Linux and Mac OS, how similar?

[grimdeath]

Ive recently started playing with ubuntu linux and i LOVE it, im not sure if its just the gnome interface or what but i cant help but feel some Mac OS offshoots(or vice-versa)

so my question is, how similar are the 2 OS's, is linux connected to mac or the other way around, or are they 2 differnt things all together?! i know of the history between mac os and windows but i havent heard too much between linux and mac os

just curious, thanks!

 

[sourceninja]

well one thing that's similar is that MacOS and Unix use the same basic filesystem layout (/usr/, /etc, and so on) although they dont use it in the same way. MacOSX can also run X11 if you want to and run almost any BSD/unix/linux app you feel like using (takes a bit more work to get going I've been told, though I've never tried). In fact , i bet you could run gnome in side macOS (but who knows why you would). I know that for Maya the mac and linux install are basically the same. MacOSX uses GNU tools for its toolchain the same as most unix variants. The main differences are in the kernel, a few userspace programs that are used to help make the mac easy to configure, and the GUI (proprietary windowing system and librarys)

So its alike, only different.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Different kernels and much of the userland is different. Some of the concepts are about the same though.

 

[grimdeath]

i noticed the filesystem right off the bat, one of the first flags the pointed me towards all this, also the neat clear look of it all seems really familar lol MS needs to really take notice of this....sometime...

"so its alike, only differnt" LMAO, really clears all that up for me

my other question was if they have came froma similar origin? dont figure they have but just curious

 

[kamper]

I'd say, at a high level: quite different. At a middle level: quite similar (both have bash, are unix-like, posix environment...). At a low level: different again (like n0cmonkey explained).

How similar they are depends on how you use it.

You can also run X non-headless (headfull?) on osx, or so I've heard, so then you could run kde or gnome and make the top level similar again. But like sourceninja said, it's pretty silly to pay for mac hardware and osx and then run a different desktop.

 

[hooflung]

Well Windows XP and MacOS X are more similar than OSX and Linux.

Windows XP and OSX both have micro-kernels. Linux is a monolithic Kernel.

Windows XP and OSX both have a Proprietary GUI API. Linux has OOS GUI.

Windows XP and OSX can run the GNU environment. Linux IS a kernel.

Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

Windows XP and OSX are Operating Systems. Linux... as stated above... is a kernel.

Windows XP and OSX are confined, by their manufacturers, to a limited instructionset. XP being only x86 and OSX being PPC, Power4(PPC) and X86. Linux kernels can run on just about everything from watches to car radios.

Windows XP and OSX has most of their installation base through OEM bundles. Linux Distro's have yet to get a foothold in mass OEM markets for desktops.

Windows XP and OSX can only do so much as they are limited by their APIs. Linux Distro's can be fine tuned to fit the job at hand.

I will end with saying that they, Windows XP - MacOS X - Linux 'Insert Distro here'- , are all splendid OS's. I only take any problems with OSX and XP up with their manufacturers. Linux on the otherhand is more of a movement than a product. Through the Linux community a revolution in IT has come about. Yes there are linux products but the OSS community is driving the market toward a balance( albeit it's still far on the horizon ).

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: hooflung
Well Windows XP and MacOS X are more similar than OSX and Linux.

Windows XP and OSX both have micro-kernels. Linux is a monolithic Kernel.

actually, OSX is Micro, Linux is Mono, and NT is a Hybrid

Originally posted by: hooflung

Windows XP and OSX can run the GNU environment. Linux IS a kernel.

What do you conisider the "GNU Environment?"

Originally posted by: hooflung
Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

lol, That's right, Linux is just an after school project.

Sorry, I just think that you are waaay out there if you think OSX, a BSD based machine with a propriotary GUI is closer to Windows then Linux. I suppose HPUX is closer too, huh, and Solaris X86?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: hooflung
Well Windows XP and MacOS X are more similar than OSX and Linux.

Windows XP and OSX both have micro-kernels. Linux is a monolithic Kernel.

actually, OSX is Micro, Linux is Mono, and NT is a Hybrid

Does XNU count as fully micro, or does the FreeBSD kernel imbedded in it kind of kill that idea?

