7 ms·

As a longtime NeXTSTEP user, I still remember the first time I perused the filesystem of Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah) in 2001. And I distinctly remember thinking to

As a longtime NeXTSTEP user, I still remember the first time I perused the filesystem of Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah) in 2001. And I distinctly remember thinking to myself that Apple basically took NeXTSTEP and slapped their own window manager and app framework on it only. The filesystem and toolset was nearly identical, and I even found several config files (I don't remember which ones) that still had NeXTSTEP listed in the comments. As I evolved to develop iOS apps in the 2010s, NSObject (NS=NeXTSTEP) continued to be a reminder of this same lineage.

mepian 2y ago
NS stood for NeXT and Sun. NX was the original prefix before OpenSTEP. EDIT: I might be wrong about the first part, see my comment below.
- ManuelKiessling 2y ago
  Uh, that‘s interesting! Do you have a source for this (or is it firsthand knowledge?)
  - mepian 2y ago
    I have an original "NeXTstep Concepts" manual with the NX prefix. I can't remember where I heard the "NeXT and Sun" explanation for the first time, but a Google search shows that the prefix change could've actually occurred before the collaboration with Sun. It could stand for NeXT Software, as it's closer to the transition to a software company.
    - Reason077 2y ago
      The "NS" prefix was introduced with OpenStep in 1994[1]. OpenStep was a collaboration between NeXT and Sun[2]. So the S in "NS" referring to Sun is certainly plausible! [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaFundamentals/WhatIsCocoa/WhatIsCocoa.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002974-CH3-SW12 https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep
      - SeanLuke 2y ago
        Per bbum and others, NS long predated Sun getting involved.
      - the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
        A person that was involved with the project claims the prefix predates Sun's involvement [1]. > Totally wrong. The NS prefix predated Sun signing on to implement the OpenStep spec by quite a bit. It was either NS for “NeXTStep” or “New System”. None of us can remember which, though, but definitely not NeXT-Sun. [1]: https://x.com/bbum/status/1260304075305791488 https://x.com/bbum/status/1260304075305791488
  - teaearlgraycold 2y ago
    I first read that in a Fabien Sanglard book, probably Game Engine Black Book: DOOM?
- jasoneckert 2y ago
  According to Wikipedia, NS stood for NeXTSTEP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Kit#:~:text=This%20framework%20uses%20the%20prefix,of%20the%20Swift%20standard%20library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Kit#:~:text=This%20.... I do remember people in my circles thinking it stood for NeXT Software (which was likely a more suitable name for its use at the time).
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  This is what I’ve heard. If true it’s funny as it effectively eliminates Sun’s inclusion in the acronym because everyone assumes it’s NextStep.
  - SeanLuke 2y ago
    Nope. NeXT switching from NX to NS predates Sun's involvement.
ninkendo 2y ago
> Apple basically took NeXTSTEP and slapped their own window manager and app framework on it only Yup, that’s precisely it, and Apple made no secret of this. As early as the mid 90s, Apple knew their OS was a dead end and they needed to start over with a new OS as the base. Their in-house effort (Copland) was becoming an obvious failure and it was apparent they needed outside help. At the time a lot of people thought BeOS was going to be it, but the deal fell through when it became apparent that having Steve come back was a priority, and buying NeXT came with him. But it was always gonna be the case that the OS was going to be totally replaced and only surface level UI conventions would be maintained from classic macOS.
- mepian 2y ago
  I wonder why exactly Copland went off the rails, do we have anyone from the Copland team here on HN who can share their view?
  - johnflan 2y ago
    I’d love to know more about its design too
    - KerrAvon 2y ago
      Apple published a book about it: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/524838 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/524838
    - mrpippy 2y ago
      A bunch of documentation was posted here, although I’m not sure the links still work (might need to go through archive.org) https://www.pagetable.com/?p=211 https://www.pagetable.com/?p=211
  - zitterbewegung 2y ago
    From the wikipedia page it was that they were just adding feature after feature. As an aside it is very interesting that Classic Mac OS was attempted to be replaced by a microkernel twice but was successful because they figured out how to ship NeXT with fresh paint and an slightly improved window manager that really was just NeXT if you compare the two. (A/UX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX, Copland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

mepian 2y ago

NS stood for NeXT and Sun. NX was the original prefix before OpenSTEP. EDIT: I might be wrong about the first part, see my comment below.

