Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

An Answer To "What is Mac OS X?" 664

Posted by Cliff from the for-those-who-are-curious dept.
XCube writes: "'What is Mac OS X?' is a fascinating article over at KernelThread.com. According to Amit Singh it's a hacker-over-friendly answer to that question and a low-level taste of Apple's OS. The extensive article covers many details on Mac OS X: history, Mac firmware & boot loader, system architecture, kernel, startup, file systems, app environments, programming facilities, available software, and more. A great read if you are interested in Mac OS X, though some stuff is too technical methinks. On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in Mac OS X! The author says he wrote it to introduce Mac OS X to the Linux User's Group at his work."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Answer To "What is Mac OS X?" More

An Answer To "What is Mac OS X?"

Comments Filter:

  • Hey, Wait a second (Score:5, Funny)

    by jetkust ( 596906 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:22PM (#7904512)
    On second thought, this may be a better read if you're *not* interested in OS X!

    But if I wasn't interested, then why would I be reading it?

  • Carbon's roots are older (Score:5, Interesting)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:23PM (#7904519)
    Carbon. This is a set of procedural C-based APIs for Mac OS X that are based on the old Mac OS 9 API (actually dating back as far back as Mac OS 8.1)

    To nitpick: actually, a lot of the Carbon APIs go as far back as System 1.0 -- most of QuickDraw for example.

    • Re:Carbon's roots are older (Score:5, Informative)

      by frankie ( 91710 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:49PM (#7904828) Journal
      The article is conflating two different things - either an accidental mis-edit or an intentional oversimplification.

      Carbon is based on the classic Mac APIs which go way back to 1984, while the Carbon API actually exists (and is available for calls) in MacOS 8.1 and higher via the CarbonLib classic extension.

      • Re:Carbon's roots are older (Score:5, Informative)

        by gwernol ( 167574 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @03:11PM (#7905018)
        Carbon is based on the classic Mac APIs which go way back to 1984, while the Carbon API actually exists (and is available for calls) in MacOS 8.1 and higher via the CarbonLib classic extension.

        Actually (if you care about all the historical details of Mac OS X's evolution) Carbon was originally based on the QuickTime library, which in turn was based on the classic Mac APIs. I was an engineer on the QuickTime team during the early Rhapsody days up through Mac OS X beta.

        When Rhapsody (basically the NextStep OS) was being developed it quickly became obvious we needed to support classic Macintosh applications. QuickTime had already been ported to an early Rhapsody version, and it just so happened QuickTime already carried around an API that contained about 70% of the Mac OS functionality. This is how QuickTime runs on Windows and why porting Carbon/classic Mac apps to Windows is (relatively) painless if you know to call the QTW libraries. So Apple effectively had the start of Carbon on NextStep as a result of the QuickTime port. Rhapsody became Mac OS X, the QuickTime library support was spun out to its own team and became Carbon.

        None of which really disagrees with your post, just a little more detail on the exact process.

  • The question (Score:5, Funny)

    by CelticWhisper ( 601755 ) <celticwhisperNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:25PM (#7904548)
    It's been at the back of your mind all along, always there, you're always asking...

    "What is Mac OS X?"

    Do you want me to show you, Neo...er...Steve? Eat the blue apple, and you'll go on living your life, believing whatever you want to believe. Eat the red apple, and I'll show you how deep the worm hole goes. And you'll realize that there is no Mac OS X. It's only your mind that has unfathomably sexy UI elements.

  • What is Mac OS X? (Score:4, Funny)

    by mac os ken ( 732050 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:26PM (#7904564) Homepage Journal
    Mac OS X is:

    stable

    easy to use

    gorgeous

    well rounded

    interesting Kind of sounds like the perfect boyfriend/girlfriend. But remember, we're talking about software here... :P

  • Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:27PM (#7904573) Homepage Journal
    If you've been under a rock and haven't read much about OS X, still view Linux as a strong desktop OS, but hate having to fight to get the latest software, hardware, or other common computer accessories working without a call to your other Linux buddies, you should get a kick out of this article.

    While the author disavows the article to a degree, it may be of great use to Linux and other UNIX users who haven't a clue of the true nature of OS X beneath its GUI interface. From the kernel, to a typical Mac's boot firmware, to its BSD origins, this is probably one of the better free web-accessible summaries that Linux geeks could appreciate.

    OK, it might not make you switch, but note that this guy admits to using OS X for only 3 years or so, and he's gained quite an understanding of it.