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: hooflung


Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

I'd hate to be the one to break it to you, but OSX is based of of BSD. FreeBSD to be exact.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

And anyone who wants to run it with the exception of a gui is free to do so. The source code for Darwin is public.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: hooflung


Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

I'd hate to be the one to break it to you, but OSX is based of of BSD. FreeBSD to be exact.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

And anyone who wants to run it with the exception of a gui is free to do so. The source code for Darwin is public.

I hate to break it to you, but Mac OS X is based off of NeXTstep. It uses an XNU kernel, which mixes FreeBSD and MACH 3.0.

 

[sourceninja]

http://developer.apple.com/documentatio...ix/background/chapter_2_section_2.html

I read that as next had some infuence, but the majority of it comes from BSD.

Thats just how I read it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
http://developer.apple.com/documentatio...ix/background/chapter_2_section_2.html

I read that as next had some infuence, but the majority of it comes from BSD.

Thats just how I read it.

I think if you look into NeXT, it'll seem a bit familiar.

 

[hooflung]

I'd hate to be the one to break it to you, but OSX is based of of BSD. FreeBSD to be exact.

Actually no... the mach kernel and the nextstep/openstep api is what OS X is based off of. Freebsd 4.4 userspace is the userspace that binds it all together.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: hooflung
Well Windows XP and MacOS X are more similar than OSX and Linux.

Windows XP and OSX both have micro-kernels. Linux is a monolithic Kernel.

actually, OSX is Micro, Linux is Mono, and NT is a Hybrid

Originally posted by: hooflung

Windows XP and OSX can run the GNU environment. Linux IS a kernel.

What do you conisider the "GNU Environment?"

Originally posted by: hooflung
Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

lol, That's right, Linux is just an after school project.

Sorry, I just think that you are waaay out there if you think OSX, a BSD based machine with a propriotary GUI is closer to Windows then Linux. I suppose HPUX is closer too, huh, and Solaris X86?

Do you even know what VMS is? Windows NT is an entire operating system built around a microkernel. It has 2 userspaces, based off of a protected mode 16bit OS/2 1.3 for dos compatibility and a win32 userspace that is POSIX 1.1 compliant. It has been hacked, slashed, diced and thriced into its current form But make no mistake it IS a great grandchild of VMS. It has its roots founded in VMS and OS2 and then emerging win32 api calls. NTFS is a port of MTFS.

This is almost mirrored by the OS/X project that IS NOT SPECIFICALLY freebsd 4.4. freebsd 4.4 is used by OS/X in the same mannor that the windows command line interpretor is used. The biggest difference is that Apple took more of Free BSD than Microsoft did of OS/2 due to liscensing. Why bother creating a tcp/ip stack for OS X when freebsd has a complete BSD stack?

Remember NT is POSIX 1.1 compliant and that means they are all similar in function. When we compare what is closer to what... the biggest differences will always be implementation NOT technology because a) they all run on the same arch and b) they all run C code and c) Applications are built on core libraries or machine code so arguing how close linux is to bsd/macosX because they both use GCC is pretty lame.

 

[Nothinman]

Windows XP and OSX can run the GNU environment. Linux IS a kernel.

I guess it depends on whether you consider being able to install cygwin on Windows "the GNU environment", I don't think I'd go that far.

Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

One of the original VMS developers was hired by MS to work on NT, so some internals of NT looks like VMS but NT is not based on VMS. I doubt Digital would have licensed VMS to MS for inclusion in another OS.

And Linux wasn't even done for a grade, it was done after school on personal time because Linus couldn't find a good, free unix for PC hardware.

Windows XP and OSX are confined, by their manufacturers, to a limited instructionset. XP being only x86 and OSX being PPC, Power4(PPC) and X86. Linux kernels can run on just about everything from watches to car radios.

NT was originally designed on PPC hardware. The original releases of NT 3.x up to 4.x were available for Alpha, MIPS, PPC and i386. NT now runs on i386, AMD64 and IA64. The other architectures were removed after NT4 because no one really cared. I haven't verified but I would be surprised if XP Embedded didn't support at least Arm processors too.

