Date: 24 Jul 98 08:14:44 +1000 From: Terry Brady <bradyt@choiceconnect.com.au> To: Sue Blake <sue@welearn.com.au>, Sean Harding <sharding@oregon.uoregon.edu>, Jamie Lawrence <jal@ThirdAge.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Apples and oranges? FreeBSD and MacOSX Message-ID: <199807232214.IAA10901@smople.thehub.com.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Reply to: Re: Apples and oranges? FreeBSD and MacOSX
Jamie Lawrence wrote:
>At 07:05 PM 7/22/98 -0700, Sean Harding wrote:
>>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Sue Blake wrote:
>>
>>> If you are going to install some unix system now, you couldn't get anything
>>> closer than FreeBSD to do the task well. Some parts of your learning will be
>>
>>This is true of free distributions, but if you go commercial,
>>OPENSTEP/NeXTSTEP is *far* closer to Rhapsody/MacOS X Server than FreeBSD
>>is ever likely to be.
>
>Um, forgive me if I'm clue-deprived here, but I thought MacOS X
>was a strategy for backing away from Rhapsody for desktop machines.
>From my reading, it was to be a revved up MacOS on which developers
>could count on a subset of the former APIs being executed in a >preemptive multitasking, memory protected environment. Basically,
>most of what Copeland was to have been. I didn't think there was
>any Unix involved, although it would make sense to use what they
>have. Does anyone know for sure that I'm wrong?
>
>-j
Jamie, here's one topic I *do* have the answers for:
MacOSX is esentially the same thing as Rhapsody which is esentially the same thing as NeXTStep/OpenStep... they all have a Mach kernel, all have BSD Unix implementation. It's the higher level services and (graphical) user interface which differentiate between them.
As far as we know, even the "consumer-level" Mac OS X will have the ability (perhaps not by default but through an install option) to work via the unix command line - even over a telnet connection. Just like a real unix, because it is one.
Mac OS X Server is just a renamed Rhapsody Customer Release 1.0.
The big deal with Carbon - which is just a subset of the existing Mac OS API's plus a few new ones - is that developers will only have to modify a small portion of their existing applications in order to take advantage of protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking... which is what Copland was supposed to have delivered some years ago.
So we will have an OS which is unix at heart, with an advanced Mac OS GUI for those who like that, command line facilities for the more hands-on types, capable of running legacy Mac OS apps, updated "Carbon-based" apps, apps written to the updated NeXTStep API's (aka Yellow Box), 100% Java implementation, and last but not least the wealth of existing unix software through the BSD and POSIX implementation.
To keep this post somewhere near the FreeBSD list topic: seems like a knowledge of FreeBSD would give you a good foundation for running a Mac OS X box.
Regards,
Terry
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<HTML><HEAD></HEAD><BODY>
<PRE WIDTH="132">
Reply to: Re: Apples and oranges? FreeBSD and MacOSX
</PRE>
<FONT FACE="Geneva" SIZE=3 COLOR="#000000"><BR>
Jamie Lawrence wrote:</FONT><FONT FACE="Geneva" SIZE=1 COLOR="#000000"><BR>
>At 07:05 PM 7/22/98 -0700, Sean Harding wrote:<BR>
>>On Thu, 23 Jul 1998, Sue Blake wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>>> If you are going to install some unix system now, you couldn't get anything<BR>
>>> closer than FreeBSD to do the task well. Some parts of your learning will be<BR>
>><BR>
>>This is true of free distributions, but if you go commercial,<BR>
>>OPENSTEP/NeXTSTEP is *far* closer to Rhapsody/MacOS X Server than FreeBSD<BR>
>>is ever likely to be.<BR>
><BR>
>Um, forgive me if I'm clue-deprived here, but I thought MacOS X<BR>
>was a strategy for backing away from Rhapsody for desktop machines.<BR>
>From my reading, it was to be a revved up MacOS on which developers<BR>
>could count on a subset of the former APIs being executed in a <BR>
>preemptive multitasking, memory protected environment. Basically,<BR>
>most of what Copeland was to have been. I didn't think there was<BR>
>any Unix involved, although it would make sense to use what they<BR>
>have. Does anyone know for sure that I'm wrong?<BR>
><BR>
>-j<BR>
<BR>
Jamie, here's one topic I *do* have the answers for:<BR>
<BR>
MacOSX is esentially the same thing as Rhapsody which is esentially the same thing as NeXTStep/OpenStep... they all have a Mach kernel, all have BSD Unix implementation. It's the higher level services and (graphical) user interface which differentiate between them.<BR>
<BR>
As far as we know, even the "consumer-level" Mac OS X will have the ability (perhaps not by default but through an install option) to work via the unix command line - even over a telnet connection. Just like a real unix, because it is one.<BR>
<BR>
Mac OS X Server is just a renamed Rhapsody Customer Release 1.0.<BR>
<BR>
The big deal with Carbon - which is just a subset of the existing Mac OS API's plus a few new ones - is that developers will only have to modify a small portion of their existing applications in order to take advantage of protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking... which is what Copland was supposed to have delivered some years ago.<BR>
<BR>
So we will have an OS which is unix at heart, with an advanced Mac OS GUI for those who like that, command line facilities for the more hands-on types, capable of running legacy Mac OS apps, updated "Carbon-based" apps, apps written to the updated NeXTStep API's (aka Yellow Box), 100% Java implementation, and last but not least the wealth of existing unix software through the BSD and POSIX implementation.<BR>
<BR>
To keep this post somewhere near the FreeBSD list topic: seems like a knowledge of FreeBSD would give you a good foundation for running a Mac OS X box.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
<BR>
Terry</FONT></BODY></HTML>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807232214.IAA10901>