6 ms·

Does anybody know how jobs decided to base next on open source code (bsd)? It seems sort of antithetical to everything he stood for.

enf 8y ago
I don't know the story, but 4.3BSD, which went into NeXTStep, was not open source. It wasn't until 4.4BSD that BSD was available without a paid Unix license. NeXT tried to get away with a closed-source fork of GCC for Objective C, but eventually backed down under legal threat.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Which was probably one of the reasons why they ended up writing LLVM.
  - davidgay 8y ago
    LLVM was a UIUC project.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Ok, hiring the project lead early in development and steering the project towards Apple's goals, then.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - kps 8y ago
        Don't forget RMS's refusal to accept patches to gcc to run on the Mac.
  - koffiezet 8y ago
    The dropping of GCC and adopting LLVM is directly related to the pending switch to GPLv3 of GCC. If there's one thing companies don't like, it's uncertainty - and the whole GPLv3 discussion gave them exactly that. They needed an alternative - and placed their bets on the more liberally licensed LLVM project.
- lukeh 8y ago
  I think OPENSTEP for Mach 4.0, the version with the new UI that never shipped post-beta, may have been based on 4.4BSD. It wasn’t until Rhapsody that this was dusted off with bits pulled in from FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD (you can see this history in the Darwin libc source hierarchy).
macintux 8y ago
That's a good question, although I wouldn't characterize it as antithetical to his beliefs. I'd wager it was far more expeditious to develop on top of a professional-grade OS than to start over from scratch. He wanted to sell high-end hardware, and it's hard to do that with a primitive operating system. Anyway, interesting question, would also like to know how that decision was made.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
The Mach kernel was never really open source, I think?
- dfox 8y ago
  Mach kernel is open source for much longer time than that term itself exists. Original "GNU system" (what is known today as GNU/Hurd) was supposed to use Mach as kernel. In late 80's there were multiple projects that attemped to build unix-like system on top of Mach (what essentially is academic project) out of these NeXT/OS X is the only one still really relevant. Another such project was OSF/1, which also took the way of running essentially all of real unix kernel space as one big Mach thread with code derived from BSD, this became DEC/Compaq/HP(E) Tru64 and all other systems build on this OSF/1 base never really worked with sufficient performance. (And for Tru64 on it's original Alpha platform Mach is slightly weird choice as the CPU essentially comes with it's own "microkernel" in microcode/firmware).
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    Yes I mis-remembered. The source was always open, but parts of it were encumbered by ATT Unix licensing.
- scruffyherder 8y ago
  It was heavily based on 4.3BSD, so it needed an AT&T 32v license at the time.... https://unix.superglobalmegacorp.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/mach25/?cvsroot=Mach;only_with_tag=MAIN https://unix.superglobalmegacorp.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/mach...
pjmlp 8y ago
No, because with BSD license companies are free to withhold their code. NeXT was never about UNIX, rather the foundation libraries, UI Builder and everything that was possible to do with Objective-C, including writing device drivers. UNIX compatibility was a way to embrace the software of the blooming market of UNIX workstation startups, and fill a checkmark on the requirements list.
GeekyBear 8y ago
The Computer History Museum has one of their long form interviews with Avie Tevanian, who led the creation of Mach (multiprocessor BSD) as his Ph.D project. (His faculty advisor went on to head Microsoft Research) Next and Microsoft both sought to hire him, and he eventually went on to be in charge of the OS at Next and later Apple. One of the topics he covered in the interview was how Next (and Apple) decided to use and contribute back to open sourced software at the lower levels of their stack. He also covers what it was like to work for Steve Jobs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwCdKU9uYnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwCdKU9uYnE
- cmacaskill 8y ago
  It's funny, for a long time Avie had a calculator on his NeXT screen to show Microsoft stock and the cost of coming to NeXT. But Apple stock did okay later, so it wasn't the disaster it once looked to be.

enf 8y ago

I don't know the story, but 4.3BSD, which went into NeXTStep, was not open source. It wasn't until 4.4BSD that BSD was available without a paid Unix license. NeXT tried to get away with a closed-source fork of GCC for Objective C, but eventually backed down under legal threat.

saagarjha 8y ago
Which was probably one of the reasons why they ended up writing LLVM.
- davidgay 8y ago
  LLVM was a UIUC project.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Ok, hiring the project lead early in development and steering the project towards Apple's goals, then.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kps 8y ago
      Don't forget RMS's refusal to accept patches to gcc to run on the Mac.
- koffiezet 8y ago
  The dropping of GCC and adopting LLVM is directly related to the pending switch to GPLv3 of GCC. If there's one thing companies don't like, it's uncertainty - and the whole GPLv3 discussion gave them exactly that. They needed an alternative - and placed their bets on the more liberally licensed LLVM project.
lukeh 8y ago
I think OPENSTEP for Mach 4.0, the version with the new UI that never shipped post-beta, may have been based on 4.4BSD. It wasn’t until Rhapsody that this was dusted off with bits pulled in from FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD (you can see this history in the Darwin libc source hierarchy).

macintux 8y ago

That's a good question, although I wouldn't characterize it as antithetical to his beliefs. I'd wager it was far more expeditious to develop on top of a professional-grade OS than to start over from scratch. He wanted to sell high-end hardware, and it's hard to do that with a primitive operating system. Anyway, interesting question, would also like to know how that decision was made.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

The Mach kernel was never really open source, I think?

dfox 8y ago
Mach kernel is open source for much longer time than that term itself exists. Original "GNU system" (what is known today as GNU/Hurd) was supposed to use Mach as kernel. In late 80's there were multiple projects that attemped to build unix-like system on top of Mach (what essentially is academic project) out of these NeXT/OS X is the only one still really relevant. Another such project was OSF/1, which also took the way of running essentially all of real unix kernel space as one big Mach thread with code derived from BSD, this became DEC/Compaq/HP(E) Tru64 and all other systems build on this OSF/1 base never really worked with sufficient performance. (And for Tru64 on it's original Alpha platform Mach is slightly weird choice as the CPU essentially comes with it's own "microkernel" in microcode/firmware).
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  Yes I mis-remembered. The source was always open, but parts of it were encumbered by ATT Unix licensing.
scruffyherder 8y ago
It was heavily based on 4.3BSD, so it needed an AT&T 32v license at the time.... https://unix.superglobalmegacorp.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/mach25/?cvsroot=Mach;only_with_tag=MAIN https://unix.superglobalmegacorp.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/mach...

pjmlp 8y ago

No, because with BSD license companies are free to withhold their code. NeXT was never about UNIX, rather the foundation libraries, UI Builder and everything that was possible to do with Objective-C, including writing device drivers. UNIX compatibility was a way to embrace the software of the blooming market of UNIX workstation startups, and fill a checkmark on the requirements list.

GeekyBear 8y ago

The Computer History Museum has one of their long form interviews with Avie Tevanian, who led the creation of Mach (multiprocessor BSD) as his Ph.D project. (His faculty advisor went on to head Microsoft Research) Next and Microsoft both sought to hire him, and he eventually went on to be in charge of the OS at Next and later Apple. One of the topics he covered in the interview was how Next (and Apple) decided to use and contribute back to open sourced software at the lower levels of their stack. He also covers what it was like to work for Steve Jobs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwCdKU9uYnE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwCdKU9uYnE

cmacaskill 8y ago
It's funny, for a long time Avie had a calculator on his NeXT screen to show Microsoft stock and the cost of coming to NeXT. But Apple stock did okay later, so it wasn't the disaster it once looked to be.