OS 10.4 still unix based?

Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
747
someone told me OS 10.xx was not unix based anymore. more specifically OS 10.4. i was a big OS 9 user but kinda stopped at OS X so my knowledge of it is less that i'd like to admit. so what say ye? is Apples OS still unix based? i don't put much stock on what this person said because i am the one that gets called to fix the laptop when it stops working =P
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
747
i feel like a BSOD :rolleyes:

just did a google and followed a link straight to the horses mouth. still unix based :p
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
duby229 said:
It is a BSD - Mach hybrid.
Indeed. OS X is based on the Mach kernel, which split off BSD back in the 80's, and has actually had some lines overlap again later (with Steve Jobs' NextOS). Most of the under-side of the OS very much resembles BSD, with minor differences.

To the OP: if your friend is trying to bag on the system, just ignore him. OS X since 10.2 has been a fine, solid, good-performing OS. It has only been getting better. It is as viable an OS to use on a system as any Windows or Linux, and plays just as well with everything (some would say better, though I would not). OS X gets the GreNME seal of approval. :)
 

Lich

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
487
OSX is a unix varient based on 4.4BSDand using the Mach kernel called Darwin. I don't see them changing away from this path any time soon
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
It actually has a fully functional set of kernel calls for both BSD kernel and the mach kernel... It is LITERALLY a hybrid... In every way possible way.

I hear though that starting with 10.3 they started cleaning it up, and unifying some common functions, and creating a compatibility layer. It will take a good while to do though, becouse who knows which of those functions are being used, how often, and by whom.... It will take some time to clean, while maintaining compatibility.
 

Josh_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
6,954
GreNME said:
Indeed. OS X is based on the Mach kernel, which split off BSD back in the 80's, and has actually had some lines overlap again later (with Steve Jobs' NextOS). Most of the under-side of the OS very much resembles BSD, with minor differences.

To the OP: if your friend is trying to bag on the system, just ignore him. OS X since 10.2 has been a fine, solid, good-performing OS. It has only been getting better. It is as viable an OS to use on a system as any Windows or Linux, and plays just as well with everything (some would say better, though I would not). OS X gets the GreNME seal of approval. :)
I had heard it was based-off of NetBSD, but I could be wrong.

Anyways, as others have mentioned, it beats the pants off of the old Mac OS', and definitely gives Windows and Linux a run for their money. (Strictly speaking, Linux is still monolithic, while the Mach kernel and Windows are both Microkernels, supposedly being better...) :cool:
 

HHunt

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Messages
6,063
Lich said:
OSX is a unix varient based on 4.4BSD and using the Mach kernel called Darwin. I don't see them changing away from this path any time soon
They upgraded from 4.4BSD to FreeBSD 5 at some early point, and they periodically synch darwin (and thus OS X) with the FreeBSD kernel.

Of course, FreeBSD is a 4.4BSD decendant (via 386BSD), so you are still right. :)
 

GreNME

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2002
Messages
2,604
HHunt said:
They upgraded from 4.4BSD to FreeBSD 5 at some early point, and they periodically synch darwin (and thus OS X) with the FreeBSD kernel.

Of course, FreeBSD is a 4.4BSD decendant (via 386BSD), so you are still right. :)
I didn't know they were syncing darwin to FreeBSD. I'm impressed. Of course, that is a smart thing to do, since FreeBSD has already worked out a lot of the things that they would have had to write back into the old kernel.
 

HHunt

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Messages
6,063
I don't know if they still do it, and I have absolutely no references. We'll just have to wait and see if 10.5 contains FreeBSD 6.x - code. :)
(10.4 contains a lot of stuff from 5.x , like the ACL system and kqueue/kevent.)
 

Josh_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
6,954
If OS X is based-off of FreeBSD, then why does it supposedly have scaling issues vs. Linux? I thought Linux and FreeBSD were pretty much "on par" with each other for thread performance.

Just asking, no thread crapping or flaming req'd. :cool:
 

duby229

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
3,014
Josh_B said:
If OS X is based-off of FreeBSD, then why does it supposedly have scaling issues vs. Linux? I thought Linux and FreeBSD were pretty much "on par" with each other for thread performance.

Just asking, no thread crapping or flaming req'd. :cool:
I here that is one of the issues that will be fixed in the API consolidation.... But it will take a while to complete.
 

HHunt

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Messages
6,063
Josh_B said:
If OS X is based-off of FreeBSD, then why does it supposedly have scaling issues vs. Linux? I thought Linux and FreeBSD were pretty much "on par" with each other for thread performance.

Just asking, no thread crapping or flaming req'd. :cool:
Early 5.x had some problems in that department. Also, there is probably some overhead due to the "BSD kernel on top of Mach"-architecture they use.
 

ameoba

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
6,413
Josh_B said:
If OS X is based-off of FreeBSD, then why does it supposedly have scaling issues vs. Linux? I thought Linux and FreeBSD were pretty much "on par" with each other for thread performance.
It's not a straight FreeBSD derived system - it's a FreeBSD-derived OS running on top of the Mach microkernel. Microkernel systems may have numerous advantages but performance is not one of them.
 

Lich

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
487
ameoba said:
It's not a straight FreeBSD derived system - it's a FreeBSD-derived OS running on top of the Mach microkernel. Microkernel systems may have numerous advantages but performance is not one of them.
true. One of the reasons why Linux Torvalds did not join apple (they asked him to come on board when they were planning the development of osX) is because he absolutely hates mach.
 

Lich

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 23, 2005
Messages
487
ameoba said:
Well, after his famous debate with Tanenbaum on the subject of monolith v. micro kernals, it'd be somewhat hypocritical.

http://people.fluidsignal.com/~luferbu/misc/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html
yah, I know. I love a lot of the things linus has done but he is nowhere near the god people think of him as.

Andy Tanenbaum said:
Of course 5 years from now that will be different, but 5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5.

30 Jan 92
that quote cracks me up.
 

HHunt

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Messages
6,063
Regarding that quote, it's a shame he was wrong. The sparcstations are nicer hardware than PCs, and I'm not that fond of windows. :)
(And for all we know, he might actually have used a machine like than in '97. ;) )
 
Top