    Will OS X work for you best? YMMV.

    • Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up (Score:5, Interesting)

      by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:40PM (#7904732)
      I'm sorry, I'm not using Linux because it's a strong desktop (it's good enough for me, i'd call it adequate). I don't fight to get the latest software, I use what works and don't need to have the hottest, newest bits running through my processor. Most security updates are irellevant as I have hardly any services running, but I update the ones I need. If I had accesories, i'd make sure they worked with Linux before buying them, or were from a company who has a history of devulging enough specs for people to write device drivers themselves.

      I use personally use Linux to get away from the liscensing nonsense that MicroAppleSunSoft tries to cram down my throat and sockets. They force too much upon me. It's my hardware, not theirs. I use Linux because it is Free. I use OSX at work and MS-Windows at work because I have to. What management decides is out of my control.

      "...without a call to your other Linux buddies..."

      Half the fun of Linux is the community built around it.

      • Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @03:03PM (#7904931) Homepage Journal
        Makes sense to me, all you've said. Apologies if I sound like I am pigeonholing the typical Linux user.

        But OS X is much like any other BSD. Don't want to pay Roxio for a burn app? Just use the exact same CD burn tools you're using now. Same is true for Apache and many, many other tools that are built in OS X as they are in Linux and BSD. Else, compile the darn things.

        Just note that not everyone (not even here on /.) are whizzes that can build anything they need or tinker for hours. How much do you consider your time is worth? Some of us just want to buy something, use it, and take the remaining time in the date to do something else, like, hell--I don't know--date or something.
      • I use personally use Linux to get away from the liscensing nonsense that MicroAppleSunSoft tries to cram down my throat and sockets. They force too much upon me. It's my hardware, not theirs. I use Linux because it is Free. I use OSX at work and MS-Windows at work because I have to. What management decides is out of my control.

        Unless you are a GNU/Zealot, I can't see what problem you would have with Apple's licenses. They are about the minimal license for a piece of proprietary software: can't redistribut

        • Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:16PM (#7905692) Homepage Journal
          And this was the way some proprietary software was going for a while. In the beginning, it was unclear how copyright applied to software, so the proprietarists came up with licensing instead. Like humans coming down out of the trees, this is generally been regarded as a bad move. But once it became clear that copyright applied to software, some proprietarists thought it silly to saddle their users with contracts, or to spend years in court arguing that "read-to-agree" schemes constituted contractual assent. They didn't want to control their users, they just wanted to make sure their software wasn't redistributed. Standard copyright law (plus an attached disclaimer of warranty) was all they needed.

          I think Borland was the first major software vendor to use a copyright-based proprietary license (the famous "book" license). Some other companies followed suit, Apple included. Unfortunately, the old unilateral-contract-based schemes required hordes of lawyers, and lawyers love nothing better than to control other people.

          Apple's proprietary software is still proprietary. But it's in a completely different class then Microsoft software. Nothing is being crammed down anyone's throat. While I still prefer Free Software, I have no problems buying and using proprietary software if the license terms are based on copyright rather than on some lawyer's delusion of how the world should work.

      • Re:Potential Linux Switchers: Read Up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rampant mac ( 561036 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:09PM (#7905625)
        "Half the fun of Linux is the community built around it."

        Half the frustration of Linux is the community built around it, also.

        That goes for every operating system. Use what makes YOU more productive. I could care less about free/open source/closed source. I prefer to use an OS that makes me more productive, with the least amount of hassle. Apple gives me that. Microsoft does not. Linux sure doesn't either.

    • maybe you (Score:3, Interesting)

      by asv108 ( 141455 )
      still view Linux as a strong desktop OS, but hate having to fight to get the latest software, hardware, or other common computer accessories working without a call to your other Linux buddies, you should get a kick out of this article.

      OK, it might not make you switch, but note that this guy admits to using OS X for only 3 years or so, and he's gained quite an understanding of it.