ManuelKiessling 2y ago
Uh, that‘s interesting! Do you have a source for this (or is it firsthand knowledge?)
- mepian 2y ago
  I have an original "NeXTstep Concepts" manual with the NX prefix. I can't remember where I heard the "NeXT and Sun" explanation for the first time, but a Google search shows that the prefix change could've actually occurred before the collaboration with Sun. It could stand for NeXT Software, as it's closer to the transition to a software company.
  - Reason077 2y ago
    The "NS" prefix was introduced with OpenStep in 1994[1]. OpenStep was a collaboration between NeXT and Sun[2]. So the S in "NS" referring to Sun is certainly plausible! [1] https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaFundamentals/WhatIsCocoa/WhatIsCocoa.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40002974-CH3-SW12 https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Co... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep
    - SeanLuke 2y ago
      Per bbum and others, NS long predated Sun getting involved.
    - the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
      A person that was involved with the project claims the prefix predates Sun's involvement [1]. > Totally wrong. The NS prefix predated Sun signing on to implement the OpenStep spec by quite a bit. It was either NS for “NeXTStep” or “New System”. None of us can remember which, though, but definitely not NeXT-Sun. [1]: https://x.com/bbum/status/1260304075305791488 https://x.com/bbum/status/1260304075305791488
- teaearlgraycold 2y ago
  I first read that in a Fabien Sanglard book, probably Game Engine Black Book: DOOM?
jasoneckert 2y ago
According to Wikipedia, NS stood for NeXTSTEP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Kit#:~:text=This%20framework%20uses%20the%20prefix,of%20the%20Swift%20standard%20library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Kit#:~:text=This%20.... I do remember people in my circles thinking it stood for NeXT Software (which was likely a more suitable name for its use at the time).
teaearlgraycold 2y ago
This is what I’ve heard. If true it’s funny as it effectively eliminates Sun’s inclusion in the acronym because everyone assumes it’s NextStep.
- SeanLuke 2y ago
  Nope. NeXT switching from NX to NS predates Sun's involvement.

ninkendo 2y ago

> Apple basically took NeXTSTEP and slapped their own window manager and app framework on it only Yup, that’s precisely it, and Apple made no secret of this. As early as the mid 90s, Apple knew their OS was a dead end and they needed to start over with a new OS as the base. Their in-house effort (Copland) was becoming an obvious failure and it was apparent they needed outside help. At the time a lot of people thought BeOS was going to be it, but the deal fell through when it became apparent that having Steve come back was a priority, and buying NeXT came with him. But it was always gonna be the case that the OS was going to be totally replaced and only surface level UI conventions would be maintained from classic macOS.

mepian 2y ago
I wonder why exactly Copland went off the rails, do we have anyone from the Copland team here on HN who can share their view?
- johnflan 2y ago
  I’d love to know more about its design too
  - KerrAvon 2y ago
    Apple published a book about it: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/524838 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/524838
  - mrpippy 2y ago
    A bunch of documentation was posted here, although I’m not sure the links still work (might need to go through archive.org) https://www.pagetable.com/?p=211 https://www.pagetable.com/?p=211
- zitterbewegung 2y ago
  From the wikipedia page it was that they were just adding feature after feature. As an aside it is very interesting that Classic Mac OS was attempted to be replaced by a microkernel twice but was successful because they figured out how to ship NeXT with fresh paint and an slightly improved window manager that really was just NeXT if you compare the two. (A/UX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX, Copland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]