is osx a true unix system

What does TRUE unix mean and what is TRUE system?

I am a windows user before and became Mac user for only half year. I always hear the term TRUE system, TRUE unix. Then what is the counter-term, like FALSE system or VIRTUAL system? Is there any term like this? why unix is TRUE and other is NOT true? Does TRUE mean real-time?

I don't have the exact concept of this term. Any one can explain?

regardly.
 
I think the issue here is whether an operating system can truly claim to be "Unix", not whether Unix can claim to be a true operating system!

The issue revolves around the fact that Unix is more than just a concept - a set of APIs or commands or interface guidelines. It is is a redistered trade mark and an industry trusted brand name.

I think you should read the first few posts - especially the rather lengthy one I wrote - for more insight
 
TRUE unix ? Never heard of such guff.. and I've used just about every unix that exists at least once in my life...

I guess it's refering to what a person calls a unix operating system. a "true" unix is then I guess is one that
has a kernel and an OS and complies to certain standards..
POSIX etc etc.

*shrug*

-Andrew
 
So much misinformation so little time....

This Carbon vs. Cocoa thing is really pathetic.

First of all Finder.app is not Workspace.app. Finder is a PowerPlant application fo crissakes!! Geez, you NeXT people are so out of touch!

Finder.app doesn't even link to AppKit! "uuuh, OS X is OPENSTEP...must have Workspace.app....must continue NeXT legacy...error error....."

Repeat after me: OS X is not OPENSTEP

Repeat that sentence until it sinks through.

Finally I have to say yes, Carbon and Cocoa do behave differently. This is a BAD thing and hasn't even been addressed by Apple. In fact their Aqua HI Guidelines don't even cover areas where the two libraries are in conflict. OS X is totally schizophrenic and it's pissing me off.

Consider that Carbon, Classic, and Swing on OS X select text the mac way while Cocoa selects text like windoze. This is only the tip of the iceberg. OS X has three sets of color pickers, three ways of selecting text, four pairs of open/save dialog boxes each with a different way to navigate, three different menu layouts, four different appearances, four different title bar drawing routines, three different menu bar drawing routines, three different sets of menu item states, the list goes on and on. I don't care much about appearance for my personal use (strategically it's more important), however when I have to adjust to the different behaviors of these applications my productivity nose-dives.


Well anyway have fun beating up the NeXT loser over thinking the Finder.app is the old Workspace.app
 
I started this thread a while ago and the issue was was not if unix is a "true" system or "true" unix. The question was more, Is OSX unix. A friend of friend of my stated that osx is not unix just some unix like mix.

 
"First of all Finder.app is not Workspace.app. Finder is a PowerPlant application fo crissakes!! Geez, you NeXT people are so out of touch!"

Okay, lets deal ONLY with Apple. Here are the major releases that Apple has made since buying NeXT:

Prelude to Rhapsody (OPENSTEP 4.2), Rhapsody DR1, Rhapsody DR2, Mac OS X Server 1.0-1.2v3, Mac OS X DP1-4, Mac OS X PB, Mac OS X 10.0

I have most of these, which is the one where they decided to create a whole new applications to replace the Workspace.app? It is there in Rhapsody (both versions), it is there in Mac OS X Server (all versions). And when did Metrowerks create their developement tools for Mac OS X? They were not there for Mac OS X Server. I don't recall see anything of theirs on the developer previews I've seen (which came with a full set of developement tools). So which one was it?

"Finder.app doesn't even link to AppKit! "uuuh, OS X is OPENSTEP...must have Workspace.app....must continue NeXT legacy...error error....." "

Can we say Core Services, here lets say it together... CORE SERVICES. Very good, you are actual smarter than you look (not really). You ARE the reason for renaming the Workspace.app. "Mac... must have Finder... where is my security blanket?... mommy!" Grow up, get a clue, and get a life.

