The underlying operating system in Mac OS X (Jaguar) actually has a long history stretching back to BSD UNIX and CMU Mach. Bud Tribble will cover in this video its interesting evolution and its place in the current line-up of mass market operating systems. Topics include: the miracle (and challenges) of actually providing ease of use on top of BSD, the interaction of Mac OS X with the open-source software community (Darwin) and recent developments in Mac OS X (Rendezvous networking, Safari browser, X Window Server support, OpenGL, Java tools).
Washington Uni TV: Mac OS X for UNIX Users
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Does it seem odd that they don’t stream their video in QuickTime?
Not really. This is not a Mac site, it is a TV site. They don’t offer Real either, they have made their choices for whatever reason.
Watch it if you haven’t. He does a pretty good job of staying away from advertising for the most part.
Seemed more like an advertisement for OS X than a real technical look at the UNIX underpinnings of OS X.
media player 9.
ah well…it will take me about 3 minutes to reimage this machine.
interesting article
> Seemed more like an advertisement for OS X than a real technical look at the UNIX underpinnings of OS X.
Totally agree with you! I thought I could learn something more about how UNIX stuff could be done on OS X, but the title is just plain misleading.
So what do you guys think will be next for apple? Linux?
Bud Tribble, is’nt that the same guy , the uidesigner who quite apple in the eighties to go play with other things and ended up with the startup “Eazel” you know, The peeps who amongst other things made the filemanager “Nautilus” ?
So damn ironic that it doesn’t work on a mac. heh!
Theres a reason why apple chose to base MacOS X on BSD+Mach rather than Linux, in short compared to BSD+Mach linux is technically inferior and has a far more limiting license (for one thing they have to make CD images of MacOS X avaliable on there site, that includes any programs apple doesn’t want to redistribute for free).
Let me expand on technical inferiority. Linux is a monolithic kernel originaly designed for the IA32. Inspite the fact that linux has been ported to many architectures large parts of the suposedly cross platform compatible code still contain remenants of Linux’s IA32 past (Memory Manager anyone). The only reason for apple to use any of the linux code is because of the huge range of device drivers linux has (then again it would take ALOT of work to get a driver designed to run in the linux kernel, running on OS X).
Ive probablt taken the comments by Dan Brid to seriously. But I needed to get my thoughts on Linux of my chest. In the end its a great OS for WHAT IT IS.
Good post, I enjoyed that alot..
Anom, find me where in the GPL it says Apple has to make CD images available if they use Linux as a base. That’s wrong – that’s simply not true. The GPL makes no such restriction.
What it says is that parts of an OS that use GPL’ed code must share the source.
A) there’s nothing ever anywhere that says it has to be available over the internet.
B) there’s nothing that says they can’t charge for the source
C) there’s nothing that says they have to distribute a compiled binary of the code
D) there’s nothing that says they can’t add proprietary parts to the OS and keep them propritary (a la Lindows.com), so your “programs Apple doesn’t want to redistribute” comment is just plain false too.
I wish people who don’t understand the GPL wouldn’t try to explain it in public forums.
> So damn ironic that it doesn’t work on a mac. heh!
Right, damn ironic. Even though Windows Media Player of course exists for Macintosh. Even though it’s even linked on that same page as the video.
Nice to see Bud Tribble back in action.
> Right, damn ironic. Even though Windows Media Player of course exists for Macintosh. Even though it’s even linked on that same page as the video.
You’re obviously NOT a mac user and haven’t tried to play the video because if you were, you’d notice that video doesn’t show up because it has been encoded with WM v9. Mac version of WMP does not support it at all and is outdated (it’s like 2 years old now).
I am a Mac user using Mac OS X, and WMP is able to play this video fine. I am watching it right now. Stop the disinformation.
Linux, technically inferior? Don’t make me laugh. The BSD core of OS X has been proven to be about half as fast as NetBSD (which in general isn’t as fast as Linux) on lmbench (which measures the speed of basic kernel operations). The real reason OS X uses the BSD Lite2/Mach core is because NeXT did, and it would be a huge pain to port everything.
