4 ms·
Tangential to AU/X and licensing costs, I think this is why OS X was something like a "from scratch" recreation of NeXTSTEP instead of being a straight port. Th
by spijdar 5y ago
Tangential to AU/X and licensing costs, I think this is why OS X was something like a "from scratch" recreation of NeXTSTEP instead of being a straight port. They replaced the AT&T licensed UNIX core with a new open source one derived from the 386BSD forks (and DEC's OSF/1 mach fork), and replaced the display postscript WindowServer with Quartz, both for licensing cost and performance reasons.
At least, that's my impression from comparing NeXTSTEP and early OS X. A lot of the "base layer" was totally replaced, including those troublesome licensed bits.
- pjmlp 5y agoYou forgot there was still OpenSTEP and the collaboration with Sun, which ended up having an influence on a language being designed at the time called Oak. Early versions of OS X were still based on OpenSTEP, thus able to run on top of Windows as well.
- spijdar 5y agoOpenStep was still based on Mach 2 and (encumbered) 4.3BSD. OS X Server 1.0 was very OpenStep like yes, it used the old Display Postscript server and was more compatible with next/openstep (I think the display servers were similar enough you could forward OpenSTEP software to a OS X Server 1.0 windowserver), but I believe it was based on the un-encumbered XNU, and couldn't directly run OpenSTEP programs due to this impedance. I'm fairly certain Rhapsody is the same, using the OSFMK kernel and 4.4BSD "lite". At least, I don't think OS X Server 1.0 software would have worked on the OpenSTEP for Enterprise stuff?
- pjmlp 5y agoThat much I don't recall, maybe, not sure.
- lukeh 5y agoRhapsody was still pre-Mk but had 4.4BSD userland. It could run OPENSTEP binaries if you copied the shared libraries over, from memory one of the ex-NeXT engineers did this for fun.
- spijdar 5y agoCool :) this is all before my time but I've got a few Sun boxes running various old BSDs and Nextstep 3.3. I've always been kind of curious how hard it'd be to get NetBSD's COMPAT_DARWIN and COMPAT_MACH to run the next/openstep userland...
- cat199 5y agoI had thought NeXTStep was always BSD based? Still might have paid the unix license; this was pre AT&T vs USL, but, thought nextstep was basically CMU mach (which itself was BSD+Mach) + the NextStep frameworks/ui
- pasc1878 5y agoYes the apis eg cocoa are the openstep apis and the terminal tools under openstep were BSD
- spijdar 5y agoNeXTSTEP/OpenSTEP were based on 4.3BSD/4.4BSD(not-lite) and required a license from AT&T to distribute. I assume that, to be legally safe, they would have scrapped that code entirely and replaced it with 4.4BSD lite, pulling in code from 4.4BSD lite forks like FreeBSD and NetBSD.
- asveikau 5y agoIt also probably has to do with personalities, and who did what. NeXT was the Jobs thing. So Jobs came back, and they based things on NeXT.
- pjmlp 5y agoWhile killing almost everything else. The video of the audience heat he is taking for those decisions and how he goes justifying his decisions is worth watching for anyone that needs to go through something similar.
- perardi 5y agoThough he did notably compromise on Carbon. The early plan was Cocoa/App Kit all the way, which meant a fundamental rewrite of all the important applications, namely Adobe and Microsoft stuff. Which would not have flown.
- pjmlp 5y agoSean Parent was key on that whole process, given his role at Adobe and Apple, hear his interviews here, https://adspthepodcast.com/ https://adspthepodcast.com/
- vintagedave 5y agoDo you have a link to that video?
- mrpippy 5y agohttps://archive.org/details/wwdc-1997-fireside-chat-steve-jobs https://archive.org/details/wwdc-1997-fireside-chat-steve-jo...