Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:14:30 -0800 From: Rich Morin <rdm@cfcl.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: so where is our press-release about MacOS X ? Message-ID: <p05001954b6e3b6738baa@[192.168.168.205]> In-Reply-To: <96115992498.20010325155239@binity.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103242258340.89919-100000@localhost> <p05001952b6e35674fb0a@[192.168.168.205]> <96115992498.20010325155239@binity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 3:52 PM +0200 3/25/01, Walter Hop wrote:
>Yeah, but we could argue if this was a choice based on technical details
>or if FreeBSD was just picked for the BSD license....
The NeXT work had been done on 4.3BSD, so both the code base and the
implementors' background made the use of a BSDish platform a win. By
moving to the Open Source versions of BSD and Mach, however, Apple got
out of paying license fees. Given that they are selling the whole OS
for $129, handing $50 of that to SCO (or Caldera or ???) wouldn't fly.
Also, giving out the kernel source code allows external developers to
write drivers and such far more easily.
Although it is true that the Apple license is incompatible with the GPL,
but compatible with the UC license, the fact that Apple has released the
entire underpinnings of the OS makes this look like a fairly minor point.
Bear in mind that Mac OS X includes GCC and such, so they still have to
deal with _some_ GPL issues.
These points aside, I would submit that Apple had looked fairly hard at
Linux before choosing BSD. Specifically, they created and distributed
MkLinux, a Mach-based version of Linux. In fact, there was a certain
amount of yelling from the Linux camp when Apple chose BSD. BTW, it is
my understanding that the final choice came down to BSD and Solaris (!).
The choice between FreeBSD and NetBSD involves no legal issues, but does
have some interesting technical twists. Apple initially said that they
would "mix and match" pieces of assorted BSD distributions. I remember
sending them a note which warned against doing this in a detailed way,
as they didn't want to get caught up in a version-control nightmare.
As it turned out, they decided to use the FreeBSD kernel and the NetBSD
userland. This kept their version-control issues fairly simple, while
giving them some technical benefits:
* The NetBSD apps already worked on the PowerPC, so they didn't
have to chase thousands of little architecture-specific issues.
* For whatever reason, they liked the FreeBSD kernel. I don't know
the exact reasons, but I'm sure there were some (otherwise, they
would have gone with NetBSD for everything).
-r
--
http://www.cfcl.com/rdm - home page, resume, etc.
http://www.cfcl.com/Meta/md_fb.html - The FreeBSD Browser
email: rdm@cfcl.com; phone: +1 650-873-7841
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05001954b6e3b6738baa>