5 ms·

OSX roots are in BSD https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/ https://www.wired.com/2013/08/jordan-hubbard/

jaquers 6y ago
Also id ran software on NeXTSTEP, itself a precursor of OSX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#Legacy
- deckard1 6y ago
  yep, was going to say that this is probably the real source behind the mystery. Early OS X is basically NeXT when Jobs came back to Apple. Doom was developed on NeXT, so id Software and Carmack already had a history of using BSD. They also released Quake for Linux around 1996, which may have used X11 (I cannot recall, maybe it just depended on 3dfx/nvidia without X11 at the time... it's been so long)
  - bluedino 6y ago
    The original quake on Linux used svgalib and was done by Dave Taylor and GAlexand (EFnet #c??)
  - asveikau 6y ago
    There are writings floating around from Carmack that he was playing around with the OS X prototypes back when it was called Rhapsody in the late 90s. I also thought I read somewhere that Carmack persuaded Apple to bet big on OpenGL for OS X. (Ironic now that it's deprecated.)
    - kalleboo 6y ago
      Carmacks's blog post with his Steve Jobs stories, including him persuading Apple to adopt OpenGL https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2146412825593223&id=100006735798590 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2146412825...
    - traviscj 6y ago
      Doesn't seem like a _bad_ bet considering it lasted 20 years and like 14 versions, though...
      - asveikau 6y ago
        If it were up to me they wouldn't deprecate it, so I wouldn't call it a bad bet either.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  I think that was the case for Doom, but for Quake 2 and 3 a SGI Origin 2000 was used.
yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Yeah, but the "normal" BSDs just ship an X server out of the box; no need to port anything. (It remains curious to me that Apple bothered writing Quartz from the ground up, actually; seems like it would've been easier to build on top of X.)
- floatboth 6y ago
  By writing Quartz from the ground up, Apple accomplished "every frame is perfect, by design" in the year 2000, which we in the free world are only getting now by switching to Wayland.
- catblast 6y ago
  Building on X gets you very little other than compatibility with the X ecosystem - something that had little to no value to Apple - they certainly didn't want to promote OSX as some kind of Xserver in place of writing quality Mac apps. Note that with current X, HiDPI and multi-monitor and tear-free experience still have problems and they are handled via a morass of legacy extensions of varying design quality (this is aside from the drivers issue)-- when OS X was started, none of these existed except maybe DBE and a nascent RANDR (there was no COMPOSITE, no RENDER, RANDR vs very primitive), I think there was the Xinerama crap that no one uses anymore because it is terrible. So they would have had to develop that, for what benefit? What does X get you out of the box? A drawing model that was outdated even by 1995 standards. And network transparency? Everytime these discussions come up, somebody brings this up, and I wonder what drugs they are on. The love by some for the X network model has always baffled me, because it is terrible - it has virtually no practical usability for modern drawing models and compositing, and the worst is it isn't robust - lose your TCP connection, goodbye session! X hits #1 and #2 of the "Fallacies of distributed computing" pretty hard. RDP, VNC, SPICE are what we use today, for very good reasons.
  - gonzo 6y ago
    “X is rasterop on wheels” — wnj in Unix Today 6/25 page 5. "..., Richie reminded the audience that Steve Jobs stood at the same podium a few years back and announced that X was brain-dead and would soon die. "He was half-right," Ritchie said. "Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22502125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22502125

Also id ran software on NeXTSTEP, itself a precursor of OSX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#Legacy

deckard1 6y ago
yep, was going to say that this is probably the real source behind the mystery. Early OS X is basically NeXT when Jobs came back to Apple. Doom was developed on NeXT, so id Software and Carmack already had a history of using BSD. They also released Quake for Linux around 1996, which may have used X11 (I cannot recall, maybe it just depended on 3dfx/nvidia without X11 at the time... it's been so long)
- bluedino 6y ago
  The original quake on Linux used svgalib and was done by Dave Taylor and GAlexand (EFnet #c??)
- asveikau 6y ago
  There are writings floating around from Carmack that he was playing around with the OS X prototypes back when it was called Rhapsody in the late 90s. I also thought I read somewhere that Carmack persuaded Apple to bet big on OpenGL for OS X. (Ironic now that it's deprecated.)
  - kalleboo 6y ago
    Carmacks's blog post with his Steve Jobs stories, including him persuading Apple to adopt OpenGL https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2146412825593223&id=100006735798590 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2146412825...
  - traviscj 6y ago
    Doesn't seem like a _bad_ bet considering it lasted 20 years and like 14 versions, though...
    - asveikau 6y ago
      If it were up to me they wouldn't deprecate it, so I wouldn't call it a bad bet either.
29athrowaway 6y ago
I think that was the case for Doom, but for Quake 2 and 3 a SGI Origin 2000 was used.

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago

Yeah, but the "normal" BSDs just ship an X server out of the box; no need to port anything. (It remains curious to me that Apple bothered writing Quartz from the ground up, actually; seems like it would've been easier to build on top of X.)

floatboth 6y ago
By writing Quartz from the ground up, Apple accomplished "every frame is perfect, by design" in the year 2000, which we in the free world are only getting now by switching to Wayland.
catblast 6y ago
Building on X gets you very little other than compatibility with the X ecosystem - something that had little to no value to Apple - they certainly didn't want to promote OSX as some kind of Xserver in place of writing quality Mac apps. Note that with current X, HiDPI and multi-monitor and tear-free experience still have problems and they are handled via a morass of legacy extensions of varying design quality (this is aside from the drivers issue)-- when OS X was started, none of these existed except maybe DBE and a nascent RANDR (there was no COMPOSITE, no RENDER, RANDR vs very primitive), I think there was the Xinerama crap that no one uses anymore because it is terrible. So they would have had to develop that, for what benefit? What does X get you out of the box? A drawing model that was outdated even by 1995 standards. And network transparency? Everytime these discussions come up, somebody brings this up, and I wonder what drugs they are on. The love by some for the X network model has always baffled me, because it is terrible - it has virtually no practical usability for modern drawing models and compositing, and the worst is it isn't robust - lose your TCP connection, goodbye session! X hits #1 and #2 of the "Fallacies of distributed computing" pretty hard. RDP, VNC, SPICE are what we use today, for very good reasons.
- gonzo 6y ago
  “X is rasterop on wheels” — wnj in Unix Today 6/25 page 5. "..., Richie reminded the audience that Steve Jobs stood at the same podium a few years back and announced that X was brain-dead and would soon die. "He was half-right," Ritchie said. "Sometimes when you fill a vacuum, it still sucks." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22502125 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22502125