Windows XP and OSX can only do so much as they are limited by their APIs. Linux Distro's can be fine tuned to fit the job at hand.

That depends on your perspective. XP and OS X are slightly more limiting since you don't get the source code to them, but I can't think of anything major that can be done on Linux that can't (or couldn't provided the app was ported) be done on Windows or OS X.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
http://developer.apple.com/documentatio...ix/background/chapter_2_section_2.html

I read that as next had some infuence, but the majority of it comes from BSD.

Thats just how I read it.

Go play with GNU/Step. Write an objective C application NSxxxx gui commands and all. Then take your source and compile it on OS X. Notice your application is now OS X native. So when does the userspace come into play? It is the library that in nextstep/openstep, gnustep, and OS X that is the defining attribute not userland. GNU/Step will work on a mach kernel, Linux Kernel, BSD kernel etc etc. It will even run on a windows kernel thanks to Cygwin.

So if they all seem to work in the same mannor... at what point do we say this is like this or this is like that? I say in the history and implementation of the design. Afterall, Linux is just a kernel and not an operating system and that is not me arguing semantics... its fact. Now Linux does follow a pattern that the others have as well but the history has been firmly placed in OpenSource from day 1. FreeBSD cannot say that. Microsoft NT OS's cannot say that NOR can OS X say that. Those said OS's have a rich background involving lawers, trade secrets and folding companies into companies to paint their story.

 

[hooflung]

One of the original VMS developers was hired by MS to work on NT, so some internals of NT looks like VMS but NT is not based on VMS. I doubt Digital would have licensed VMS to MS for inclusion in another OS.

VMS was not copyright protected and thus MS liberally took code from it. Hiring a DEC developer was MS's way of getting someone who knew what they hell the code did. NT wasn't built from the ground up. It is VMS and OS/2 at the very heart of it.

 

[Nothinman]

VMS was not copyright protected and thus MS liberally took code from it. Hiring a DEC developer was MS's way of getting someone who knew what they hell the code did.

The way the US copyright system works is that by default the person or company that writes something owns the copyright to it by default. So unless Digital expressly put the source code in the public domain, that's impossible.

NT wasn't built from the ground up. It is VMS and OS/2 at the very heart of it.

And you know this because you've worked on both sets of source code?

 

[AtlantaBob]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

VMS was not copyright protected and thus MS liberally took code from it. Hiring a DEC developer was MS's way of getting someone who knew what they hell the code did.

The way the US copyright system works is that by default the person or company that writes something owns the copyright to it by default. So unless Digital expressly put the source code in the public domain, that's impossible.

NT wasn't built from the ground up. It is VMS and OS/2 at the very heart of it.

And you know this because you've worked on both sets of source code?

To hop into something that I'm in no way qualified for, isn't it true that Windows NT was Microsoft's solution after the Microsoft/IBM OS/2 partnership went south? I do recall reading quite a few articles that suggested NT was a branch off of ideas that were pioneered in OS/2.

Anyhow, just what I remember....

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: hooflung
Well Windows XP and MacOS X are more similar than OSX and Linux.

Windows XP and OSX both have micro-kernels. Linux is a monolithic Kernel.

Windows XP and OSX both have a Proprietary GUI API. Linux has OOS GUI.

Windows XP and OSX can run the GNU environment. Linux IS a kernel.

Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

Windows XP and OSX are Operating Systems. Linux... as stated above... is a kernel.

Windows XP and OSX are confined, by their manufacturers, to a limited instructionset. XP being only x86 and OSX being PPC, Power4(PPC) and X86. Linux kernels can run on just about everything from watches to car radios.

Windows XP and OSX has most of their installation base through OEM bundles. Linux Distro's have yet to get a foothold in mass OEM markets for desktops.

Windows XP and OSX can only do so much as they are limited by their APIs. Linux Distro's can be fine tuned to fit the job at hand.

I will end with saying that they, Windows XP - MacOS X - Linux 'Insert Distro here'- , are all splendid OS's. I only take any problems with OSX and XP up with their manufacturers. Linux on the otherhand is more of a movement than a product. Through the Linux community a revolution in IT has come about. Yes there are linux products but the OSS community is driving the market toward a balance( albeit it's still far on the horizon ).