      Maybe you should try Linux again, has it been 3 years? I've had very few problems with the latest hardware and software. Now I

  • though i love linux (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spectre_be ( 664735 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:30PM (#7904611)
    i must admit that i admire apple's os x platform. for example one *can* use the command line as much as one likes but one doesnt't *have* to. i can't say that i love editing my xf86config for example. tho os x is far from perfect (it *is* after all proprietary) but it seems like an evolution of linux in ways of usability. i think however that the major OSS desktop environments aren't that far away from obtaining equally powerfull yet userfriendly operation (having only working knowledge of the gentoo distro) it's been a while since i used os x (10.1 in fact) and i must admit i regret lacking the funds to buy myself a peachy powermac g5 cuz i'm quite tempted by os x panther and the ilife bundle (man garageband look awesome!) sometimes i've wished linux was a bit more 'it just works' although i know huge progess is being made in that field every day (ie getting alsa to work has been a major pita for me) i for one just think os x gives the user still a much smoother computer experience than linux can at the moment. i consider it to be a best of both worlds - operation system. only, personally, i think os x could do with decent skinning features as simple far from everybody likes apple's aqua interface. way to go apple
    • I agree with your thoughts in a lot of ways, but it's raising a questoin for me- Why the hell do people fight over their OS's so much, alwasy trying to say that theirs is the best there ever was?

      I'm reminded of the Ansel Adams article a couple weeks ago. Someone pointed out that Adams used lots of different media for different things, and he would have used digital photography in instances where it suited his purpose. Why can't we all think of an OS the same way? There are things that XP does that I'

    • Re:though i love linux (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GlassHeart ( 579618 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @03:17PM (#7905072) Journal
      i consider it to be a best of both worlds

      When a company does such a good job, then the intelligent consumer would pay the company so it can improve. Apple does not survive by your applause, but by your purchasing dollars. Even your dollars spent on Microsoft Office for the Mac is partially a powerful vote for Apple.

      Point is, if all we are going to do is to sit around and dish out glowing reviews, then we should not be surprised when (not if) a company we so approve of fails. Put your money where your mouth is.

      i regret lacking the funds to buy myself a peachy powermac g5 cuz i'm quite tempted by os x panther and the ilife bundle (man garageband look awesome!)

      GarageBand requires a G4 with DVD drive for full operations. The entry-level eMac satisfies this at $800 brand new, or under $700 refurbished. The $800 price, if you wait a few weeks, would include the $50 iLife.

      Don't get me wrong. $800 is still real money, and is still more expensive than a Dell box. However, it's not $1,800, which is what an entry-level G5 would cost, and the Dell box won't have GarageBand, its big brother Soundtrack, or Final Cut Express and big brother Final Cut Pro.

    • The only thing I've seen lacking with OSX, and please tell me if I'm just missing it, but, the lack of virtual desktop support? I love this feature on my Linux boxes...I have my work/play usually grouped together in each of my 4 desktops and switch between them as needed....

      I think I'd really like OSX if it has this one tiny, but, to me, invaluable feature...

  • interesting article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:31PM (#7904625)
    It's good to explain more of the underpinnings OS X. You see, NeXTSTEP was almost the perfect operating system and development environment.

    The NS environment (living on in Aqua today) is just so cool. Well-designed interfaces abound. Design patterns everywhere, created when the term "Design Pattern" had barely been explored in the computer world. For instance: most objects use delegation to extend their behavior. Not subclassing! Just compare building a GUI in Swing to Cocoa, it's like salt and sugar.

    Objective-C is a wonderful semi-dynamic language, much nicer than C++.

    Programming the mac is a true joy, even if all this dynamic dispatch is a little slow and hardly anybody uses macs. :-)

  • Tired of linux? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OmniVector ( 569062 ) <see my homepage> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:35PM (#7904670) Homepage
    I loved some of the concepts behind linux, but I think Linux's greatest advantage is also it's greatest weakness. The fact that there is no central governing body for most projects means that you get lots of fragmentation (X11: freedesktop.org, fresco, XFree; Distros: Gentoo, Debian, Mandrake, Redhat, etc) which makes it very difficult to stick to one standard. Thankfully, over time some projects fork (gcc) and wind up becoming the project that takes over. It's this fragmentation that helps linux adapt so rapidly. However because of all this, developers can't code for one toolkit api, one kernel api, etc. Mac OS X, to linux users, is like linux controlled by ONE group who says yes or no to all issues so that the complex fragmented software base can concentrate on one goal: a good consistent end user experience. I honestly would say Mac OS X couldn't exist without Linux or BSD because it wouldn't be where it was today without the OSS community. People complain that OS X is too proprietary, but i believe it is the perfect mix. On one hand you have OSS [opendarwin.org] software [sf.net]. On the other hand you have commercial [microsoft.com] software [adobe.com]. It's truely the best of both worlds! Isn't this what many linux users want? Linux grandma can use? Companies to write native software? Games? Gaim and KMail side by side with safari and photoshop? You don't have to wait if that's what you want. Linux is a great server OS, but mac os x has it by leaps and bounds as a good desktop platform. Am i saying Gnome and KDE should die off and we should all just use mac os x? of course not. But i am saying if you want a usable unix desktop now, not later, you don't have to look much further.

