[rescue] OS X is certified UNIX
md.benson at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 13:59:32 CDT 2007
On 14 Jun 2007, at 09:05, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:23:36AM +0100, Mark wrote:
>> When NEXTSTEP first morphed into OS X it was still heavily reliant on
>> NetInfo. As such so were early OS X versions. Of late less and less
>> is depending on netinfo and I get the impression they are trying to
>> ditch it in favour of proven UNIX methods. It's not UNIX as I
>> understand it from using Solaris and AIX, for gods sakes it doesn't
>> even have 'pg'! It is currently much closer to UNIX than it was
>> though, which can't be a bad thing...
> IMHO you are confusing UNIX as in what came from AT&T and when. BSD
> was built on
> what was then UNIX V7 (and before that older versions of UNIX)...
OK, you lost me...
> Next's BSD was based on a modified BSD Kernel with the Mach (is it
> an acronym or
> named after the scientist?) Kernel on top of it. It also included
> BSD commands.
> MacOS X was something different. It was a (successfull) attempt to
> the base BSD/Nextstep system and port the Macintosh GUI to it. However
> the shell and command libraries were considered an option that most
> people would not want. I think even in Tiger, the "BSD subsystem"
> (terminal, shells and commands) are an option.
> There also is a large library of "Darwin Ports" both from an
> organized group and a
> individuals of other open source programs, most of them originaly
> developed for Linux.
That I already know, my point was one of the things that was carried
over, wrongly IMHO because it's horridly proprietary, was the NeXT
NETINFO system - the config database that basically rips up the 'UNIX-
like' standard in favour of their own network centric solution. It's
dying now (I hope!) in favour of using the traditional 'everything
in /etc' approach, which makes life easier for developers of ports
and the like, as well as pulling daemons over from FOSS sources.
> There still is no real crossover from the Mac GUI to the UNIX GUI
> (X windows), however
> the Tiger implementation allows you to use Aqua (the Mac GUI) as an
> X window mananger.
> A prime example of this is Open Office, which is an X Windows
> application and can not
> use many of the services of Aqua. A side project, called Neo
> Office, combines the two
> by replacing the Open Office user interface with a Java one.
I'm sorry to sound recalcitrant but 'Grandmother' and 'suck eggs'
come to mind... I know you can't be expected to know my level of
expertise but I've been using OS X client since it was a buyable
product, and I've used Rhapsody right back to DR1 issue, as well as
NS3.1 on SPARC. I am very familiar with the OS X side of things, and
my outline knowledge of UNIXs and Linuxs gives me good grounds for
comparison on common features like daemon configs, user accounts etc.
Oh and you mentioned A/UX (which went nowhere after a while) and
missed out AMIX (which was one of the first implementations of System
V release something, then went nowhere). :)
Visit my Homepage: <http://homepage.mac.com/markbenson>
"Never send a human to do a machine's job..."
More information about the rescue