Username or EmailPassword
this article is quite bad
agreed, what is this garbage doing here?
It depends what the author meant by 'in the past'.
If you look back 10 (maybe 15 years), you would find that Unix was a popular development because of its stability. You definitely did not want to develop software under DOS, Windows 3.x, or even Windows 9x unless you were targetting those platforms because a critical bug would send the system into a nose-dive (either via crashing those OS, or leaving it in an unknown state that would make bugs hard to track). Of course that started changing with the introduction of Windows NT, but I don't think that developers started moving to Windows as a development platform en-masse until Windows 2000 or XP.
Linux on the desktop used to be stable. It no longer is. Most desktop Linux distros are buggy and less stable than Windows. That has been my experience with OpenSUSE, Fedora and Kubuntu. Its sad really. I think its because they've moved to a faster release cycle and try to pack in much more software so not everything gets fully tested.
My experience is the exact opposite. You will find plenty of people with anecdotal evidence supporting either side.
OS X is the development platform for iOS, which is where the easy money is these days (or so we are lead to believe), so of course it should be big. But is it BSD? Sure it contains parts of various BSDs, but neither iOS nor Xcode nor OS X is BSD licensed, share little or nothing of architecturally, etc., and hardly anything made for OS X is compatible with the actual BSDs.
It's like claiming Windows 95 helped making MS-DOS development more popular. Just a bunch of journalistic dumbfuckery that deserves no further attention.
The source of a lot of the BSD Unix components are distributed under their original BSD license.
For some utilities Apple has released their contributions available under the APSL.. while verbose it's still considered a permissive license.
So, stop spreading FUD.. OS X is a BSD derivative, and it is fair to call it the most publicly successful one, denying OS X is more popular than Linux is just silly. Edited 2011-08-10 19:11 UTC
No one is denying OSX os more popular than Linux. What they're saying, and I agree with them, is that OSX is so different from the other BSDs that it doesn't make sense to put them in the same basket.
There are significant differences between all the existing BSD derivatives today that makes your point entirely irrelevant.
Anyone using BSD knows this, differences don't magically remove heritage or similarities in programming environments..
Many FreeBSD developers use OS X quite frequently, go to a BSD conference and spot them.
I'm also working on a project to make BSD ready for the desktop. I think most of the FreeBSD developers know there are gaps in what can be done on BSD. We don't have native flash or adobe reader. The linux emulation for these is very buggy. Some of us also need to run commercial apps because there aren't good replacements. At work, I use FreeBSD + KDE 4. At home, I'm currently dual booting MidnightBSD + Windows 7 (for gaming) on my desktop and laptop and have a Mac Pro desktop as well. I use the mac for surfing, itunes and email. I could do a lot of that on BSD now, but I'm often breaking things as I work on them.
In short, I think BSD can be ready for the desktop but there's a lot to be done yet.
In some ways, I'm trying to develop a free, open source os x as much as i am a BSD. I'm not going for binary compatibility or an XNU kernel design, but I am trying to get a decent objective c runtime in base, llvm, libfoundation and corefoundation compatibility and have libdispatch as part of the os as well as mDNSResponder. I don't consider Mac OS X BSD either but it's as close as one can get without being BSD. It is running FreeBSD kernel code in XNU using a funnel after all.
I wasn't denying its popularity, I was denying it's BSD. Having a few BSD commands available under the BSD license doesn't make it a BSD.
Hell, most OS X apps are even incompatible with Darwin.
Yes, it is BSD.. I promise you.
Sorry, but your promises are empty. OS X is proprietary.
That does not matter, BSD has a long history of being used in commercial products.. that doesn't make it any less of a BSD, quit trolling.
The kernel and userland for OS X are open source with the exception of a their graphical environment.
That's like running GIMP on Windows and calling it open source.
Wrong, only small parts of the OS X userland are BSD.
Ever tried running pure Darwin? Ever tried running an OS X binary on it? It doesn't exactly work, most of the time. Practically never. Now, this article is about OS X making BSD a more popular development environment than Linux, which suggests OS X development actually targets BSD libraries and tools, which isn't the case. Cocoa development on OS X isn't BSD development.
Of course it wouldn't. missing several libraries to execute graphical applications.. the executable format is MachO and their libc is open source, so base executables distributed with or compiled on OS X would obviously work on a vanilla Darwin setup if those dependencies were resolved.
OS X's userland includes most of or all the common BSD utilities, modified for increased POSIX compliance, it does preserve BSD behaviour where needed.
OS X's C programming headers contain BSD preprocessor directives, and other Berkeley extensions not defined in POSIX.
A developer at the helm physically or connected via SSH can develop using common development utilities, the XCode package uses GCC, they don't use binutils but that's a GNU package. BSD originally had it's own a.out implementations of ld/as prior to switching to ELF.
The kernel contains original BSD code, with Apple contributions. The userland contains BSD derived core utilities shipped along with proprietary and other 3rd party open source software.
