Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 10:38 UTC
Amiga & AROS People, this is an interesting thing to follow first-hand. Hyperion, the company behind AmigaOS4, has been talking about its "Most Ambitious Project" for a while now, but on December 31, they started teasing the Amiga community like crazy. They opened a site called a-eon.com, which is most likely about the MAP.
Thread beginning with comment 402075
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: BSD hosted OS
by ciplogic on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 17:17 UTC in reply to "BSD hosted OS"
ciplogic
Member since:
2006-12-22

Mac OS X is not based on BSD. Is based on XNU. It just expose the BSD userland. Is the same as Be-OS exposes GNU userland (like Bash, gcc), but is not based on GNU Hurd or GNU Linux.
Is similar with Cygwin that expose Linux (Unix) userland on Windows so you can program with pipes, pthreads and behaving as a complete different operating system (NT Kernel).

Edited 2010-01-02 17:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: BSD hosted OS
by n.l.o on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 17:25 in reply to "RE: BSD hosted OS"
n.l.o Member since:
2009-09-14

When dealing with the OS4 community, keeping it simple is highly recommend in my experience.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: BSD hosted OS
by zizban on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 17:34 in reply to "RE: BSD hosted OS"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

It is based partly on BSD. XNU is a combination of the Mach kernel, plus parts of 4.3BSD.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: BSD hosted OS
by ciplogic on Sat 2nd Jan 2010 17:44 in reply to "RE[2]: BSD hosted OS"
ciplogic Member since:
2006-12-22

Yes, BSD in which way? As userland? Or as kernel locking and memory allocation policy? If you write a program that runs on BSD, this program will not work on OS X because the binaries are different format (ELF against FatELF). The work only as API. So writing a program that will compile on FreeBSD (or any Posix BSD), will work unmodified on OS X. The calls are translated in OS X XNU kernel semantics that may be different.
When you link to cygwin DLL, and you make your programs on Windows, calling pipe function will end by calling a CreatePipe Win32 API function. The Cygwin is the best equivalent that I know that explains fairly well this.

Also, if you will look on BeOS (given in the previous post), BeOS was not an UNIX operating system, but exposed a lot of Unix functionality. (in fact BeOS do not use the concept of runlevel, but it have more servers - or kits - that run to expose functionality that run their OS).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: BSD hosted OS
by Dekonega on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 11:47 in reply to "RE: BSD hosted OS"
Dekonega Member since:
2009-07-28

Why it is hard for some people to understand that Mac OS X is not an operating system. It's a name for a distribution like "Windows 2000", "Windows Vista" or "Fedora", "Ubuntu".

Actual operating system inside this "Mac OS X" distribution is called "Darwin BSD". Like "Windows Seven" is actually "Windows NT 6.1". Or how "Ubuntu" is "GNU/Linux".

Why it's called Darwin BSD then? Because it's direct relative of 386-BSD UNIX! Of course it was outdated after Apple accuired NextStep from NeXt so they updated it with latest stuff from open source community. Namely FreeBSD and GNU blocks where used to update it. They also added lots of their own stuff.

Darwin BSD's kernel carries the name "XNU". Like "Gnu/Linux"'s kernel is "Linux" or how "Windows NT"'s kernel is "NTKRNLSRV"/"MinWin"...

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: BSD hosted OS
by darknexus on Sun 3rd Jan 2010 12:36 in reply to "RE[2]: BSD hosted OS"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Off topic, but I look at it differently. The operating system is the whole, and is composed of many parts. To take your example, Mac OS X, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc would be the operating systems. Darwin, and Linux in the case of the others, is the kernel of the os, it is the central core component. I don't buy into the whole distribution mentality of the Linux oses, each system is an os compatible on the source level but typically not at the binary level due to different kernel/library versions and compile-time decisions, not to mention packaging. To use your other example, Windows 7 is an os while Windows NT is the kernel. Microsoft did call its os Windows NT, but they've since changed naming schemes. NT was still the kernel, even in those days. Microsoft just used the same name for simplicity's sake and to differentiate it from Windows 3.1 and later 9x which were still built on top of DOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2