11 ms·
> It has no lineage in common with Linux. That's not what he wrote. In its initial release, OS X did depend heavily on free software (Samba, Apache, GNU, etc.
by deng 10y ago
> It has no lineage in common with Linux.
That's not what he wrote. In its initial release, OS X did depend heavily on free software (Samba, Apache, GNU, etc.), which again thrived because of Linux.
- gaius 10y agoIt would be more accurate to say Linux thrived because of them! Samba IIRC predates Linux too, as does the GNU project, Apache is based on the original httpd which was built on... Drum roll... NeXTStep. In 1990, before Linux existed.
- pvg 10y agoApache was a fork of NCSA httpd, not CERN httpd.
- Retric 10y agoNCSA httpd also predates Linux. NCSA httpd released version 0.1 was June 1991. http://www.w3.org/Daemon/Features.html http://www.w3.org/Daemon/Features.html Amusingly: http://www.diam.unige.it/informatica/documentazione/httpd_docs/docs/FAQ.html http://www.diam.unige.it/informatica/documentazione/httpd_do... "3.5) Why doesn't NCSA HTTPd work on my Linux system? NCSA HTTPd is not crippled. Linux may be crippled. NCSA HTTPd uses a standard BSD4 and SYSV feature known as file descriptor passing. NCSA HTTPd supports both the BSD and SYSV style of file descriptor passing. Linux chose not to implement either."
- batbomb 10y agoThat's CERN httpd release notes for 0.1 @ 1991, not NCSA. NCSA didn't join the web until much later. In fact, SLAC was first to the web in the USA, and Marc had originally approached my boss, who wrote MidasWWW, to see if he'd want to collaborate on the web browser which would become Mosaic.
- Retric 10y agoDoh, missed the edit window. However, it's clear that NCSA was not initially developed on or for Linux. PS: An interesting side note, the SGML standard committee decided not to include hyperlinks which more or less directly resulted in HMTL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_La... I wonder if that would have pushed the web forward even faster or not as HTML is far less strict, but you could make a less strict render for SGML as well.
- iheartmemcache 10y agoCame in here to be that guy and make this comment, but you beat me to it. Have an up-vote. I can't anyone is even disputing the fact that OS X didn't largely benefit from the fact that there was tons of GNU/GPL tooling out of the box that power users could use. Bash? GCC/G++ (before the clang/llvm migration out)? GNU. X-windows (granted I don't think many people used it post-Carbon, but I remember using it on my iBook 266mhz...). \/ Edit: Mea culpa. IIRC you're right re: tcsh. I haven't used OS X as a daily operating system since first year undergrad (placing that at just under a decade) so afford me some liberties with details, kindly :)
- gaius 10y agoGNU yes, but GNU pre-dates Linux. I first used GCC on SunOS.
- pvg 10y agoWell, OS X's ancestors had a largely BSD-derived userspace so that's neither here nor there. The strongest claim and perhaps biggest contribution, I think, was GCC on which NeXTs Objective C compiler was based from the beginning.
- QuercusMax 10y agoIf my memory serves me right, early OSX used tcsh as the default shell; it wasn't till around 10.4 or so that they switched to bash.
- cm3 10y ago> Samba IIRC predates Linux too Not quite, actually. Samba => sometime in 1992 Linux => October 1991
- qbrass 10y agohttp://www.rxn.com/services/faq/smb/samba.history.txt http://www.rxn.com/services/faq/smb/samba.history.txt It wasn't invented for Linux, but Samba exists today because of it.
- kazinator 10y ago> Samba IIRC predates Linux too I don't think so. But IRC predates Linux. :)
- ajsalminen 10y agoWhat many of these comments seem to be missing is that I don't think Doc Searls meant Linux the kernel when he said this. He meant Linux the OS (which some want to call GNU/Linux as he mentioned) with all these parts included. All of these components played their part in the rise of the OS and benefited from each other. The Linux kernel as well as things like the GNU project were absolutely necessary for this ecosystem to becoming a reality and that is what OS X benefited from as well.
- simonh 10y agoSolaris was a much bigger deal than Linux well into the OSX era. In fact if Linux had never happened Solaris would probably still be around and we'd be arguing about how much OS X owes to Solaris and whether it matters that SunOS predated NEXT but Solaris didn't.
- deng 10y ago> In fact if Linux had never happened Solaris would probably still be around and we'd be arguing about how much OS X owes to Solaris Hardly. How would have Apple developed a full userland and development toolchain with the resources it had at that time? That's exactly the point of the article: OS X wouldn't be where it is without Linux (read: GNU/Linux), not because it was technically the best Unix (it wasn't), but because it was free software.
- simonh 10y agoYou do know that OS X was just a rebranding of NeXTSTEP which dates back to 1985 and so had all those things (dev tool chain, userland, etc) 6 years before Linux started, right? How much did NeXTSTEP owe to Linux, say in 1990?
- vetinari 10y agoNexTSTEP didn't have a lot of stuff that OSX had. Samba comes to mind. Another are autofs, bash, curl, less, libxml2, libxslt, screen and countless others.
- JdeBP 10y agoscreen was posted to net.sources in March 1987, under the name BSD screen manager. It made it to comp.sources.unix in August 1987 (v10i095), and was BSD multi-screen manager. Linux did not exist at the time.
- simonh 10y agoSamba, bash, screen and autofs all predate Linux and most of the rest were either initially developed on others unixes or at least at a time when Linux was far away from its current dominance. The idea that modern OSX relies in any material way on Linux is simply obviously false to anyone with a basic understanding of the history of UNIX. Linux succeeded due to its compatibility with this rich ecosystem of software, not the other way around.
- stormbrew 10y agoAlso most of the early adopters of osx that I knew at the time were actively seeking out a unixy desktop because they worked on software eventually destined for Linux servers and didn't like the available desktop options for Linux. Not to say that was the entire market, but it was a good chunk of it.
- ethbro 10y agoThis is a critical point. There are probably people on this board who were born after Ubuntu/Linux desktop UX received attention. For reference, older Linux desktop options were... well, I'll just say they played a lot like Dwarf Fortress.
- vetinari 10y agoIn the beginning (10.0 - 10.2 timeframe), OSX was pretty much broken if you wanted to work on software that was destined for Linux. Even the existing software was PITA to get running on OSX, you were fighting both autotools and OSX linker and libraries at once.
- fit2rule 10y agoNot strictly true, it was quite possible to write code on OSX that could be run on Solaris and Linux easily enough. You just had to not depend on autotools too much, and understand how to use the OSX linker/libraries properly in your project. (Disclaimer: I am one of those programmers who only switched to Apple because of the tiBook, which was a damned sexy Unix workstation in spite of the fact it was also a damned sexy laptop.. and I used it for developing apps for Linux and SGI Irix without much hassle.)
- MustardTiger 10y agoNone of that thrived because of linux. And OSX didn't depend on them at all, it simply provided some of them. OSX would still exist without bash.