4 ms·

That Apple has a huge amount of mindshare but nobody realizes how much of OSX is based on BSD/FreeBSD is a problem. The license is a success in the sense that

by stolio 12y ago

That Apple has a huge amount of mindshare but nobody realizes how much of OSX is based on BSD/FreeBSD is a problem. The license is a success in the sense that the code is being used, but it's failed to protect the project/brand from a situation where their code is being used worldwide without anybody realizing it.

flomo 12y ago
I would disagree. Among the people for which that information is relevant, the vast majority are aware Apple is using BSD. (In fact the biggest misconception seem to be that Apple is using vanilla BSD or FreeBSD, when it's actually based on CMU Mach/BSD.)
- stolio 12y ago
  Somebody should tell Apple to change their docs then: > Darwin 1.4.1 is the UNIX-based, open-source foundation of Mac OS X. It is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies and provides protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. This release corresponds to the release of Mac OS X 10.1. https://support.apple.com/kb/TA25634?locale=en_US https://support.apple.com/kb/TA25634?locale=en_US . > The BSD portion of the OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...
  - flomo 12y ago
    I don't believe that disagrees with what I said, but if there's any confusion in terms of how it was worded, thanks for the clarification.
    - stolio 12y ago
      Perhaps it depends on how you distribute "vanilla" across the "or"? I read it as "(vanilla BSD) or FreeBSD" but perhaps you meant "vanilla BSD or vanilla FreeBSD" I don't agree that 'the people that matter know' is necessarily accurate, I also don't think it's sufficient. FreeBSD depends on donations and people donate for a mix of reasons. For example you can successfully brag about donating to "Linux" because even in non-tech circles people know Linux is cool. But even in tech circles people don't know much about FreeBSD. Not that donations as a from of conspicuous social responsibility makes sense from a rational point of view, but we're humans and there are many situations where we spend money just so people see us do it.
      - flomo 12y ago
        No, I'm really just talking about common dumb statements you see on tech sites like "Mac OS X is just *BSD with a pretty GUI". When in reality they've been maintaining their own fork for almost 20 years now, for serious technical reasons. Keep in mind that both BSD Unix and CMU/Mach were funded by the government in order to advance the state of the domestic computer industry. In terms of successful government research projects, these two would have near top of the list! That being said, it would be great if "FreeBSD" had a bigger brand (and perhaps wasn't seen as Apple's vassal.) But I think that has more to do with the fact that Linux effectively beat them to market versus any license logic.

by stolio 12y ago

flomo 12y ago

I would disagree. Among the people for which that information is relevant, the vast majority are aware Apple is using BSD. (In fact the biggest misconception seem to be that Apple is using vanilla BSD or FreeBSD, when it's actually based on CMU Mach/BSD.)

stolio 12y ago
Somebody should tell Apple to change their docs then: > Darwin 1.4.1 is the UNIX-based, open-source foundation of Mac OS X. It is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies and provides protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. This release corresponds to the release of Mac OS X 10.1. https://support.apple.com/kb/TA25634?locale=en_US https://support.apple.com/kb/TA25634?locale=en_US . > The BSD portion of the OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD, a version of 4.4BSD that offers advanced networking, performance, security, and compatibility features. https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/BSD.html https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...
- flomo 12y ago
  I don't believe that disagrees with what I said, but if there's any confusion in terms of how it was worded, thanks for the clarification.
  - stolio 12y ago
    Perhaps it depends on how you distribute "vanilla" across the "or"? I read it as "(vanilla BSD) or FreeBSD" but perhaps you meant "vanilla BSD or vanilla FreeBSD" I don't agree that 'the people that matter know' is necessarily accurate, I also don't think it's sufficient. FreeBSD depends on donations and people donate for a mix of reasons. For example you can successfully brag about donating to "Linux" because even in non-tech circles people know Linux is cool. But even in tech circles people don't know much about FreeBSD. Not that donations as a from of conspicuous social responsibility makes sense from a rational point of view, but we're humans and there are many situations where we spend money just so people see us do it.
    - flomo 12y ago
      No, I'm really just talking about common dumb statements you see on tech sites like "Mac OS X is just *BSD with a pretty GUI". When in reality they've been maintaining their own fork for almost 20 years now, for serious technical reasons. Keep in mind that both BSD Unix and CMU/Mach were funded by the government in order to advance the state of the domestic computer industry. In terms of successful government research projects, these two would have near top of the list! That being said, it would be great if "FreeBSD" had a bigger brand (and perhaps wasn't seen as Apple's vassal.) But I think that has more to do with the fact that Linux effectively beat them to market versus any license logic.