Yeah, I'd be very interest to find out what effect these under the hood changes are going to have on Mac OS X.
Not only the new FreeBSD, but also the new GCC 3 compiler, IPv6 (it's just a IP protocol, but still, an important one don't you think? considering the internet and all ).
I believe Amorph, AirSnuff, Programmer, or even an AI admin would be able to give us all the kind of in-depth, understandable explanation we're looking for.
Mac OS X was previously mostly in sync with FreeBSD 3.2. Moving to 4.4 means OS X's BSD underpinnings will be almost as modern as the current FreeBSD. I believe the latest stable release is FreeBSD 4.5.
<strong>Mac OS X was previously mostly in sync with FreeBSD 3.2. Moving to 4.4 means OS X's BSD underpinnings will be almost as modern as the current FreeBSD. I believe the latest stable release is FreeBSD 4.5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct. 4.6 is scheduled for release on June 1.
I wonder how much of 4.4 will actually be synched into Jaguar. Hopefully SoftUpdates will be.
Do we really need a gravestone graphic for beloved OS 9? Reminds me of new Windoze introductions...with all the hype and bs.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I kinda like the whole euolgy thing. "Classic" MacOS was allowed to drag on much longer than it should have. Apple suffered from the whole Microsoft thing, in that they wanted to maintain this high level of backward compatibility. Yeah, you want to support old customers as well as new, but M$ was able to slowly do it with the 3.1/9x and NT/2000 scenario. Apple should have built a modern OS awhile back and slowly transitioned people over. I, for one, would have adopted the new OS. When the "revolutionary" Windows 95 was released, I opted for ugly old NT 3.51 and why? It was infinitely more stable than 95. I had apps to do what I needed to do and I wasn't rebooting every hour.. just ever day
Anyway, Classic is gone.. Good riddance. I have fond memories of the old beast, but it's time to move on to bigger and better things.
I doubt we will get softupdates. Thats something tied to FreeBSD's file system, which OSX does not use (well it does have UFS but i don't know if its the same thing, most people will use HFS+). However, Apple may add some type of journaling ...
[quote]... further to that effect, what's the big difference between freeBSD and Linux?<hr></blockquote>
The kernel. It's convergent evolution really...like dolphins and sharks. These days the reals differences are in philosophy and politics. The GPL vs the BSD License...and various little quibbles here and there.
[quote]... oh, and is Darwin basically freeBSD's apps and utilities stuck on top of a Mach Kernel?<hr></blockquote>
At the very lowest level, the Darwin name can be attributed to the kernel, which is Mach 3.0 derived with a BSD personality grafted onto it. The Darwin distribution is a mixture of open source, much BSD, a little GNU, much NeXT/OpenStep type stuff.
Comments
Not only the new FreeBSD, but also the new GCC 3 compiler, IPv6 (it's just a IP protocol, but still, an important one don't you think? considering the internet and all ).
I believe Amorph, AirSnuff, Programmer, or even an AI admin would be able to give us all the kind of in-depth, understandable explanation we're looking for.
This seems a little silly ehh?
[<a href="http://www.spymac.com/cgi-bin/pictures/index.pl?photo=698"; target="_blank">RIP OS 9 at WWDC</a>
Do we really need a gravestone graphic for beloved OS 9? Reminds me of new Windoze introductions...with all the hype and bs.
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Maine Road ]</p>
<strong>Mac OS X was previously mostly in sync with FreeBSD 3.2. Moving to 4.4 means OS X's BSD underpinnings will be almost as modern as the current FreeBSD. I believe the latest stable release is FreeBSD 4.5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct. 4.6 is scheduled for release on June 1.
I wonder how much of 4.4 will actually be synched into Jaguar. Hopefully SoftUpdates will be.
Bye,
RazzFazz
[<a href="http://www.spymac.com/cgi-bin/pictures/index.pl?photo=698"; target="_blank">RIP OS 9 at WWDC</a>
Do we really need a gravestone graphic for beloved OS 9? Reminds me of new Windoze introductions...with all the hype and bs.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I kinda like the whole euolgy thing. "Classic" MacOS was allowed to drag on much longer than it should have. Apple suffered from the whole Microsoft thing, in that they wanted to maintain this high level of backward compatibility. Yeah, you want to support old customers as well as new, but M$ was able to slowly do it with the 3.1/9x and NT/2000 scenario. Apple should have built a modern OS awhile back and slowly transitioned people over. I, for one, would have adopted the new OS. When the "revolutionary" Windows 95 was released, I opted for ugly old NT 3.51 and why? It was infinitely more stable than 95. I had apps to do what I needed to do and I wasn't rebooting every hour.. just ever day
Anyway, Classic is gone.. Good riddance. I have fond memories of the old beast, but it's time to move on to bigger and better things.
...updated man pages! Sweet!
<strong>Yeah, I'd be very interest to find out what effect these under the hood changes are going to have on Mac OS X.
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Maine Road ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
... further to that effect, what's the big difference between freeBSD and Linux?
... oh, and is Darwin basically freeBSD's apps and utilities stuck on top of a Mach Kernel?
Unix Gods,I pray thy brave men of the terminal, stroke thoust collective beards and respond ...
<strong>FreeBSD 4.4 means...
...updated man pages! Sweet!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, but I doubt it will help you to become a man.
[code]man love
man: no entry for love in the manual.
</pre><hr></blockquote>
The kernel.
[quote]... oh, and is Darwin basically freeBSD's apps and utilities stuck on top of a Mach Kernel?<hr></blockquote>
At the very lowest level, the Darwin name can be attributed to the kernel, which is Mach 3.0 derived with a BSD personality grafted onto it. The Darwin distribution is a mixture of open source, much BSD, a little GNU, much NeXT/OpenStep type stuff.