Including proprietary software doesn't make it any less of a BSD, in fact, the early releases of BSD contained all sorts of proprietary code up until the unencumbered releases.. the fact that you believe so only highlights your own ignorance.
Your argument is invalid, people using OS X are using a commercial BSD product based on both open and closed source software. Edited 2011-08-10 22:40 UTC
Honestly you've no idea what your talking about.
- There is a vast array of open source command line tools in Mac OS X. The /usr/bin on my fresh Lion install has over a thousand and most of those are open source.
- The average command line binary that uses the standard C api (as opposed to Cocoa) will run just fine on Darwin and Mac OS X.
The reason why you perceive that Mac OS X is different is because the bulk of it's differentiation comes from the many proprietary kits that Apple has built.
Those kits certainly make Mac OS X unique but they do not invalidate the BSD heritage.
What's really ironic about your objections is many in the FreeBSD community feel that Apple has borrowed so much from FreeBSD that they should be giving more back to it's 'sister' operating system.
Yes it is, it's a proprietary derivative of BSD (like pretty much any commercial UNIX).
No it is certainly not *BSD. It is Certified Unix alright, but OS X is not at all *BSD, no more than Windows or GNU/Linux.
OSX is so far removed in code, culture, and practices from the other BSD Operating systems, that its a bit of a stretch to still call it a BSD. In Biological Taxonomy, it has left the BSD Family, but probably still in the same Order.
Inaccurate, take the time to review modern NetBSD/OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
They're not stuck in the mud, they're not just university BSD with a few stylistic touch-ups.. there are massive changes all over the place, in each of them.
They have been developed independently for more the a decade, perhaps sharing some common code and drivers.
New kernel API's, incompatible changes and differing goals and ideas have made them unique.
They don't use the same rc initialization scripts and they don't synchronize their userlands but develop them independently.. copying some fixes, independently fixing others.
So what does it take to be called a BSD? as someone who has used BSD for many many years, and use OpenBSD exclusively at home, I'm still certain that calling OS X a BSD system is "safe" and is as accurate as calling OpenBSD a Unix system. Edited 2011-08-10 22:58 UTC
In my taxonomy, the popular BSD's ( free, open, net) would be different species, possibly different genomes as well, but still the same family. Unix would be a Kingdom, I think. I think the taxonomy is accurate, but throughout biological history there have been arguments about how to name and place species. As a current Open BSD user, you're probably closer to it than I am as an ex FreeBSD guy.
Yes, but there is no BSD based on Apple's Code (like PureDarwin), so BSD has no relation to the article.
Is the impression correct that software developed on Mac can in theory be easily portable to say Open BSD or Desktop BSD and others..?
In general? No, it is not correct.
I mean, cli applications are easy to port to bsd, so long as you do not use any apple-specific services. Add an apple service in the mix, and you have to find the bsd equivalent (if it exists) and duplicate that part of the code.
In the GUI front it gets way worse, because you are no longer targeting the same "gui server", and no apple libraries (core*) are available to bsd's...
Software using standard or common C99/POSIX functions in the C library or C++ code is easily portable between Unix systems.. even Linux.
Graphical applications are a different story, OS X has it's own libraries for writing applications.. in some cases they could be ported to GNUStep but usually people writing portable software would opt to target a more popular toolkit on other Unix systems like GTK/Qt or even X11 directly. Edited 2011-08-10 19:27 UTC
Try rephrasing that a few levels above stupid.
It's not Mac OS X which help BSD overtake Linux for development, but iOS SDK which run only on Mac OS X which does it.
With same broken logic, one could also wrongly deduce that iApp's developers prefers XCode than any other IDE. Or Objective C than any other language.
It's not like they have other choice.
Oh, and BTW, does this guy know that there are many developers outside USA too. Thanks to not take a USA only survey as a valid worldwide image. Edited 2011-08-10 20:06 UTC
AFAIK, though they share a lot of stuff, iOS SDK and Mac OS X SDK are not the same.
Most of the developers I know that use OSX for development are deploying their code to Linux servers, not to IOS devices.
as those emails we all get that say we've inherited millions of dollars from some Nigerian warlord who randomly decided that you were related somehow.
In the left corner: We have the Linux User, denying that OSX is still a BSD.
In the right corner: The BSD Users, claiming that with OSX makes BSD more popular.
Lets get ready to rumble
I think OSX is definite part of the BSD Family. I mean, when you call "android" a linux, then OSX is a BSD. Whether Free or not.
Considering Mach was derived from BSD, and then parts of it like the virtual memory management were integrated back into BSD, it doesn't make much sense to argue that something's not BSD because it's Mach.
Android is a Java OS running in a Google authored JavaVM running on top of a Linux kernel.
There have been musings of porting it to other kernels, I think it has even been partially ported to QNX.
So it's not really the same thing, Android isn't native while an OS X application using Apple's proprietary libraries/kits can still make use of the BSD environment without issues.