"Repeat after me: OS X is not OPENSTEP"

Repeat after me: I'll do research before making looking stupid in public

Repeat that sentence until it sinks through. (never mind, it won't work, your a lost cause)

"Well anyway have fun beating up the NeXT loser over thinking the Finder.app is the old Workspace.app"

I guess that would be Steve Jobs, Avie Tevanian, and the countless other people at Apple, Omni, Stone Design, and Stepwise. At least us NeXT losers are in good company.
 
Originally posted by RacerX
"First of all Finder.app is not Workspace.app. Finder is a PowerPlant application fo crissakes!! Geez, you NeXT people are so out of touch!"

Okay, lets deal ONLY with Apple. Here are the major releases that Apple has made since buying NeXT:

Prelude to Rhapsody (OPENSTEP 4.2), Rhapsody DR1, Rhapsody DR2, Mac OS X Server 1.0-1.2v3, Mac OS X DP1-4, Mac OS X PB, Mac OS X 10.0

I have most of these, which is the one where they decided to create a whole new applications to replace the Workspace.app? It is there in Rhapsody (both versions), it is there in Mac OS X Server (all versions). And when did Metrowerks create their developement tools for Mac OS X? They were not there for Mac OS X Server. I don't recall see anything of theirs on the developer previews I've seen (which came with a full set of developement tools). So which one was it?
Click to expand...

Duh, OS X Server and OS X are totally different. OS X Server was OPENSTEP with a mac facade.

And they didn't just create new applications. They created a new kernel, a new driver architecture, and a new display server. It's a totally different OS!



"Finder.app doesn't even link to AppKit! "uuuh, OS X is OPENSTEP...must have Workspace.app....must continue NeXT legacy...error error....." "

Can we say Core Services, here lets say it together... CORE SERVICES. Very good, you are actual smarter than you look (not really). You ARE the reason for renaming the Workspace.app. "Mac... must have Finder... where is my security blanket?... mommy!" Grow up, get a clue, and get a life.
Click to expand...

CoreSservices? Do you mean Core Foundation? Neither of these are AppKit, not a one. Core Foundation is a subset of Foundation which all Carbon and Cocoa apps use.

Workspace.app hasn't been renamed. The old mac Finder isn't there either. It was completely rewritten from scratch, got a clue yet?



"Repeat after me: OS X is not OPENSTEP"

Repeat after me: I'll do research before making looking stupid in public

Repeat that sentence until it sinks through. (never mind, it won't work, your a lost cause)
Click to expand...

Looks like you didn't do any research, you're blowing hot wind out of your ass.



"Well anyway have fun beating up the NeXT loser over thinking the Finder.app is the old Workspace.app"

I guess that would be Steve Jobs, Avie Tevanian, and the countless other people at Apple, Omni, Stone Design, and Stepwise. At least us NeXT losers are in good company.
Click to expand...

Ask any of those people if Finder.app in OS X is Workspace.app. It's plain to anybody with a brain that it isn't.

man otool
 
"And they didn't just create new applications. They created a new kernel, a new driver architecture, and a new display server. It's a totally different OS!"

So what your saying is that Darwin can't possibly be the kernel used in Mac OS X Server 1.2. And the new display server, yes I can see why Apple would throw away all of the work in Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server just to move from Display PostScript to Display PDF.

Tell me this then, how have the old NeXT developement firms been able to afford rewriting all their apps from scratch (they must have also, if Apple had to). TIFFany (still in version 3, strange for a complete rewrite), OmniWeb, Create, RBrowser, etc. These aren't big money firms that could support the R&D the your versions of Mac OS X's developement.

Let look at the REAL history here. Rhapsody was a finished product, but Mac developers didn't want to spend the time and money to rewrite their apps for Yellow Box. Effectively creating an applications barrier that Apple didn't see Rhapsody getting past. Apple added a suite of server apps and sold the final version of Rhapsody a Mac OS X Server.

