The most of us know the history of apple:
Two guys that locked themselves in a garage, and only came out when created an personal computer.
This personal computer is known by macintosh, and they created an O.S call Mac O.S.
I don’t have sure about the unix systems, but i know that Linux it’s one of them.
Linux was made after the Mac O.S, and they really, for both are Unix Systems, are similar.
For that reason, Many people say that Linux it’s a try to make a Mac free and Open.
Do you agree?
Mac moved to a Unix type operating system long after Linux was established. So while its correct to say Linux appeared after the original MacOS, in truth Linux was also well in place before the Current Mac OS X.
Wikipedia:Linux.
Linux never was an attempt to copy Mac OS. Never. And even now, as oldcpu states, it’s a Unix type of OS, in fact it’s based on BSD.
So, no, I don’t agree. No one should, since the info it’s based upon is incorrect.
>> For that reason, Many people say that Linux it’s a try to make a Mac
>> free and Open.Mac moved to a Unix type operating system long after Linux
>> was
> established. So while its correct to say Linux appeared after the
> original MacOS, in truth Linux was also well in place before the Current
> Mac OS X.
>
>
In fact apple NEVER made a unix system on their own. The system under the
hood of every mac is a BSD system.
Apple customized the BSD system with some additions and their own special
desktop environment. The reason they took a BSD as the underlying unix
system and not linux may simply because the BSD license is less restrictive
and allows BSD to be integrated/customized and redistributed as proprietary
software.
Two guys that locked themselves in a garage, and only came out when created an personal computer.
This personal computer is known by macintosh
Oh no; completely wrong. This Computer is known as the Apple I and it was a kit to be completed by the ‘user’. Not really a personal computer when it comes without a keyboard. It was later developed to be the “Apple II” (the series lasted from 1977 to 1995 - impressive!). 6502 CPU and not even a floppy disk at the very beginning.
What is known as macintosh was a downgraded spin-off of the Lisa project which in turn originated from the Xerox PARC research.
Mac O.S. was never based on Linux or Unix or the kind. This changed only after Mac OS 9 when the new ‘Mac OS X’ was introduced on March 24, 2001. OS X is based on OPENSTEP and BSD Unix.
free and Open.Mac moved to a Unix type operating system long after Linux was established (I did not know it)…
But if you think about, many things that we have in Linux have in Mac O.S and some things (like CUPS) are registered in copyright to Apple
Vodoo.
Dont it’s my intention into details, just want to give the idea of what was the occasion.
andre open source wrote:
> Do you agree?
no, you are misinformed…
Linux is a Unix-like system designed in 1991…
the original Mac OS (1984-2001) was in no way a Unix-like system
however, Mac OS (2002-today) is based on BSD, another Unix-like system
–
palladium
Mac acquired the CUPS copyright in 2007. That’s relatively recent if you think about it. Where as CUPS started its development in 1997 and was copyleft (GPL). Even today, CUPS remains under the GPL, even though it was acquired by Apple.
Ugh, do you know that OS X is largely based on a Mach (which is a microkernel in the first place) with BSD additions on top of it???
They didn’t “just took the BSD”. What they did is glue the Mach kernel with BSD stuff, and called it XNU. The BSD part provides stuff like POSIX API, networking, ACLs, VFS, etc while the core Mach is responsible for threading, IPC, preemptation, VMM (virtual mem management), etc. In the end, this makes XNU a true hybrid kernel, compared to Win NT kernel which is advertised as a hybrid but uses less than 1% of that and does not deserve the hybrid label (it’s largely a monolith like Linux). NT being a hybrid is just marketing chitchat
So, no, what you claim or think to know is not true.
You are right that I described it in a too simplistic way. What I wanted to
point at is that the “UNIX” in the apple systems is not “made by apple” but
based on existing software which was put together and customized.
I did not claim that they took a bsd variant as it is and used that (I also
know the history of “Darwin”).
It was simply a (too) short response to the original claim that
> For that reason, Many people say that Linux it’s a try to make a Mac free
and Open.
and somewhat encrypted that apple “invented” a unix named mac os before
linux existed, which is simply not true.
1, One thing I wanted to make clear is the did not invent it
2, they could not chose for example linux simply because of licensing issues
(you can use linux in a proprietary system but you cannot modify an turn it
into proprietary software - with the bsd part of their systems they can do
exactly this)
Martin Helm wrote:
> 2, they could not chose for example linux simply because of licensing
> issues (you can use linux in a proprietary system but you cannot modify an
> turn it into proprietary software - with the bsd part of their systems
> they can do exactly this)
To make this more clear: Why do I say proprietary?
Before Juli 2003 the Darwin system was licensed with the apple public source
license version 1 which was accepted by the OSI but was not accepted as
“free” license.
Ah yes, if that’s what you ment to say, then yes. But your post didn’t read like that to me. It read something like “they took the whole BSD, modified it inside and pushed it out as OS X”. Certainly that’s not the case, and you can’t really blame me on my reply because your post was poorly worded in the first place, in what exactly you were trying to say. 
As for inventing UNIX. It was invented way before Apple came into existence. UNIX first appeared in the late '60s (I think 69?). At that time, Steve Jobs just came out of his diapers, to word it so 
and I didn’t even exist
Apple started in IIRC 1976, a year later than MS which started in 1975
As for Linux, it isn’t trying to copy OS X at all. It’s yet another UNIX clone, just as OS X is
microchip8 wrote:
>
> As for Linux, it isn’t trying to copy OS X at all. It’s yet another
> UNIX clone, just as OS X is
>
exact what I think
btw somewhat of topic. I often do not understand the discussion (especially
in the open source world) who copied what from whom. This is the reason to
have free open source software that everybody can take it and make something
else from it (within the limits of the respective licenses).
Linux would not exist if Linus did not want to make some clone of the unix
systems. bsd has its own history in the unix world. Everything unix like we
have today is some kind of clone with enhancements.
It is not bad to make a clone of something useful not for linux and not for
the mac os x but none of these both is a clone of the other.
I don’t really care who copied whom. The UNIX world is a world of sharing today (wasn’t like that in the past when UNIX was highly proprietary, closed and required a lot of $$$ to purchase). Today, it’s a whole combined community, subdivided into smaller sections (Linux, BSD, OpenSolaris, etc and even OS X, as it contributes back certain changes/developments to mainstream BSD) which collaborate with each others on some level or another and exchange ideas too
Correct. It’s Windows that is trying to copy OS X (looks-wise at least), and failing badly :silly:
all are saying different things can any one say exact answer it will be helpful
thanks
Okay, the answer is: 42.
Okay, the answer is: 42.
And what was the question?
Do you agree?
@gropiuskalle: 42.
Did you know that the first true S.u.S.E distribution (not counting earlier distros containing slackware) was numbered 4.2 ? And that the first version of yast was numbered 0.42 ?