[linux-elitists] Why haven't you switched to MacOS X yet?
Wed Jan 8 19:53:23 PST 2003
Quoting Eric Murray (email@example.com):
> Actually the nExt kernel was Mach, which was a message-passing
> micro-kernel sort of thing.
See, this is exactly the sort of irrelevant detail-mongering that
inevitably sidetracks basically all discussions of OS X licensing. Yes,
I'm keenly aware of NeXT's use of Mach. But no, the above does not
contradict what I posted, _nor_ cast light on the subject at hand.
This discussion is a complete waste of time, but I guess I'll get sucked
> Mach was almost always slid under BSD,
Since we're in this irrelevant nitpicking discussion anyway (for reasons
that elude me): It is inaccurate to say "slid under BSD". In order to
achieve reasonable performance, the BSD and underlying Mach layers were
so heavily interconnected that what is now called "xnu" no longer even
remotely resembles a microkernel. The BSD personality layer used atop
Mach in NeXT's and other, similar efforts of the day cannot be
reasonably termed "BSD" in itself (because of the Mach dependency), and
the architecture cannot be accurately termed "sliding under" on account
of the lack of hardware abstraction in the resulting hairball.
> There was also a port of the NextStep windowing system/UI/dancing bear
> to one of the flavors of AIX.
Yes, and one to Sun's SunOS/Solaris/whatever du jour on SPARC. And none
of this antiquarian feepery is even remotely relevant to the preceding
discussion. At least my historical rundown had the excuse of attempting
to clear up the misconception that Apple "chose open source components",
when in fact they inherited a BSDish codebase from NeXT and elected to
open-source most of it for various reasons that could be debated (but
which debate would likewise be pointless, for reasons cited).
On the other hand, if you were just choosing this occasion to reminisce,
Cheers, "Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?"
Rick Moen -- Steven Wright
More information about the linux-elitists