were not installed in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, in some cases. It was just weird.
If there's anybody out there with NeXT experience, is this the way things were done? I know that OS X (from what I understand) draws heavily on NeXT (i.e., retaining the NetInfo stuff).
Re:What about Unix chix? (Score:2)
:)
Apple package management? (Score:3)
So what's Apple's problem with having a GPL'ed package management system? I know many companies have an aversion to the GPL, but how does having a free and open package management system hurt them? The GPL wouldn't infect the packages. This isn't a flame - I really don't see where what the catch is from Apple's point of view.
And if they don't like the GPL, can't they just implement package management themselves, copying their favorite parts from deb, rpm, Sun's pkg, *BSD's ports, etc. Sure, setting up their own packaging system would be a lot of work, but I think it would be pretty small compared to some of the other stuff they're putting into OSX.
Re:Is there a market for this? (Score:2)
Re:Why? oh Why? (Score:2)
1) They have developers already, and a sturdy base of current applications, games, etc. that need to continue to run to ease the transition.
2) The conversion of these apps must be easy.
3) The new OS needs to be rewritten to be more robust and modern.
To do this, they introduced carbon. It is VERY easy for all the Apple developers to port to carbon. Something like only 15% of the APIs that were allowed for OS 7->9 are thrown out, while allowing compatibility through carbon for the other 85%. This gives a much shorter lead time in porting.
Apple also knows that their look and feel is much different than X offers, and it would be MUCH harder and more time consuming for developers to port to an X window manager environment.
Apple allows a good level of backwards compatibility, ease of updating software for the new OS, and still produces a "modern OS." This is a business decision, not an idealistic X UI rewrite.
Re:Question about VirtualPC (Score:2)
Another interesting item is that around the time of Virtual PC 2.0, Connectix said they hoped that by 4.0 they would "un-box" the emulator, sort of like what happened to the "Blue Box" in Mac OS X, so that Windows apps would appear for all intents and purposes to be Mac apps. Who knows whether they still plan to do this
Virtual PC really is amazing. Incredibly fast and a lot of fun to use. Very satisfying in a geek way. I wrote a computer book recently where we had Windows screenshots in odd-numbered chapters and Mac screenshots in even-numbered chapters, and I did all the screenshots on the same Mac, thanks to Virtual PC.
If you're not a Mac user, but you have a chance to play with a Mac with Virtual PC for a day sometime, take it. Lots of fun. You can run DOS, Windows 3.1/95/98, Windows NT/2000, Linux, OS/2, and switch between them anytime. Each lives on its own virtual hard drive, which are just disk images. With Windows or Linux, you just drag files from within the Virtual PC window (from the Windows desktop, for example) and drop them on the Mac desktop.
Random considerations (Score:2)
The Classic environment in Mac OS X creates a virtual machine inside of Mac OS X which boots a largely unmodified version of Mac OS 9. Applications which are built for Mac OS 9 and have not been "Carbonized" run in this environment. The Classic environment replaces the hardware abstraction layer in Mac OS 9 with a series of shims that pass requests to parts of Mac OS X. For example, a memory request in Mac OS 9 gets fulfilled by a memory request in the Darwin kernel. Mac OS 9 can thereby use resources managed by Mac OS X.
What's the speed of running an app in the Classic environment? Does the environment work roughly the same way that the Blue Box did in Rhapsody?
It's interesting that Apple chose to keep the historical UFS instead of basing it on a newer FS or advancing their HFS. While HFS+ was designed to bridge between HFS and UFS, it still doesn't make sense to use a pure-unix filesystem when you don't have a pure-unix OS. Instead, IMHO, they should have used something like the BeOS filesystem, so they could keep resource forks, etc.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
1) Quit the "design over functionality" bullshit and get back to basics. They have been listening (somewhat) to beta users with regard to things like the Dock, but they need to do more. Please, no more disasters like the Quicktime 4 player!
2) Figure out how to handle the various file systems that people are going to be using. HFS can't handle filenames over 32 characters, HFS+ can, but they both use colons as path separators, while the OS X standard filename uses the UNIX
Re:Permissions? (Score:3)
Actually, the problem is related to the BSD roots. In all the *BSD's I've used, you have to be a member of the wheel group in order to su to root. So, you just need to make your user account a member of the wheel group and su will work without difficulty. Most likely, though, the average user won't run into this, because if I were Apple, I'd make it so the graphical config tools used a graphical su app that dealt with all of those things.
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
Don't hold your breath (Score:2)
Apple is a hardware manufacturor. You'll see MacOS/X running on x86 the same day Apple demonstrates an x86 Mac--and even then, they're unlikely to offer it for non-Apple machines.
What about Unix chix? (Score:2)
Myself, I'll be stereotypically stuck near Number 2; Acid burns have left me unable to grow a beard, so I'm stuck with a rather pathetic goatee as my only option.
Perhaps I'll become a MCSE. I've always considered most Microsoftians bald-faced liars..
Re:Some questions (Score:2)
Yes. The BSD layer won't be installed by default, but when you install it, it should come with gcc - although they'll be clear to mark it as an extra utility, not as part of the operating system, to avoid breaking the GPL.
Can the gui (shell?) be altered to make an OSX desktop look like, for example, KDE? Is there support for themes, and does the word themes even apply?
Jobs doesn't like themes, much to the annoyance of the rest of us. But Aqua is basically a theme, and can be removed (returning you to Platinum), or presumably replaced.
