macOS vs linux

[CodeNova]

4 minutes ago, wasab said:

Modern BSD share no code and contains no code from the original AT&T Unix. Their source codes had been entirely replaced since many decades ago, well before apple and Darwin even existed. By transitivity, Apple MacOS shares absolutely no code as that of the original Unix.

How do you know, Serious question, you should post a link, I'm curious.

Quote

Microsoft  wants to make an Unix operating system running off their Windows NT kernel, I am pretty sure they damn well could. 

I would really like to see this, great marketing angle.

[wasab]

1 minute ago, CodeNova said:

How do you know, Serious question, you should post a link, I'm curious.

I would really like to see this, great marketing angle.

Spoiler

"

Until then, all versions of BSD used proprietary AT&T Unix code, and were therefore subject to an AT&T software license. Source code licenses had become very expensive and several outside parties had expressed interest in a separate release of the networking code, which had been developed entirely outside AT&T and would not be subject to the licensing requirement. This led to Networking Release 1 (Net/1), which was made available to non-licensees of AT&T code and was freely redistributable under the terms of the BSD license. It was released in June 1989.

After Net/1, BSD developer Keith Bostic proposed that more non-AT&T sections of the BSD system be released under the same license as Net/1. To this end, he started a project to reimplement most of the standard Unix utilities without using the AT&T code. Within eighteen months, all of the AT&T utilities had been replaced, and it was determined that only a few AT&T files remained in the kernel. These files were removed, and the result was the June 1991 release of Networking Release 2 (Net/2), a nearly complete operating system that was freely distributable."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

 

There you go. They pretty much striped BSD of the original propietary Unix code due to licensing issues. 

[CodeNova]

3 minutes ago, wasab said:

There you go. They pretty much striped BSD of the original proprietary Unix code due to licensing issues. 

Couldn't they just have changed a few thing to avoid the licensing restrictions? or do you thing they really stared from scratch?

[wasab]

10 minutes ago, CodeNova said:

Couldn't they just have changed a few thing to avoid the licensing restrictions? or do you thing they really stared from scratch?

Why do you care If they contain original source code or not? BSD implements all the Unix APIs, includes all the Unix ultilities, as well as the same file structures to be POSIX compliant. There is no difference in terms of functionality. Similar story for Linux. Their bash terminals will run pretty much all the common Unix commands and shell utilities perfectly fine. 

[CodeNova]

10 minutes ago, wasab said:

Why do you care If they contain original source code or not? BSD implements all the Unix APIs, includes all the Unix ultilities, as well as the same file structures to be POSIX compliant. There is no difference in terms of functionality. Similar story for Linux. Their bash terminals will run pretty much all the common Unix commands and shell utilities perfectly fine. 

People rave about macOS, I'm just trying to figure out what sets it apart from linux (even though I know I never will, to much legal jargon)

[wasab]

7 hours ago, CodeNova said:

People rave about macOS, I'm just trying to figure out what sets it apart from linux (even though I know I never will, to much legal jargon)

MacOS is not Linux and vice versa. Unlike Unix, Linux is define by it's kernel which is an actual piece of software and share codes. This means chromeOS is Linux and Android is also Linux(not a desktop Linux distro but it is still GNU LINUX to all you skeptics).

 

Thats pretty much it. Linux=anything that runs on the Linux kernel. 

 

Unix=anything that's certified to be POSIX compilant. 

 

BSD=anything with BSD in their names I guess.... I am not really sure.

 

[CodeNova]

Just now, wasab said:

MacOS is not Linux. Unlike Unix, Linux is define by it's kernel which is an actual software and share codes. This means chromeOS is Linux and Android is also Linux(not a desktop Linux distro but it is LINUX to all you skeptics).

 

Thats pretty much it. Linux=anything that runs on the Linux kernel. 

 

Unix=anything that's certified to be POSIX compilant. 

 

BSD=anything with BSD in their names I guess.... I am not really sure.

 

Right I under stand Mac isn't linux.

but if linux = based on unix

and mac = posix compliant

linux - stuff = mac - stuff

 

and yeah chromeOS is 100% linux aswell as android.

[CodeNova]

*waves white flag* I officially give up, its not that important.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, wasab said:

Modern BSD share no code and contains no code from the original AT&T Unix. Their source codes had been entirely replaced since many decades ago, well before apple MacOS and Darwin even existed. By transitivity, Apple MacOS shares absolutely no code as that of the original Unix.

I meant related among the BSDs, not with the original Unix.

1 hour ago, wasab said:

Like I said, Unix evolves to more than just a singular operating. It is not the softwares, not the kernels, but a single certification and standard that defines Unix as Unix. If Microsoft  wants to make an Unix operating system running off their Windows NT kernel, I am pretty sure they damn well could. 

Probably, though the NT kernel would need a pretty heavy redesign to fit the specifications...

16 minutes ago, CodeNova said:

but if linux = based on unix

I already told you, this isn't true.

[CodeNova]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I already told you, this isn't true.

hence the white flag, I'm clearly not knowledgeable enough for form a coherent argument about the topic.

[wasab]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

I meant related among the BSDs, not with the original Unix.

 

That can be said of windows too. Microsoft once literally just copy and paste codes from the BSD in their windows xp as did so many countless software companies. 

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/

 

That means what? they are all related? I dont think so. 

[CodeNova]

1 minute ago, wasab said:

That can be said of windows too. Microsoft once literally just copy and paste codes from the BSD in their windows xp as did so many countless software companies. 

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/

 

That means what? they are all related? I dont think so. 

agreed.

[captain_aggravated]

7 hours ago, CodeNova said:

Couldn't they just have changed a few thing to avoid the licensing restrictions? or do you thing they really stared from scratch?

