Apple owes FreeBSD

My question is: Why? Apple's under no obligation to do favors if it doesn't benefit the company any. I've spent lots of $$$ and time on Apple products and the company could do me a favor by getting me a top-of-the-line G5 with cinema screen and a bag of Funyuns, but I don't expect it to happen.
 
prior poster wrote:
"How many devoted FreeBSD users are there out there, anyway? I can't see there being a lot..."

prior poster wrote:
"BSD isn't a particularly feasible platform for a desktop-oriented app like this - it has an incredibly small user base..."

////////////////////////////////////

Surprise! If you use "OS X", you are a FreeBSD user!

For Apple's sake, you had better hope the number of BSD users grows, even if its only by the sale of Apple's "OS X".

Some of you people are arguing against supporting your own team. If Apple is like this inside their own company it would certainly explain the stock price.

Apple is constantly taking new ideas and software from FreeBSD, as I've already pointed out. Every single one of you should be telling the world how great FreeBSD is, because what's good for FreeBSD is good for Apple.

I would like to see more evidence that the reverse is also true, in the form of a QuickTime Player.

It's not much to ask for.

footnote: prior poster mentioned the 3ivx codec from http://www.3ivx.com
 
Surprise! FreeBSD provides the basis for OS X while it also has a number of technologies stacked on top. Just try using QT Player while booted into single-user mode, for example. I think the issue here is that you want QT ported to the standalone version(s?) of FreeBSD, which OS X isn't, and the number of people who use it as such can't be great.

Again, with the cars: FreeBSD is the engine powering the automobile of OS X. The inventor(s) of the combustion engine certainly contributed quite a bit to the automotive industry (to say the least), but that does not mean that Ford, GMC, Toyota, etc. "owe" them anything. They shouldn't turn around and give the engine's inventors wind shield wipers, for example. (This analogy is slightly flawed in that no one uses combustion engines by themselves, while people do use FreeBSD by itself, but the point stands.)
 
OS X is based alot on FreeBSD, but it's not FreeBSD, saying "if you use OS X you're a FreeBSD user" is just plain wrong. FreeBSD uses a monolithic kernel, OS X uses a Mach based kernel. There are some _major_ differences in the two. FreeBSD bases it core system/drivers on C code, OS X bases theirs on Objective C. There is a major difference in the design between C and Objective C.

The argument you're making is the same as saying "if you use FreeBSD you're a BSDlite 4.4 user". Acura built the RSX on the Civic chassis, does that mean if you drive an Acura RSX you're really driving a Civic?

Brian
 
makkie_messer said:
Surprise! If you use "OS X", you are a FreeBSD user!
Click to expand...

No , you would be a Darwin user. Darwin is a derivative of Rhapsody. Rhapsody used elements of 4.3/4.4BSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD on top of Mach. Apple has just thrown FreeBSD into that mix as of Darwin.

While nice for all concerned, still far from Mac OS X being FreeBSD, or Mac OS X users being FreeBSD users. Considering the heritage, a more factually correct statement might be Mac OS X users are BSD users, but that ignores the fact that both Darwin and FreeBSD use Mach which was not originally part of BSD.

On the other hand, the idea of using Mach with BSD was NeXT's idea long before FreeBSD was started using the same concept.

In 1985 Avie Tevanian was a grad student at CMU working on the original Mach project when he met Steve Jobs for the first time. By 1988 NeXT had developed an operating system based on 4.3BSD running on top of Avie's Mach (five years before FreeBSD was started).

It sure seems like FreeBSD owes NeXT (which is now Apple) the concept which lead to it.

Some of you people are arguing against supporting your own team.
Click to expand...

I have pointed out the facts of "why". I would love if Apple did made Quicktime for FreeBSD. I would love if they did it for Darwin.

But then again, I would love if a replacement for X windows was finally developed. That, in the end, is what we are really talking about isn't it? An X version of Quicktime. X is so hacked at this point that it should be completely replaced. The fact that it is the foundation of so much of Unix based computing is scary. Motif is better, maybe even GNUstep would be a good alternative, but writing for X should be a task left to those who hacked it together in the first place.

So would you be happy if Apple made Quicktime for CDE on FreeBSD? That at least would be a semi realistic possibility. And would you mind if it only had the codecs which Apple had complete control over? Again, that would be realistic as Apple paying to expand licensing for all of them for a free product that doesn't help sell hardware definitely isn't.

And a final point on the team aspect: Are you running Darwin? And if you aren't, why not? Join the team. FreeBSD has borrowed from Darwin ever since Apple first released it in 1999.

:rolleyes:

I guess in a way, if you are using FreeBSD you are a Darwin user. :D
 
but that ignores the fact that both Darwin and FreeBSD use Mach which was not originally part of BSD.
Click to expand...

FreeBSD is not Mach based, it's a monolithic kernel. OS X is Mach based, NeXTStep is Mach based, Mach 10 was Mach based, GNU Hurd is Mach based, FreeBSD is no where close.