  • Excellent read! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tor ( 2685 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:42PM (#7904751) Homepage
    This is one of the very best "OS Review" articles I've ever come across - especially the way that it brings in all aspects of history, influences, etc to address ignorance & common misconceptions.

    Good Job!
    -tor

  • Minor things to update (Nits) (Score:4, Informative)

    by WillAdams ( 45638 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:50PM (#7904834) Homepage
    Misses the ``sturm und drang'' over Adobe's promising a free, then low-cost, then no-way-what's-your-market-cap license for Display PostScript (originally co-developed by NeXT and Apple), as well as the free ``Yellow Box'' run-time which went away at that time, as well as the moving target of the up-dated APIs when Apple ceased to think of Mac OS X as an OpenStep implementation.

    Apple's support for PDF/X gainsays the claim the pdf support isn't a replacement for Adobe Acrobat to a certain extant. By tweaking a few settings one can get a press-ready .pdf out of pretty much any app. If one needs access to other features, well, there's always pdfTeX....(which provides access to things which the Adobe Acrobat GUI _doesn't_)

    And the author misses Gerben Wierda's spiffy iInstaller.app which is a neat way to install iInstaller packages (which includes TeX, xfig, imagemagick, Ghostscript &c.). This was developed to work around (then limitations) of Apple's Installer.app and to make updating packages more efficient---way cool stuff.

    osx.hyperjeff.net is a way-cool app tracker....

    Also misses Macromedia FreeHand MX and the irony of NeXTstep's premier drawing / page-layout application having come to Mac OS X as a Carbon app :(

    But a nice, informative article naetheless.

    William

  • I know what OS X is. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:51PM (#7904839)
    FeeBSD.

  • On the Subject of Games (Score:5, Informative)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @02:54PM (#7904864) Homepage Journal
    The largest flaw of the article involves the availability of games for Mac OS X. The writer admittedly didn't know of many, so I'll list a few, past, present, and near future. Games that cannot play with their PC or Linux counterparts in a multiplayer mode will be marked with the number sign (#)

    -Return to Castle Wolfenstein (original; the Enemy Territory MP expansion is not yet available) (Multiplayer DOTH ROCK.)
    - Diablo 2 (including all expansions)
    - WarCraft 3 (including all expansions)
    - Neverwinter Nights (original; expansions not yet available, but can be hacked to work)
    - Baldurs Gate II
    - Icewind Dale
    - Star Wars: Jedi Knight II
    - Star Wars: Jedi Academy
    - Lara Croft: Angel of Darkness
    - No One Lives Forever 1 and 2
    - Halo
    - Soldier of Fortune 2
    - Dungeon Siege (#) (Legends of Arranna expansion not yet available. This game is made in part by Microsoft and uses proprietary software to make MP work for PCs)
    - SimCity 4
    - The Sims (including all expansions, excluding Online)
    - Splinter Cell (coming soon)
    - Command & Conquer: Generals
    - Star Wars: Battlegrounds
    - Call of Duty (coming soon)
    - Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and Spearhead expansion (new editions not yet available)
    - Unreal
    - Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004
    - Quake 3 (duh--its the engine for most of the games listed)

    About the only big game that never hit the Macintosh in recent years was Half-Life. I built a PC just to try that baby out, and I wasn't disappointed.

    Usually, you have to wait 2-6 months for a successful PC game to be ported by companies such as Aspyr [aspyr.com], but the wait is usually worth it because the game has been patched and runs much smoother than when it was first introduced on the PC.

    I jokingly consider PC players as my beta testers, since a PC game that sucks ("Bloodrayne" notwithstanding--that turd got through the quality control somehow) is never ported to Mac OS X.

    So, if you gotta play everything, the Mac isn't for you. If you want to enjoy the best of the games in a year, it's a sure bet it'll be ported soon.

    Some companies, like Blizzard, ship boxes that contain both the Mac and PC versions of the game, such as WarCraft 3.

    • Re:On the Subject of Games (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eclectic4 ( 665330 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @03:23PM (#7905131)
      I apologize, I just have to ditto the above.