PS> As for Linux portability, exactly what x86-isms would you say it has? You mention the VM, but did you know that on x86, the kernel has to “fake” a 3-level page table (like in Alpha) because x86 only has a 2-level table? There is no performance hit, because it’s all done through macros, but I find it kinda interesting that you’re criticizing Linux for being x86-biased. And you totally ignore the fact that GCC, which Apple uses to compile their system is quite x86 biased, and Apple has had to do a lot of work in improving the PPC code generation.
Roger Said:
>Bud Tribble, is’nt that the same guy , the uidesigner
>who quite(sp?) apple in the eighties to go play with
>other things and ended up with the startup “Eazel” you
>know, The peeps who amongst other things made the the
>filemanager “Nautilus” ?
I met Guy at LinuxworldSF 2002, and he seemed like a bright man. Yes, he left apple with Steve to work on next, then he left next to work at sun. Then he left Sun to start Eazel. In 199? when Steve came back to Apple, he rejoined the Apple team, and is now VP of technology I think.
Anom Said:
>Theres a reason why apple chose to base MacOS X on
>BSD+Mach rather than Linux
Yes, it is the mach part of that equation, NOT the BSD. The BSD kernel was the only viable solution for Jobs at the time that he started next, so that is what he built mach over. Porting mach to linux would be FAR more trouble then porting to a newer BSD, but it’s not impossible, and one might even gain some speed using a Linux kernel.
>The only reason for apple to use any of the linux code
>is because of the huge range of device drivers linux has
>(then again it would take ALOT of work to get a driver
>designed to run in the linux kernel, running on OS X).
No, no it would not.
Rayiner Hashem Said:
>The real reason OS X uses the BSD Lite2/Mach core is
>because NeXT did, and it would be a huge pain to port
>everything.
Right, the mach kernel was the main reason to use BSD, not lisencing, which has been suggested.
Adam Said:
>B) there’s nothing that says they can’t charge for the >source
You CAN charge for GPL’ed source code, but you have to provide the code free somehow….I think.
Porting Linux over a Mach kernel has been done it’s MkLinux.
…and, indeed, was promoted and developed on by Apple…
Just FYI, this video does play on OS X just fine – i watched it a few days ago already.
If you are having trouble just go for a lower speed. I first tried the ‘cable’ setting as that’s usually fine for my cable connection, but it was too much. ‘DSL’ setting worked fine tho, in both WM player and Mplayer OS X.
L.
Hi folks,
There is a mixed reaction to Mac OS X. I dont know where it is good or bad. But i will tell u one thing that Apple is highly innovative company and Microsoft is the biggest copy-cat.
” Hi folks,
There is a mixed reaction to Mac OS X. I dont know where it is good or bad. But i will tell u one thing that Apple is highly innovative company and Microsoft is the biggest copy-cat.”
Thats the biggest load of crap I have ever heard, They all copy each other, there are features in Panther that are going to mimic Windows XP behavior. And if you wanna get technical, they both stole the GUI ” innovation ” from Xerox, just Apple was the fastest to get to the patent office. This video was more like an Ad for Mac OS X, It had nothing very interesting about it. Same stuff we all already knew.
“But i will tell u one thing that Apple is highly innovative company and Microsoft is the biggest copy-cat.”
Nice. Are you trying to start a flame war? This is prob the first Apple post that does not have a yelling match. Why don’t we just keep it that way?
WOW. Media Player for OS X just opened that file right up, and the animation with the mouse/rat is cute.
G4, OS X (v. 10.2.5), 1.5 GB RAM, KDE installed via Fink, just for the hellabit
Never say never.
There was piece on cnet the other week about Sun’s linux stratergy. One Sun bigwig said they would make Solaris LSB compliant. It’s logical that apple might do the same.
Why BSD rather than Linux to start with? See Rayiner’s post. Next made the decision, back when FreeBSD had all the hype Linux has today.