Brian
 
btoneill said:
FreeBSD is not Mach based, it's a monolithic kernel. OS X is Mach based, NeXTStep is Mach based, Mach 10 was Mach based, GNU Hurd is Mach based, FreeBSD is no where close.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the kernel used by FreeBSD was a modified version of what started out it's developmental life as Mach (primarily for it's memory management features as I recall). I may have been mistaken, but my studies of FreeBSD lead to that conclusion.
 
From some other place...

Code: 
> Is freeBSD on the mach kernel these days? Strange I see no mention of it
> on there web site.

No, it doesn't.

FreeBSD does use a radically changed Mach VM subsystem, though.

> There are a lot of other cute ideas behind Mach as well, but the userland
> demons is the main one.

Indeed, such as kernel stacking.  MacOS X, for example, stacks a
FreeBSD-like kernel on top of the Mach one, which allows it to use
the FreeBSD code base for a lot of the userland, and especially
network layer, functionality.

Btw.: It's "its developmental life", not "it's developmental life", RacerX. (Yes, I've got some teacher genes in my blood.) ;-)
 
fryke said:
Btw.: It's "its developmental life", not "it's developmental life", RacerX. (Yes, I've got some teacher genes in my blood.) ;-)
Click to expand...

I'll forever be a "C" student. :(
 
The inital FreeBSD kernel was built from 386BSD. Infact the original FreeBSD was not much more then a patched 386BSD along with some things brought in from the NetBSD project. There are some design elements from Mach in the current FreeBSD kernel, but that by no means makes it a Mach kernel.

The entire way the system works between a monolithic kernel and a Mach (which uses a microkernel) system works is completely different. In a monolithic kernel a very large portion of the system functionality is handled in the kernel, which is basically one large program that handles everything, hardware access, memory managment, file i/o, scheduling, networking, etc. In a microkernel based syste, the kernel is really small, and handles only very general things such as controlling hardware access, it uses seperate applications to handle the rest. In a Mach system, you have a microkernel that uses message passing to control communication between seperate processes that handle functionaity such as network stacks, filesystems, etc.

Brian
 
RacerX said:
....

But then again, I would love if a replacement for X windows was finally developed. That, in the end, is what we are really talking about isn't it? An X version of Quicktime. X is so hacked at this point that it should be completely replaced. The fact that it is the foundation of so much of Unix based computing is scary. Motif is better, maybe even GNUstep would be a good alternative, but writing for X should be a task left to those who hacked it together in the first place.

So would you be happy if Apple made Quicktime for CDE on FreeBSD? That at least would be a semi realistic possibility. And would you mind if it only had the codecs which Apple had complete control over? Again, that would be realistic as Apple paying to expand licensing for all of them for a free product that doesn't help sell hardware definitely isn't.

....
Click to expand...
X is the X Windowing System. Motif is a CDE-compliant windows manager from the Open Group. Motif requires X. You can learn more
here. Read and be wise.
 
MisterMe said:
X is the X Windowing System. Motif is a CDE-compliant windows manager from the Open Group. Motif requires X. You can learn more
here. Read and be wise.
Click to expand...

Will I doubt that you could bring much to the discussion as I know about the interdependence of Motif and X. It comes from years of working with and setting up such systems (I currently have 5 Motif based UNIX systems here at home).

The question here is what would Apple be writing to. I have Quicktime on my SGIs right now.

You did have a point, right?

Reread and be wise.
 
btoneill said:
There are some design elements from Mach in the current FreeBSD kernel, but that by no means makes it a Mach kernel.

-and-

...FreeBSD is no where close.
Click to expand...

But it does refute your original no where close statement. I would say it is some where close by what you have posted. Maybe not a direct use of Mach itself, but you provided enough to show they are not completely disconnected.

Thanks.
 
Neither do have anything directly to do with the topic at hand, though. ;-) Please don't let this thread escalate into an "I know more about several flavours of UN*X than you do" flame.

The original statement was that Apple owes FreeBSD and that Apple should pay in QuickTime. However: Apple pays in source code just as the license states. Therefore, I'd say, the thread is solved. ;-)
 
fryke said:
Neither do have anything directly to do with the topic at hand, though. ;-) Please don't let this thread escalate into an "I know more about several flavours of UN*X than you do" flame.
Click to expand...

If we move the thread to the UNIX forum can we continue the "I know more about several flavors of UNIX than you do flame"? :)

Brian
 
fryke said:
From some other place...

Code: 
> Is freeBSD on the mach kernel these days? Strange I see no mention of it
> on there web site.

No, it doesn't.

FreeBSD does use a radically changed Mach VM subsystem, though.

> There are a lot of other cute ideas behind Mach as well, but the userland
> demons is the main one.

Indeed, such as kernel stacking.  MacOS X, for example, stacks a
FreeBSD-like kernel on top of the Mach one, which allows it to use
the FreeBSD code base for a lot of the userland, and especially
network layer, functionality.

Btw.: It's "its developmental life", not "it's developmental life", RacerX. (Yes, I've got some teacher genes in my blood.) ;-)
Click to expand...

oooh, getting schooled on your English by the Swiss! Now that's bad =)
 
Crikey mate, you should be happier than Larry that we Yanks bring our FLAVOR of inglisch to y'all (ahhs-sees). Word, Ace. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top