That's not how copyright works.  Let's say I wanted to be the guy who made Star Wars.  Well I, like, totally can you guys!  Here are my options:

 

1. Somehow attain a copy of the film, chuck it into Adobe Premiere and cut it the way I want to cut it, and start selling or giving away copies of the result.  This is very illegal and will get me prosecuted.  "But I changed the music that plays over the end credits, cut out that trash compactor scene and added that stormtropper gang bang during the climactic space battle.  It's my own original work your honor!" is not a valid defense.
2. Go have a meeting with Disney and sign a contract that grants me a license to edit and re-publish the film first.  Disney very obviously would never sign such a contract in a frillion years, but the law does allow this to take place. 
3. Hold out for Disney to release the movie as open source.  Disney could just say "A New Hope is a major part of pop culture, so we're just going to let the public have it for non-commercial purposes.  Download it, edit it, host screenings of it, do whatever you want, you just can't profit monetarily."  They won't, but they could.
4. Wait until the copyright expires.  Now, Disney is infamous for extending copyright laws such that I'm pretty sure they've already done irreparable damage to our culture, and now that Disney does own the rights to Star Wars, I imagine it will remain proprietary indefinitely.  However, if our laws actually worked, there would come a date when the copyright would expire and the work would enter the public domain.  Of course, the copyright term is the natural life of the creator plus seventy years.  If George Lucas' head exploded right now, I'd be over a hundred years old when the copyright expires.

Software works the same way, although programmers are more likely to release their code as open source.  Open source =/= public domain, for example, Linux is very much copyrighted software.

 

TL;DR Unix has been rewritten from scratch several times because the law doesn't let you just change it a little bit and invlidate a copyright.

 

7 hours ago, CodeNova said:

People rave about macOS, I'm just trying to figure out what sets it apart from linux (even though I know I never will, to much legal jargon)

Well, for the purposes of answering what I think your ultimate question is, let's boil down the legal jargon to "MacOS is a closed source corporate product with restrictive licensing, GNU/Linux is an open source community project with permissive licensing" and "Apple bought a company that directly licensed a Unix kernel, Linux was written from scratch so the creators could own the property themselves."

 

That's not really what sets Linux and MacOS apart in practical terms, however.  It's more important to talk about WHY the differences in the last paragraph exist.

Unix was originally developed by computer nerds who looked at a commercial operating system and said "Man, this would be great if it didn't suck.  I can do this better than they did, watch."  Unix was about being programmer-oriented from the VERY beginning.  MacOS is a commercial product designed for normal people doing normal things in normal ways, because that's where the bulk of the profit is.  Most Mac users don't care about (or likely understand) Unix certification, they like how it all "just works" and are willing to pay a premium for a shiny pretty thing they don't have to worry about configuring very much.  Mac became Unix-like about halfway through it's long life by a strange string of coincidences.  When's the last time you saw a commercial where in between the dancing with white earbuds and the spinning pencil styluses did you see some trendy young pretty person say "And it's POSIX-compliant!"

 

GNU/Linux, I think, is more of what Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie had in mind when they set out to redo Multics but properly this time.  A Linux user will tell you "Apple just works...or it just doesn't."  Linux is about getting weird stuff done.  You want to make your own web-based gaming console?  A super computer?  An internet-connected coffee pot?  Put sensors on a surfboard to measure ocean currents?  Watch internet porn in 2019 on a Pentium III PC?  Yeah, Apple won't help you, but one way or another you CAN get it done with Linux.  At it's core, GNU/Linux is, and always has been, for people who want to make something out of it.  The Unix Philosophy is much more central to that goal, which is why you'll hear Linux users arguing about it.

 

Maybe I've found a long-winded way of saying MacOS is a product, GNU/Linux is an ingredient?

[Sauron]

10 hours ago, wasab said:

That can be said of windows too. Microsoft once literally just copy and paste codes from the BSD in their windows xp as did so many countless software companies. 

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2004/06/25/108820958560677845/

 

That means what? they are all related? I dont think so. 

Surely there's something to be said for operating systems that share a lot of code and major design principles...?

[wasab]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

Surely there's something to be said for operating systems that share a lot of code and major design principles...?

I define operating system as related when they shared a common philopshy as well as code base. 

[wasab]

12 hours ago, captain_aggravated said:

 

 

Well, for the purposes of answering what I think your ultimate question is, let's boil down the legal jargon to "MacOS is a closed source corporate product with restrictive licensing, GNU/Linux is an open source community project with permissive licensing" and "Apple bought a company that directly licensed a Unix kernel, Linux was written from scratch so the creators could own the property themselves."

 

 

Actually, They got the kernel from NeXT which is a company founded by Steve job and headed by Steve job after he was fired from Apple. (Ironic I know, He lost a power struggle in which he tried to oust the board of directors) 

 

Later Apple was on the verge bankruptcy and neogitaed with Steve to purcahse NeXT and bringing him back to Apple. He was made interim CEO and later created the imacs line off of NeXT technologies. The rest is history. 

 

The kernel and systems NeXT developed was originally a mix mesh of system compoenents grabbed from various BSDs. 

[captain_aggravated]

16 hours ago, wasab said:

Actually, They got the kernel from NeXT which is a company founded by Steve job and headed by Steve job after he was fired from Apple. (Ironic I know, He lost a power struggle in which he tried to oust the board of directors) 

 

Later Apple was on the verge bankruptcy and neogitaed with Steve to purcahse NeXT and bringing him back to Apple. He was made interim CEO and later created the imacs line off of NeXT technologies. The rest is history. 

 

The kernel and systems NeXT developed was originally a mix mesh of system compoenents grabbed from various BSDs. 

Yes, I sort of covered that in my post in this topic before that one.