3 ms·

This article predates it, but OS X (particularly after it mutated into iOS) represents probably the biggest source of systems innovation in the two decades afte

This article predates it, but OS X (particularly after it mutated into iOS) represents probably the biggest source of systems innovation in the two decades after this article. Apple is very secretive, so their systems research often isn’t known outside the company until it’s actually going into a product. OS X was modern for its time, but where they’ve really pushed the envelope is with iOS. They can simply move faster at scale than anyone else because they almost entirely own the IP for both the software and all major hardware components and can pivot on a dime compared to market-based coordination.

kllrnohj 7y ago
At launch Android was way more innovative at a systems level with per-application UID sand-boxing & a permission system and system-integration capabilities (broadcasts, services, intents, etc...) iOS was innovative at a UI/UX level, definitely. But I can't really think of anything they did at a systems level that was at all innovative?
- naasking 7y ago
  Android didn't innovate those. Per-application sandboxing was the default in capability systems since the 60s, and became more widely deployed in the OLPC Bitfrost security model, and even had a deployment in HP labs' Polaris Windows NT-based environment for virus safe computing. These two projects informed the early Android security model IIRC.
jascii 7y ago
I always understood that the "Systems" component of OS X was called Darwin and is an open source project and anything but secretive.. Did something change?
icedchai 7y ago
OS X is NeXTStep at the core. It dates back to the 80's.
naasking 7y ago
> This article predates it, but OS X (particularly after it mutated into iOS) represents probably the biggest source of systems innovation in the two decades after this article There was almost nothing innovative about OS X, even when it came out. It was just packaged and marketed very well. Objectice-C and NeXTSTEP was a user land improvement over typical C user lands, but that's not saying much. > OS X was modern for its time It really wasn't. The Mach "microkernel" was from outdated 80s research. It's bloated, slow and inflexible compared to the state of the art at the time.

kllrnohj 7y ago

At launch Android was way more innovative at a systems level with per-application UID sand-boxing & a permission system and system-integration capabilities (broadcasts, services, intents, etc...) iOS was innovative at a UI/UX level, definitely. But I can't really think of anything they did at a systems level that was at all innovative?

naasking 7y ago
Android didn't innovate those. Per-application sandboxing was the default in capability systems since the 60s, and became more widely deployed in the OLPC Bitfrost security model, and even had a deployment in HP labs' Polaris Windows NT-based environment for virus safe computing. These two projects informed the early Android security model IIRC.

jascii 7y ago

I always understood that the "Systems" component of OS X was called Darwin and is an open source project and anything but secretive.. Did something change?

icedchai 7y ago

OS X is NeXTStep at the core. It dates back to the 80's.

naasking 7y ago

> This article predates it, but OS X (particularly after it mutated into iOS) represents probably the biggest source of systems innovation in the two decades after this article There was almost nothing innovative about OS X, even when it came out. It was just packaged and marketed very well. Objectice-C and NeXTSTEP was a user land improvement over typical C user lands, but that's not saying much. > OS X was modern for its time It really wasn't. The Mach "microkernel" was from outdated 80s research. It's bloated, slow and inflexible compared to the state of the art at the time.