4 ms·

I seem to remember OS X being based on BSD/386, part of the proof being a number of bugs in early OS X systems that had been fixed in BSD/386 before FreeBSD, Op

I seem to remember OS X being based on BSD/386, part of the proof being a number of bugs in early OS X systems that had been fixed in BSD/386 before FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD forked. Almost as if OS X was fork that pre-dated the more famous distributions.

imanaccount247 12y ago
You remember incorrectly. It was based on FreeBSD. Apple employed FreeBSD developers to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hubbard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Hubbard
- gonzo 12y ago
  It was NetBSD until Jordan made it FreeBSD.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    I can find no evidence to support that claim. Do you have some?
justincormack 12y ago
NextStep was based on earlier BSD, but it was extensively reworked as OS X.
- lukeh 12y ago
  OS X user land was being synced with FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc as far back as 1997.
  - sbuk 12y ago
    NeXT/OPENSTEP, for sure, but OS X didn't exist in 1997.
    - empthought 12y ago
      It was called Rhapsody then, and work had started on it even before the ink was dry on the NeXT acquisition. The rebranding to OS X was largely cosmetic from the command-line userland and underlying OS architecture's points of view, despite what the tech media often claimed about it at the time. OS X ported "Carbon" Mac OS 9 APIs to the new operating system; the Rhapsody strategy was either "Yellow Box" (former OpenStep, now Cocoa) runtime, or run in an emulation environment.