Even iOS's SDK apparently exposed a fair amount of the BSD environment to applications, with some limitations. Edited 2011-08-10 23:10 UTC
I have mixed "feelings" on all this BSD topic, because the Mac and all the BSDs share the same codebase; a lot of Mac low level software has been ported to the BSDs and Linux and a lot of UNIX apps run with no problems in the BSD layer of Mac OS X.
But... you can use KDE, Gnome, Xfce, etc. etc. desktop, apps, etc. in all "classical" BSDs because the software stack they share is a lot more than the software stack shared with Mac OS X. Actually, though the "classical BSDs" and Mac OS X have the same heritage, I think the BSDs and Linux are closer each other.
So, do not know... the human is, like the monkeys, a primate; but based on that, you cannot state that the human is a monkey. Edited 2011-08-11 04:19 UTC
OS X has an X11 server as a native application, you could run your favourite desktop environment full screen just like any other Unix.
There are even native ports of GTK+ and Qt to OS X, I believe it is already possible to get KDE/GNOME running without an X display.
I can't find any recent article for GNOME, but I see it is mentioned as available in "MacPorts".
Yeap, but the Qt Mac port uses Cocoa as backend, so, at the end, your Qt app in a Mac is not sharing a lot of bits with its BSD sisters.
About KDE in the Mac, I tried several times and I was never able to have any KDE 4 app running properly in my box (I read a lot of success stories; Mac Ports and Fink also distribute such apps in their repositories, but in my case, they simply did not work). Edited 2011-08-11 04:40 UTC
Qt can be compiled against X11 in OS X as well. Why one would do this is another question .
I did run Xmonad on OS X's X11 for a while . Edited 2011-08-11 15:16 UTC
I really dislike developing on OS X. Compared to Linux it's a bit of a pain, but maybe it's just what I'm used to. The Apple version of the UK keyboard layout really kills it for me.
Apparently OS X's keyboard layouts are customizable and stored in XML format.
So, while that's a valid initial excuse, the solution was a simple Google search away.
Developing using the Qt Mac port also removes the ugly need to learn Objective-C
There are also a lot of Linux developers using Macs. Apple makes laptops that are at least acceptable to businesses and many prefer them to Windows. I would say that while more developers may be using Macs, the majority of development isn't for that platform. Its on other things. Heck in our gaming department, most faculty use macs even though they make Windows games.
OK, I'll be the first to say it. Quite a lot of code in Linux came from BSD. The ext2 file system, for example, was a tweaked UFS. A bunch of utilities too found their way into Linux. Actually, Windows borrowed from BSD (their FTP is a straight port to Windows). SSH came from OpenBSD and is used by every modern OS. Hey, almost forgot, MS-DOS 6.0 even borrowed from BSD, and ditto for FreeDOS.
So, we can conclude that pretty much everything is BSD.
Or, we can conclude that some of the BSD folks suffer from a sort of inferiority complex that makes them insist OSX is BSD, thus giving their favorite OS a larger market share than Linux. In other words, they just can't get over the fact that their OS has a tiny market share that continues to decline.
NOTE: I'm a former FreeBSD user. I have much respect for the developers and don't criticize them. I just wish some of the users would grow up and recognize that the world has moved on. On the desktop, I'd be surprised if FreeBSD even has 1/10 of 1% market share, no doubt much more on the server side but that too is declining, plus unknown but possibly significant percentage of routers. OpenBSD, NetBSD, Dragonfly, etc - combined, less than 1/1000 of 1% of desktop users, 0% on the server side, probably 0% of routers, but they are nice research projects. Edited 2011-08-11 01:49 UTC
The author (Lawrence Latif) consistently writes what seem to me to be stupid opinion pieces with nonsensical conclusions (his straight news stuff seems ok though).
Whether you think OSX is BSD or not really isn't the issue - it is the conclusion that OSX's growing use by developers has anything at all to do with it's BSD userland - or Linux for that matter...
If you don't believe me - read another of his works of mental gymnastics:
The title doesn't even make sense... The whole (rather long) article reads like an attempt to deny reality by simply not including anything relevant to the premise - he could have simply said "I think iPads cost too much" and saved the reader a lot of time.
He has also been nailed for plagiarism at least once:
Anyway, I don't know the guy - maybe he is nice in person and well meaning, so I don't want to be too harsh. His work is, well, somewhat lacking imho.
If you want to follow him on Twitter the handle is @illiteratehack - I'm sure this was an attempt at self-deprecating humor, but the irony is thick...
Anyone here used Mac OS X at a fairly low level, for instance, recovering someone's computer from a command-line?
In low-level operation, it's no BSD. It doesn't behave or work like BSD.
In high-level operation with the GUI, of course it's nothing like BSD.
The kernel may be derived from BSD, but I'm pretty sure the kernel Apple ships with its computers is not the compiled version of the source code Apple distributes. Knowing Apple, it probably has very little BSD content still left in it.
Android uses the Linux kernel, but Android is not "the Linux platform". Because it doesn't work like a Linux distro. Well, OS X is not the BSD platform - it doesn't work like BSD and it's certainly not developed from BSD culture.
Did netcraft confirm this?
(Oops.. wrong forum)