Jobs: "I'm Going to Destroy Android"
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Apple So, how serious is the legal battle between Apple and the various Android phone makers, really? Surely, it's just logical business sense that's behind it, right? Calculated, well-planned precision strikes designed to hurt Android where simply making better, more innovative products isn't enough? Well, no, not really. We already knew Steve Jobs took this personal - now we know just how personal.
E-mail Print r 8   · Read More · 171 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/jhb
Thread beginning with comment 494202
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: So I guess that...
by phoudoin on Tue 25th Oct 2011 08:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: So I guess that..."
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Mac OS X uses a different kernel called Mach, which was developed from scratch by Avie Tevanian, a NeXT engineer.


Not true. NeXTStep kernel was based on Mach 2.5 microkernel, which was NOT made by Apple or NeXT engineers but written by Carnegie Mellon University.
Thanks to give credits where it's due.

Also, over the years, most of the UNIX based system tools which run under the hood in Mac OS X (and are part of Darwin) have been replaced with Apple-developed alternatives. Launchd is one small example, to replace the cron/init stuff from UNIX. A bigger example is the compiler, where GCC has been replaced by Clang/LLVM.


Clang/LLVM was not started by Apple but at University of Illinois and release under open-source licence, which latter allow Apple to 1) hire one of the student behind LLVM and 2) reuse and improve the code without breaking the licence. Otherwise, they will have to start again from scratch, which they didn't have to, thanks for the open source output of others, like for the Mach kernel.

Again, thanks to give credits where it's due.

The only thing which is more or less the same consistently between UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X are the BSD userland tools and X11 window system, which make you able to run UNIX and X11 applications on these systems. Both are an optional install for Mac OS X and not really required to boot the system.


Try to remove the Mach kernel and see how fine it boot, just for fun.
The NIH syndrom (Not Invented Here) is not an excuse to
NOT give credits where its due.
Worst, when it make someone hide or voluntary forget the actual history track is a bit sad but, to be straigth, also a kind of revisionism.

Facts are facts.
Apple innovates? True.
Apple wrote all her stuffs from scratch? False.
Apple own some credits to others works? True.

Apple (and fanboys) gives credits to them?
No so often.

Edited 2011-10-25 08:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: So I guess that...
by frderi on Tue 25th Oct 2011 14:37 in reply to "RE[5]: So I guess that..."
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

Whats this? Tell frderi he's wrong day?


Not true. NeXTStep kernel was based on Mach 2.5 microkernel, which was NOT made by Apple or NeXT engineers but written by Carnegie Mellon University.
Thanks to give credits where it's due.

Mach was not written BY Carnegie Mellon. It was initially written AT Carnegie Mellon. Avie initially wrote it as part of his PhD. After a while, he wound up working for Steve Jobs at NeXT, where Mach became the kernel for NeXTSTEP and he further developed it. So YES, it was very much credited to Avie. Check the Mach source code if you don't believe me. Thanks to give credits where it's due.


Clang/LLVM was not started by Apple but at University of Illinois and release under open-source licence, which latter allow Apple to 1) hire one of the student behind LLVM and 2) reuse and improve the code without breaking the licence. Otherwise, they will have to start again from scratch, which they didn't have to, thanks for the open source output of others, like for the Mach kernel.


Development of Clang is initiated and sponsored by Apple. The University of Illinois hosts the project. Apple is a major industry backer of both Clang AND LLVM, providing resources to both projects. Again, thanks to give credits where it's due.

The only thing which is more or less the same consistently between UNIX, Linux and Mac OS X are the BSD userland tools and X11 window system, which make you able to run UNIX and X11 applications on these systems. Both are an optional install for Mac OS X and not really required to boot the system.



Try to remove the Mach kernel and see how fine it boot, just for fun.


Why would one want to do that? I was comparing the UNIX and Linux kernels to Mac OS X. They are not the same. Traditional UNIX systems either had System V or BSD monolithic kernels.

Facts are facts.
Apple also contributes significantly to the opensource community? True

Not invented here syndrome? Not by a long shot.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: So I guess that...
by henderson101 on Tue 25th Oct 2011 21:07 in reply to "RE[6]: So I guess that..."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Yep, Avie is clearly credited with being an original member of the Mach team at Carnigie - though not the *only*, nor the "lead". I'd still call that a pretty big/important pedigree and it pretty much puts phoudin's comment in to the trash (hey Phillippe, loved the Cannon Printer driver for BeOS back in the day!!)

Also, Mac OS X no longer uses the Mach directly, it uses the XNU, which is a refinement/development/continuation of the Mach.

Edited 2011-10-25 21:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: So I guess that...
by phoudoin on Wed 26th Oct 2011 09:26 in reply to "RE[6]: So I guess that..."
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Mach was not written BY Carnegie Mellon.


Well, the Mach 2.0/2.5/3.0 code under licence, written *AT* Carnegie Mellon (aka using its resources, human and technical) is own by CMU. As such, the people who worked on it don't own any copyright on it.
As so, claiming that one individual can get the credit for the whole is clearly misleading.

It was initially written AT Carnegie Mellon. Avie initially wrote it as part of his PhD. After a while, he wound up working for Steve Jobs at NeXT, where Mach became the kernel for NeXTSTEP and he further developed it. So YES, it was very much credited to Avie.


And?
You said Apple deserve the credit for Mach kernel. Now you're saying that Avie deserve it (while is only one of the student working on it then), trying to link that hiring a student make you the new owner of what he could have wrote before, himself doing under the umbrella of another organisation!

By this definition, my own employer should be credited for all the code I wrote on my own up to my contract start date.

Or for a better analogy, it's like claiming current Linus Towarld's employer deserves credit for Linux kernel.

That's plenty silly.

Thanks to give credits where it's due.


Indeed:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/www/people-former....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: So I guess that...
by phoudoin on Wed 26th Oct 2011 09:35 in reply to "RE[6]: So I guess that..."
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Development of Clang is initiated and sponsored by Apple.


True.
But Clang is a child of LLVM. Which was not initiated by Apple. Which you seems to claim.

The University of Illinois hosts the project.


Consequence of CLang being a child of LLVM, which is an University of Illinois project from start.

Apple is a major industry backer of both Clang AND LLVM, providing resources to both projects. Again, thanks to give credits where it's due.


Agreed, but like for movies, don't cherry pick the credits then: while CLang does, LLVM's credits don't all goes to Apple.

Like XUN does, but Mach don't.
Like MacOS graphical interface did, but WIMP design didn't.

See a pattern?

Apple is working hard since long to make people forget that not all was invented by Apple. Many are, but a lot others stuffs are improvement over other's innovation.

I don't know for you, but I try to keep my memories marketing/branding free.

Reply Parent Score: 2