      With regard to Half-Life, it is THE only game that I have envied PC users for. The only one. I use my Mac for gaming and have otherwise been very well fed, thank you very much. Your points are dead on, and it's something that most don't realize. To add, you can't even purchase a Mac without an exceptional graphics card built in. My wife uses it for her design work, I use it for gaming. Frag on.

    • Re:On the Subject of Games (Score:4, Insightful)

      by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:02PM (#7905542)
      So, if you gotta play everything, the Mac isn't for you. If you want to enjoy the best of the games in a year, it's a sure bet it'll be ported soon.

      Well, two problems with that statement.

      One, there are still a lot of A-list games that never make it to the Mac. Battlefield 1942 and Serious Sam are two of my favorites.

      Two, by the time the Mac port comes out, the PC version is usually in the bargain bin, so Mac players are paying $50 for what PC users are now paying $20 for. And if you're like me, I never buy a new release when I know it's going to be half price in 6 months.

      I've been a Mac user since 1984, so believe me, I know the Mac gamer's anguish... hope, pray, sign petitions, send emails, etc. Things have gotten SIGNIFICANTLY better in the past few years... I mean, LucasArts actually released Jedi Knight II for Mac! Wonders never cease. But the situation is a far cry from being "satisfactory".

      • Re:On the Subject of Games (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:35PM (#7905900) Homepage Journal
        I generally agree. The speed that the Mac ports are handled do vary, but I tend that see that, while the PC version that arrived is already marked down, the game is usually not in the bargain bin yet, nowandays.

        Yes, Battlefield 1942 is a good example of a great game not yet ported to Mac OS...but it might not be because of a lack of trying. There are still a few games out there that might be resisting a port due to a technical snafu, if not from good lawyers to negotiate the licensing of the port for Mac OS. Any PC game that heavily leverages the DirectPlay and DirectX tools from Microsoft could render a Mac port hard to do.

        Another point you somewhat hit...while the PC version of the games do drop in price, the Mac versions of the games tend to stay at full price much, much longer, or hell, never even drop in price. What's up with that?

      • Re:On the Subject of Games (Score:4, Interesting)

        by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:55PM (#7906900)
        Two, by the time the Mac port comes out, the PC version is usually in the bargain bin, so Mac players are paying $50 for what PC users are now paying $20 for. And if you're like me, I never buy a new release when I know it's going to be half price in 6 months.

        I'm not sure how long you've been using Macs, but I've watched that gap closing rapidly in the last few years. Game companies have shown and startlingly renewed interest in getting the Mac versions out either simultaneous with the PC version or hot on the heels of. I can't think of many top games that haven't had a Mac version out in a matter of days.

        There are still some, however, I admit. One issue to consider is that some game companies wait to see if a game is big enough to bother porting to the Mac. True, that causes some lag, but it effectively weeds out most of the garbage and if you're a casual game player, that's a small blessing. I've played a lot of the games that PC users brag about having and IMO, it's not impressive. It's like the old Dennis Miller quote about KMart clothing (you know, back before he became Bush's little bitch): "Dontcha love these cheap clothing stores? Two of shit... is shit. If they really wanna fuck you, they'll give you three." Lots of shitty games doesn't mean much to me. I'd rather deal with a gap in the release times and know that most of what's available is actually worth buying.

        And yes, I'm well aware of Half-Life, but those kinds of situations are few and far between.

  • try OS X on a cheap iBook (Score:5, Informative)

    by SideshowBob ( 82333 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @03:40PM (#7905308)
    If you're interested in trying OS X, Apple's online store has new iBook G3s for $799 (look in the Special Deals section). I bought one for my wife and 'borrow' it liberally ;-) OK so it isn't a PowerBook G4 but it has to be one of the best values in laptops. Its fast enough to do reasonably sized software development, and its more than enough for couch-born web surfing and email. Unix + great GUI + lightweight portable = bliss.

    Not trying to sound like an advertisement, just giving a heads up to people that want the cheapest way possible to run OS X. (well, on new gear, on the same page you can get factory refurbs for even cheaper)
    • Yeah, I abandoned OS X on my older (first generation) iBook -- it was just too slow. Then I tried Panther. It's a much snappier user experience, even on old Mac hardware.

      I liked Yellow Dog Linux on my laptop, but the new version of OS X runs so nicely I'll probably leave it. Still happily running SUSE on my x86 desktop, but I think a dual-boot Powermac is somewhere in the near future.

      A very reasonable article.