I'd love to be able to run OSX on my P3 machine, but is S3 even going to think about putting out a driver for my Diamond video card? More succinctly, are hardware manufacturers going to be willing and/or able to ship drivers for PC hardware?
Definitely not going to happen, although Apple is probably keeping their options open for the future by maintaining x86 compatibility internally.
Is there a particularly good Mac site I can get this information from, so I can stop trolling
Mac OS Rumors [mosr.com]
AppleInsider [appleinsider.com]
MacInTouch [macintouch.com]
that's a start.
--
Re:Random considerations (Score:2)
Anybody who can legitimately answer this has signed an NDA that forbids them from talking about performance issues currently. However, note that the Classic environment is *not* an emulator. So the machine code for an application runs directly on the hardware. Classic is essentially Rhapsody's "Blue Box" unboxed. It lets uncarbonized applications coexist much more smoothly with the rest of the system.
IMHO, they should have used something like the BeOS filesystem, so they could keep resource forks, etc.
Apple seems to have given this issue a lot of thought. Firstly, they are not constraining the filesystem to be UFS. Mac OS X can boot and root off HFS+ (and probably will by default). Secondly, the application environments have some fairly nifty infrastructure to carry around the meta-data that sits in the resource fork around on filesystems that do not support forks, and translate back and forth. It's actually quite neat. Poke around the Mac OS X developer documentation on apple.com for details.
It isn't, quite. (Score:2)
>killing efficiency:
It's not quite backwards compatible; certainly not in the was that windows and system 7 were. The "compatibility stuff" isn't generally around or loaded; it's done by an artificial environment.
hawk
Re:Random considerations (Score:2)
In os x client, it's transparent. Classic windows co-exist with carbon or cocoa windows. Classic apps currently have the platnium appearance (not aqua) but I'm betting this is just done to encourage developers to carbonize their apps, and when it's show time, they slap the aqua appearance on classic apps.
It's interesting that Apple chose to keep the historical UFS instead of basing it on a newer FS or advancing their HFS. While HFS+ was designed to bridge between HFS and UFS, it still doesn't make sense to use a pure-unix filesystem when you don't have a pure-unix OS. Instead, IMHO, they should have used something like the BeOS filesystem, so they could keep resource forks, etc.
OS x client does support hfs+. It's actually the default format for installing the os. If they hadn't done this, everyone would have to reformat their whold drive while upgrading from os 9 -> 10. If the average mac user had to do that, there would be a lot of unhappy campers.
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:5)
i'm a fat unix guy with a beard. aren't we all?
Myself and a friend of mine were discussing that once, mainly the beard issue. We applied this more to techies in general though. Heres what we came up with:
1. New Guy Learning Unix -- undefined
2. Newbie Unix Guy on the Job -- small goatee, perhaps just a mustache, but not looking like a used car salesman*
3. Intermediate to Advanced Unix Guys -- Full Beard, perhaps slightly balding, but not a nessacity. Starting to put on some weight
4. Unix Guru/Techie God Status -- This guy could almost pass for a member of ZZ Top.
Unfortunatly, I'm at the top of the list...as soon as I start getting more well versed in the realms of Unix systems, I can start growing the goatee at least (if my wife lets me). What she dosen't understand though, is that no one (in their right mind) will entrust their networks to a Unix guy who dosen't have at least some facial hair
A/UX? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone remember NextStep ? (Score:3)
Burris
As I am reading the posts below... (Score:3)
Quotations like "what will the Mac people think" and "how can the Mac people possible learn how to run MacOSx".
Professionally I started on the Mac with a Quadra 800 AV when I was doing professional graphics and photography while in the military 5 years ago.
I have since then move through Windows and then into Linux for most of my computing needs.
I know that I do not speak for the rest of the gang here but an OS with the most user-friendly interface in the world with the stability, security and speed of BSD... that has to be the best OS in the world.
[flame type="protection"]
I can't wait to get my hands on a G3/4 just to tinker with MacOSx.
As a non-Mac user, I am looking forward to the final release. I wish I had a G3 so I can tryout the beta releases.
Please tell me why I shouldn't look forward to MacOSx as a non-Mac user.
ChozSun [e-mail] [mailto]
Re:Random considerations (Score:2)
Neither is WINE, however, WINE's performance can at times be abysmally slow.
Secondly, the application environments have some fairly nifty infrastructure to carry around the meta-data that sits in the resource fork around on filesystems that do not support forks, and translate back and forth. It's actually quite neat.
Actually, it looked like an ugly hack using dotfiles, to me. What happens if the dotfile gets replaced/deleted/etc.? Doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.
Re:the biggest challenge (Score:2)
I'm losing weight and I can't even grow an anemic looking goatee! Maybe I should become an NT Admin.
Re:Random considerations (Score:5)
The cool part is that Classic takes advantage of Mac OS X's superior (to Mac OS 9) memory management, so the Mac OS 9 running in Classic thinks it has a gig of RAM or something crazy like that (exactly how much depends on a bunch of factors).
I think Apple's UFS is a bit different that the normal UFS. HFS+ is the default filesystem for Mac OS X, but, if you're a developer, you want a UFS partition because a few Unix programs break when compiling on HFS+ (due to case issues: HFS+ preserves case but is not case-sensitive, so moof.c and Moof.c cannot coexist).