5 ms·
It does count, they may have started with FreeBSD but they also had to write/rewrite a ton of stuff and throw away APIs and introduce new ones. I think the Free
by boundlessdreamz 17y ago
It does count, they may have started with FreeBSD but they also had to write/rewrite a ton of stuff and throw away APIs and introduce new ones. I think the FreeBSD code is only a tiny (but critical) part of OSX
- ensignavenger 17y agoActually, there is NO FreeBSD code in OS X- see this presentation- http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2303.en.html http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2303.en.h... (Someone posted it on HN some time ago).
- j_baker 17y agoI think you mean to say that there is no FreeBSD code in the OS X kernel.
- ensignavenger 17y agoYeah, that is what I meant. It certainly isn't "based on" FreeBSD.
- ensignavenger 17y agoYeah, that is what I meant. It certainly isn't "based on" FreeBSD.
- bodhi 17y agoAnd the rest is from NeXT? (I kid, I kid.)
- encoderer 17y agoThe part you're overlooking is that NeXT was as attractive to Apple as it was because they had a series of high-profile failures to develop a replacement OS in house. In Apple's case the re-write idea turned out horribly and the only reason they made it thru is because a former founder had created a startup years earlier and had a working OS that Apple could buy and use. Apple is hardly a poster child for re-writing software.
- rbanffy 17y agoAt least the look and feel they developed for Copland were re-used in MacOS 8 and 9... It looked cool, in the late 90s.