(and then there’s always that whattheflipdoesGPLmeanformybusiness bugbear)
mplayer plugin played this very well.
Oh well…
Except for the Windows/Linux bashing I liked the thing.
I expect a bit of cheerleading though it is normal.
Can we discuss the merits of OSX as another Unix before the whole thing turns into another my OS has a bigger dongle ratio than yours arguement?
Mac OSX 10.2.5 and WMP 7.1.3.0267 it doesn’t play.
they both stole the GUI ” innovation ” from Xerox, just Apple was the fastest to get to the patent office.
WRONG. Apple licenced the gui from xerox (and patented their own innovations). Microsoft didn’t do that at all.
Apple played it legally. Anyway, software patents are wrong …
Rabble rabble rabble rabble…. that is all you guys do. Interesting presentation. Nothing that most people dont already know, but it is good to see those thoughts collected and presented in that way. The most interesting is how the 2d and 3d are both done in OpenGL. I remember seeing an article about a port of X11 to opengl. It would be a great way to keep the GUI pretty in Linux while not bogging the system down too much. Kudos to Apple. They have made some very intelligent decisions recently.
Lot of retread of what we’ve head before, true enough.
However, the part I found interesting is where Apple thinks:
(1) leveraging open source and rapid development environments like cocoa they can get more done with less people and shorter time
(2) so they can run circles around MS (and it’s 3+ year upgrade cycle on the OS).
He kept referring to “small teams” working on these software projects at apple, such as safari.
Apple realized MS is just going to copy, so their response is:
WE’LL GO SO FAST THAT CAN’T KEEP UP!! it just might work!
Let me expand on technical inferiority. Linux is a monolithic kernel originaly designed for the IA32.
What is so technically inferior about a monolithic kernel? It isn’t like most micro-kernels don’t module in as much crap as they can anyways, nearly reaching the number of features and bloat as monolithic kernel when all is said and done. On the other hand people still try and make monolithic kernels as small and fast as possible. At this point there is practically no difference between the two.
This is completely off topic, but one of my pet peeves is people who misunderstand the GPL and try to explain it to others.
What the GPL says is that the source must remain available and modificatons must be permitted. The software must be “free (as in speech)” for others to use and modify and redistribute.
The GPL doesn’t require you to provide the source for free – in fact, you can charge up to the price of your binaries for it. I believe there’s a clause about “exhorbitant amounts” or something, but the point it, if your software costs 129.99 – the source must be available for at least that much. You can’t hold it for ransom.
There is nothing about downloads – that’s a courtesy probably begun by RH or maybe even Linus that has caught on. Certainly, RMS’s GPL doesn’t specify that you must distrobute source over the internet at all. Lindows.com is a good example of not making source code readily available but seem to be within the GPL.
If you don’t understand the differences of the geek phrases “free as in beer” or “free as in speech,” don’t ever comment on the GPL. Those are fundamental concepts. Nothing has to be free – but many things have to be shared.
I saw the end of this program on the University of Washington TV (UWTV) on Dish Network this past weekend(?) and was surprised (and delighted) to find OS X being discussed in this kind of forum. It is a shame, however, to see that Microsoft has bought their way into having the Windows Media Player (a clearly inferior and more costly product to QuickTime!) everywhere – and no QuickTime alternative.
There is nothing about downloads – that’s a courtesy probably begun by RH or maybe even Linus that has caught on. Certainly, RMS’s GPL doesn’t specify that you must distrobute source over the internet at all. Lindows.com is a good example of not making source code readily available but seem to be within the GPL.
Lindows does it by adding proprietary software. It is true that you can ask money for GPLed software, and don’t have to offer it for download on the internet. The problem is, that you can’t stop others from doing it.
If you sell your GPL software for 10$, anyone can buy it, and put it up on their website, for free download. Redhat 9 was in the first couple of weeks only available from the redhat website for paying customers. Yet Redhat couldn’t stop the fact that only moments after that, it was on bittorrent.