Apple then went back are started to develop a new application environment that would be easier to port to for most existing Mac apps, Carbon. During this long (longer than Apple thought it would be) development period for Carbon, Apple decided to give the rest of the OS a face left. This included replacing Display PostScript, adding OpenGl, and extending QuickTime's ability.

I can assure you that at NO time did Apple scrap the code for the Workspace.app, which is still the heart of the new Finder.app. Any difference between the current Finder.app and Server's Workspace.app came about slowly over the many releases from DP1 to the current 10.0.2. Infact DP1 was Apples first stab at Carbon, and the first steps towards the current Classic from the original Blue Box.

Just because you "johnny come lately" wishes this magically appeared out of thin air, doesn't erase each of the steps take in the process.

Again, as I asked earlier, which of the releases was the "First" release of this Finder.app (which has no relation to the Workspace-based app used in the version prior)? You answer that question, and you can win this. It is that simple.
 
Workspace.app would use AppKit to make windows, scrollviews, controls, etc. Workspace.app would use Objective-C. Finder.app does not, it uses PowerPlant and it's been written in C++. Finder.app doesn't even use any Objective-C calling methods...none. It doesn't even link to the objc lib so it couldn't possibly even send a message.

So I guess Apple took WorkSpace.app which was written in Objective-C using AppKit which has it's interface defined in NIBs created by Interface Builder and decided to rewrite it in C++ using PowerPlant and convert the NIBs to constructor PPob resources. I guess this also means the cow jumped over the moon and the dish ran away with the spoon.

No dude, Apple did not take Workspace.app and rewrite it as Finder.app. You are a clueless moron, a regular moron would never suggest taking an Objective-C application using Interface Builder NIBs then converting every line of Objective-C code, all the runtime messages, into PowerPlant C++ class structure calls and then take the NIBs and convert them to PPobs just to see if it could be done. No sir, only a clueless moron would suggest Apple would waste it's time doing such programmatic gynmastics. It would take a billionth of the manhours required to write the Finder FROM SCRATCH!

And if I were to write it from scratch I would do what they did. Cocoa doesn't even handle aliases and OSTypes for crissakes!

man otool clueless fool, man otool
 
Boy, you are losing it there guy. Which is okay, usually when people don't have a answer they get angry. So I ask again, which of the developer releases did Apple decide to scrap the original code from the Workspace.app? In fact if you could tell me when Apple moved from the MacOS.app to Classic, I would be impressed (this is a trick question boys and girls, Apple had version of both on DP1 and DP2).

Anyway, can you answer that simple question? So far you are implying that you can't.

And have you thought about anger management counseling? Bottling up all that hostility can't be good for your health.
 
If you have missed our earlier exchanges. I have slowly work strobe from his first comment in which the Workspace was only in OPENSTEP all the way up to Mac OS X Server. No for my next trick, I present a process veiwer shot from Mac OS X DP2 (note the "workspace" listed in the image)
 

Attachments

  • process-dp2.gif
    process-dp2.gif
    15.3 KB · Views: 42
It's easy to see if an application was written in C++ using PowerPlant or Objective-C using AppKit. If you can't tell the difference you're a moron. Just look at the package contents or the executable and it's blindingly obvious.

Finder.app in OS X was developed from scratch. It is not Workspace.app.
 
"If you can't tell the difference you're a moron."

I take your COMPLETE avoidance of answering the question as the fact that you don't know when it was changed (because it wasn't). Calling me a "moron" only proves that you are at a loss for real answers.

As for the Package, it is a Cocoa app. The structure is the same as every Cocoa/Yellow Box/OpenStep app I've seen. The layout and form are very much like all the versions of the Workspace app which came before it.

So, again I ask, at which version did Apple stop using the Workspace-based app and started using this totally new, written from the ground up app that is supposed to be the current Finder? This should be an easy question to answer. In one version it is there, in the next it has been replace.

You can call me all the names you like. But it doesn't change that fact that the developmental history doesn't show a break. Show me where Apple stopped using it, and you win. Calling me names and not answering the question only make you look like a fool (not that your first "NeXT losers" comment had won you any friend in the Mac OS X community) and gets us no where.

