Linked by David Adams on Wed 10th Aug 2011 17:12 UTC, submitted by R_T_F_M
Apple The lure of shiny toys has helped Apple's BSD-based Mac OS X operating system overtake Linux to become the operating system that is the second most used by developers, according to Evans Data.
Thread beginning with comment 484486
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Really?
by No it isnt on Wed 10th Aug 2011 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Really?"
No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

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.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: Really?
by brynet on Wed 10th Aug 2011 22:35 in reply to "RE[6]: Really?"
brynet Member since:
2010-03-02

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

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Really?
by No it isnt on Wed 10th Aug 2011 23:30 in reply to "RE[7]: Really?"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

The BSD subsystem is optional (or was, back in the days of smaller hard drives) when installing OS X. The rest of the system (which is the majority) does not depend on it. Most apps don't. Are apps that don't use BSD based on BSD? No. Do you use a BSD when you don't use BSD? My opinion is that you don't.

I don't deny that OS X has a BSD subsystem. I just deny that OS X development is BSD development, and that the parts of OS X most people touch have anything to do with BSD.

Your argument is a bit like saying a caravan is a brick building just because you've filled it with bricks.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: Really?
by kristoph on Wed 10th Aug 2011 22:46 in reply to "RE[6]: Really?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Really?
by No it isnt on Wed 10th Aug 2011 23:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Really?"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

It's a bit weird that you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about without refuting anything I said. I agree with your every point.

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.


I never intended to claim they invalidated the heritage. Apple has lifted lots of code from many places, and I will never deny that. Most OS X development, though, does not take place in BSD land, but rather in Cocoa, using libraries that have nothing in common with the BSDs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Really?
by sonnyrao on Thu 11th Aug 2011 05:00 in reply to "RE[7]: Really?"
sonnyrao Member since:
2011-07-18


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.


That's really interesting if true.

I'm not a BSD person so I don't really know how they feel, but it seems like by choosing the BSD license, philosophically, one is stating anyone can take the work and do whatever they want with it and not have to give back... as opposed to GPL like license where one is stating that others must "give back" by releasing their changes when they distribute.

To be clear, I'm not trying to start a BSD vs GPL license flame war. It is just that your comment surprised me, and I'm just curious if that's how people who have chosen the BSD side really feel or not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Really?
by ggeldenhuys on Thu 11th Aug 2011 08:02 in reply to "RE[7]: Really?"
ggeldenhuys Member since:
2006-11-13

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.


Sure is. They (the *BSD guys) should have thought of that when they defined the BSD license. That's what you get for being so generous with that license.

Reply Parent Score: 4