Macs

[Liam Proven]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:12 PM, John McCabe-Dansted <gmatht at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds a somewhat like MkLinux.

Yes, it is. MkLinux involved running the Linux kernel on top of Mach
in an analagous way.

> I understand that MkLinux is binary
> compatible with Linux so its possible to maintain Linux compatibility
> with Mach

Nope, a leap too far based on faulty reasoning.

Running a Linux kernel on Mach gives you something Linux-compatible.
But OS X does not run a Linux kernel on top of Mach, it runs /part/ of
a BSD kernel on top of Mach, so the part that lends Linux
compatibility is missing.

As is most of Linux's infrastructure: the /etc file structure is all
different, there is no /home and  so on. OS X is not a very
traditional-Unix-like Unix.

> (And MkLinux is closer to being a true micro-kernel
> architecture, according to wikipedia). Given that Darwin is
> opensource, arguably it is possible to run Linux binaries on Darwin
> given a sufficient amount of effort and a sufficiently loose
> definition of "Darwin". It shouldn't even take that much effort if the
> statement "OS X instead takes the NextStep approach and runs a hybrid
> system where the BSD kernel is grafted on top of Mach running in a
> single kernel address space." from Wikipedia is correct.

OS X /is/ NextStep, just a newer version.

I'm not sure why you'd want Linux compatibility, though. Yes Linux has
lots of apps, but then, most of 'em are FOSS and so can be ported for
a true native executable rather than an inevitably flawed emulator.
And these days you could run real Linux inside a VM anyway.

> The BSDs in general do seem to like binary compatibility. There is a
> (stalled) project to support MacOS X binaries on NetBSD.

Partly because there are relatively few apps for the BSDs.

OTOH, there are tons of apps for OS X, many are very high quality, and
even a lot of the closed-source ones are small-f free, so there is
much less demand for programs from other xNixes on OS X.

It is worth remembering that OS is not only the most successful
commercial Unix ever, it has outsold every other commercial Unix there
has ever been /all put together./ It also has an estimated 4x the
desktop market share of Linux.

So really, we don't have a lot to give OS X, but potentially, a lot to
learn from it.

At the user level, it is dramatically more polished than any Linux.
App installation is easier and more user-comprehensible. It looks
gorgeous and notably is significantly /unlike/ Windows, whereas Linux
is under the hovering MS thread of 275 infringements of Windows
patents on the desktop and how it works.

At the programmer level, Apple also innovates hard, with new tools and
facilities and languages and libraries which the FOSS world would do
well to emulate.

Much of OS X /is/ FOSS. Apple is FOSS-friendly.

Instead, many FOSS programmers are embracing Micros~1's .NET, which
however good it may be, is not GPL and is from a company that calls
Linux "communist", "cancer" and "a curse". Micro~1 is the world's
biggest, richest software company, the most litigious, it is
documented and convicted as a liar, a thief, a cheat and an illegal
monopolist.

We should /never/ trust /anything/ from MS, no matter how good or
useful or tempting it may seem. Make no mistake, MS would like to
exterminate the FOSS community from the face of the Earth.


-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508