From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 25 7:24:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from idiom.com (idiom.com [216.240.32.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8A2637B719 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:24:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Received: from cfcl.com (cpe-24-221-169-54.ca.sprintbbd.net [24.221.169.54]) by idiom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA79788 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:24:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.168.205] (cerberus [192.168.168.205]) by cfcl.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2PFPaV46106 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:25:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rdm@cfcl.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <96115992498.20010325155239@binity.com> References: <96115992498.20010325155239@binity.com> Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 07:14:30 -0800 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org From: Rich Morin Subject: Re: so where is our press-release about MacOS X ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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