By the way, how the anger management going?
 
Hey, RacerX, could you post a copy of the oldest finder.app/Workspace.app? I would like to see the differances myself since the oldest os x i have is the beta.
By the way, what's PowerPlant and AppKit?
 
Funny you should ask, the reason I was pushing for an actual version was that the CDs only have the minimum OS to boot a system. Everything else is packaged up in essentials.pkg (stored in a pax.gz file inside of that). What this means for me is that I would need to try and open the pax file (a scary operation) or install onto a spare driver I have (a very time consuming operation). Of all my current collection (NEXTSTEP 3.1, 3.3, OPENSTEP 4.1, 4.2, Rhapsody DR2, Mac OS X Server 1.2, Mac OS X DP4, PB, 10.0) I only have NEXTSTEP 3.3, OPENSTEP 4.2, Rhapsody DR2, and Mac OS X 10.0.2 actually running on my network (and could tar the Workspace.app/Finder.app/Viewer.app from them). I could probably barrow copies of DP2 and either DP2.3 or DP3 if I knew that there was something there to look at.

The point that strobe could have put across better if he wasn't having a conniption, and from partial replies to inquiries I had put out to my friends (the "NeXT Losers" who now work at Apple) was that Apple took the original source code for the existing Workspace/Viewer.app and converted it to Carbon to sell Carbon to firms like Microsoft and Adobe (both of which did the show me, then we'll think about it deal).

After reading this less than civil debate (in which strobe made few friends), they tended to be less sure than they where before (they didn't work on the Finder). So yes there is some question as to whether or not the Finder is Carbon or Cocoa or some hybrid of both. There systems to be no question at this point that the current Finder is indeed based on the original Workspace Manager lineage.

PowerPlant is a project builder of Metrowerk CodeWarrior. Apple has had a very close association with them ever since Metrowerk rescued Apple back with Apple released the first PowerPC based systems. Apple didn't get native developer tools to anyone before the release in April of 1994. this would have been as bad as not have native apps now, because 68k code would be run in emualtion (without an emulated FPU), and would see little speed improvement in most apps, and a loss of performance in apps that used a FPU. CodeWarrior for PPC was released in January of 1994 (as I recall) which meant that most firms could have native apps by summer.

I believe that strobe was trying to say that because he has seen evidence of the fact that portions of the Finder were made using PowerPlant, that the source code HAD to be C++, which would mean a completely new set of code. I also believe he overlooked the fact that Objective C and C differ more in the form they are used in during the create than in the type of compiler they need. My experience is that a C/C++ compiler should have little trouble dealing with Objective C.

I'll post more information on this as I get it (and then only the parts my friend can agree on).

I've included an image of my ThinkPad's desktop running Rhapsody (it shows the size of the Workspace.app for that release), it is setup to look like Mac OS X Server because I use it to train new Server admins.
 

Attachments

  • rdr2-intel.jpg
    rdr2-intel.jpg
    95 KB · Views: 46
Why not just post the output of otool -L run against
both the executable inside the Finder.app bundle
and the executable inside the latest Workspace.app
bundle you can find?

I know what

otool -L /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app/Contents/MacOS/Finder

produces -- something that seems pretty convincingly a pure Carbon app, at least judging from the libraries it links against.

 
Finder.app is not a hybrid, it doesn't send a single ObjC message. It's a C++ PowerPlant app written from scratch. Use otool, sheesh

As for the structure it's totally different than Workspace.app. It uses PPob resources, not NIBs.

It's a non-hybrid C++ Carbon app using the PowerPlant app framework.

otool tells all, use it and shut the hell up racer
 
so if its carbon it should be able to run under OS 9, right? Maby use resedit and give it a "carb" resourse to tell os 9 its carbon, and change the file type to make it excecutable by os 9. I would be interesting to see the results...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top