  • I'm so sick of this: Cocoa IS PORTABLE! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Art Tatum ( 6890 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @03:55PM (#7905459)
    It's called GNUstep [gnustep.org]. And yes, there are applications that build cleanly on both platforms. GNUMail.app [collaboration-world.com], for example. There's also a project called Renaissance [gnustep.it] that allows you to craft your interface with XML, avoiding even issues with Apple's proprietary .NIB files.

    There are also clones of NeXT/Apple's InterfaceBuilder and ProjectBuilder and a host of end user applications. GNUstep builds on Linux and other UNIX systems. The Foundation classes work fine on Windows and there's serious work to perfect the GUI classes on Windows as well.

    • A couple times per year I check in on the GNUstep stuff. I'm always suprised to see there are still people working on it... doing stuff... but I can never figure out what the purpose of it all is.

      I mean, you never hear anything about GNUstep. There are no distros that I know of that use it on the desktop. Hell, to this day I'm not 100% sure what exactly GNUstep is or what it does. I mean, is it a X11 replacement? Something like KDE/GNOME? Some widgets? Just some API's? ... I mean, what the hell is i
      • A couple times per year I check in on the GNUstep stuff. I'm always suprised to see there are still people working on it... doing stuff... but I can never figure out what the purpose of it all is.

        Well, there are several purposes it seems (everybody has different goals and desires). Many are old NeXT programmers who didn't want to lose the beauty of the Objective-C language and API. Others are OS X programmers who also like Linux or other UNIX systems and like to have the same tools, API, and language to

  • OS X is ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @04:09PM (#7905621) Journal
    .. the GUI that UNIX could have had.

    I guess I'm suprised that UNIX just accepted the CDE and never really extended it to be something really cool. At its base OS X is BSD, and Panther actually comes with a version of X one could install. Personally I like OS X, but macs hardware is just to expensive for a poor man like me. IMHO Mac OS X is the uppermiddle class mans extra friendly UNIX. I'll take Linux cause I'm poor ;-)

  • Why Mach? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by leandrod ( 17766 ) <l@dutras . o rg> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @05:26PM (#7906521) Homepage Journal
    This is the answer I never saw properly answered, and I hoped the article would.

    Why combine the loss of performance and added complexity of Mach with the lack of flexibility of a single (BSD) server?

    One could be lean with a single BSD server, or flexible with Mach and a multiple server system like the Hurd. But XNU gives one the worst of both worlds as I see it...

    • Re:Why Mach? (Score:3, Informative)

      by rmlane ( 589573 )

      Why combine the loss of performance and added complexity of Mach with the lack of flexibility of a single (BSD) server?

      Your premise is incorrect. I worked at Apple as an Enterprise SE, and asked the same question of the kernel engineers which they answered as follows: (errors all mine, accurate info all theirs)

      The Mach microkernel and the BSD kernel stuff actually live inside the same memory / process space. There is no task switching performance penalty (the performance issue from "standard" Mach impl

  • It's compiled! DAMMIT!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Muffin Man ( 82245 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @06:57PM (#7907687) Homepage
    Hmm, he lists Lisp amongst the interpreted languages. I hope the rest of the article is more accurate...

    Edi.

    == Programming Language Myths ==

    BASIC Myth: People who learn BASIC go on to learn other languages.
    Reality: Most people who learn BASIC go on to find less nerdy ways of writing "Mr. Gzabowski is a lame teacher" over and over again.

    C Myth: C programs are insecure, full of buffer overflows and such.
    Reality: C programs are only insecure if written by imperfect programmers. Since all C programmers know that they are perfect, there's no problem.

    COBOL Myth: COBOL is dead.
    Reality: It stalks from out the ancient vaults of death, its putrid mind drawn to the blood of the living.

    Forth Myth: Forth makes no sense.
    Reality: backwards. think to have just you sense, perfect makes Forth

    Java Myth: You need Java to do business applications.
    Reality: You need Java to get a job.

    Lisp Myth: Lisp is an interpreted language.
    Reality: Lisp is COMPILED DAMMIT COMPILED! IT'S IN THE FUCKING STANDARD!!!

    Pascal Myth: Pascal is a toy.
    Reality: Oh, wait, that is not a myth, it is true ...

    Perl Myth: Perl is impossible to read.
    Reality: You are not taking enough psychedelics.

    Python Myth: Python's only problem is the whitespace thing.
    Reality: Python's only problem is that it is fucking slow.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close