Art:
It is a shame, however, to see that Microsoft has bought their way into having the Windows Media Player (a clearly inferior and more costly product to QuickTime!) everywhere – and no QuickTime alternative.
If anything, Apple helped foster that situation. Between the attrocius, half-arsed POS that is the Win32 QuickTime player and the proprietary nature of the Sorenson codec, the only surprise is that QuickTime is as widely-used online as it is. I know very few Win32 users who have Quicktime on their machines for anything other than viewing movie trailers.
for one thing they have to make CD images of MacOS X avaliable on there site, that includes any programs apple doesn’t want to redistribute for free
People, listen. Go read the GPL. Go learn something before you comment. Or else you might just sound stupid.
No problem watching this on Mac OS 9 using WMP 7.
Yes the lack of QuickTime option is ironic, extremely annoying, and totally typical — Microsoft Uber Alles!
Considering this is a series from U of Washington,produced on campus,
the use of windows media player as their is a given.
MS and UW are reeaall tight.
I take back what I said about the GPL that was due to lack of understanding, however I do know that Apple has to redistribute any GPL’ed source code and any changes they make to the GPL’ed source code, which got me thinking because Apples UI is closed source they don’t want to have to redistribute any parts of it that is integrated with the Mac OSX kernel because the kernel is GPL’ed.
I do however stick by my comments on BSD being technically superior to Linux, for several reasons.
1. FreeBSD does have bettter perforamnce than Linux, NetBSD and OpenBSD don’t but they aim for Portability and Security; and it is FreeBSD&BSD Lite that the BSD portion of Mac OSX is based on.
2. Architecture dependinces such as the Page Table structure should be keept in the architecture dependant part of the kernel, wereas linux places them in the architecture independant part of the kernel thus the need for 3 level page tables outside the architecture dependant part of the kernel, the pmap system used by the BSDes is a much beter system; I do concede however that saying the architecture independant part of Linux was riddled with x86 dependinces was a massive exageration.
3. It doesn’t seem Ironic to me that I critices Linux for containing architecture dependencies in its architecture independant code, wereas GCC is ridled with them; There is a MAJOR differences between having architecture dependant code in the architecture independant part of an OS kernel, and having architecture dependinces in the architecture independant part of a compiler.
4. It was stated before that porting Linux over Mach had been done its called MkLinux, well there must be a reason why Apple used BSD instead of MkLinux, I think it was because MkLinux is slow.
Apoligies for my original post that was way over the top, I do however stick to my word when I say FreeBSD is superior to Linux and the idea of basing Mac OSX on Mach+Linux instead of Mach+BSD would be a step backwards I believe. Apple made the right choice in using Mach+BSD.
This debate is probably irrelevant though since as numerous people said the MAIN reason was probably the Next system and the existing source base it provided.
P.S. Don’t get me wrong Linux is a great desktop system I have it installed and I dual boot it, however in my view the Linux kernel doesn’t focus on the best algorithm and has made numerous odd design descisions, Linux aims to get better performance through ultra optimisations, in the end this isn’t the best policy, its better to focus on improving the algorithms used.
>So damn ironic that it doesn’t work on a mac. heh!
Worked perfectly on my PowerBook. Have PC-using friend who wasn’t able to make if work. How damn ironic!
Comments about MicroKernels factoring in as many features as they can are just plain untrue, It certianly applied to first generation MicroKernels, however it in no way reflects on second generation MicroKernels which stay true to microkernel principles and keep things in modules running in seperate address spaces, and these systems do in fact perform almost on par with Monolithic kernels and are far more scalable QNX anyone?
On the other hand theres there is the MicroKernels designs which let everyone down, this is a refernce to so called ‘MacroKernels’ (argh… more microsoft disguising technical shortcomings, although I’m not sure if they even bother calling Windows NT a ‘MacroKernel’ anymore.), these of course contain massive amounts of code in the kernel. In the case of Windows NT the only reason they can even dream of calling it a MicroKernel is because the varioues modules are loaded in a ‘Dynamic’ way not dissimalar to Linux Kernel Modules.