How would you get linux to run on a car radio!? Most radios don't even have a processor so I don't see how this would be possible. Would this be an advanced radio that has a gui and all? That'd be more understandable, what would the advantage be? Free range of thing s you can do on your car radio? Just for fun?

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

VMS was not copyright protected and thus MS liberally took code from it. Hiring a DEC developer was MS's way of getting someone who knew what they hell the code did.

The way the US copyright system works is that by default the person or company that writes something owns the copyright to it by default. So unless Digital expressly put the source code in the public domain, that's impossible.

NT wasn't built from the ground up. It is VMS and OS/2 at the very heart of it.

And you know this because you've worked on both sets of source code?

Good friend of mine actually worked on the development team of Windows NT 3.1.

Reading white papers.

I was an active analyst in those days.

I am a developer who isn't easily moved by marketing hype.

Ever dig into early versions of Windows NT or OS/2? Even OS/2 hooks are in Windows NT 3.1. It's not rocket science.

 

[hooflung]

Originally posted by: goku

Originally posted by: hooflung
Well Windows XP and MacOS X are more similar than OSX and Linux.

Windows XP and OSX both have micro-kernels. Linux is a monolithic Kernel.

Windows XP and OSX both have a Proprietary GUI API. Linux has OOS GUI.

Windows XP and OSX can run the GNU environment. Linux IS a kernel.

Windows XP and OSX are branches of other companies work. Windows XP, and any NT release, is based off of VMS and MTFS. OSX is based off of NextStep. Linux is just a kernel and was developed for a grade in a university.

Windows XP and OSX are Operating Systems. Linux... as stated above... is a kernel.

Windows XP and OSX are confined, by their manufacturers, to a limited instructionset. XP being only x86 and OSX being PPC, Power4(PPC) and X86. Linux kernels can run on just about everything from watches to car radios.

Windows XP and OSX has most of their installation base through OEM bundles. Linux Distro's have yet to get a foothold in mass OEM markets for desktops.

Windows XP and OSX can only do so much as they are limited by their APIs. Linux Distro's can be fine tuned to fit the job at hand.

I will end with saying that they, Windows XP - MacOS X - Linux 'Insert Distro here'- , are all splendid OS's. I only take any problems with OSX and XP up with their manufacturers. Linux on the otherhand is more of a movement than a product. Through the Linux community a revolution in IT has come about. Yes there are linux products but the OSS community is driving the market toward a balance( albeit it's still far on the horizon ).

How would you get linux to run on a car radio!? Most radios don't even have a processor so I don't see how this would be possible. Would this be an advanced radio that has a gui and all? That'd be more understandable, what would the advantage be? Free range of thing s you can do on your car radio? Just for fun?

Linux is a kernel... NOT an Operating system. If it supports the arch of the hardware it will compile. Embedded Linux has been used in prototype Dodge and Chrysler dash units for quite some time (~2 years). All a car radio has to have in order to be called a car radio is and am/fm tuner which linux can interface with. Linux already has CD DA and MP3/OGG libraries and again... if they can compile on the arch then it will run. And if you want a GUI there is always framebuffer and terminal over LCD.

 

[Nothinman]

Good friend of mine actually worked on the development team of Windows NT 3.1.

And I could say that a good friend of mine works on NT right now, but saying that doesn't prove anything.

Reading white papers.

Care to share the ones that point out how MS stole code from Digital?

I am a developer who isn't easily moved by marketing hype.

Right, like MS ever marketed NT as a VMS/OS2 hybrid.

Ever dig into early versions of Windows NT or OS/2? Even OS/2 hooks are in Windows NT 3.1. It's not rocket science.

Duh. Everyone knows that MS was working on OS/2 with IBM and then pulled out to fork NT. I was referring to the accusation that MS stole code directly from VMS.

Linux already has CD DA and MP3/OGG libraries and again... if they can compile on the arch then it will run.

Since you're a developer you should know that to be false. Just because something compiles doesn't mean it'll run how you want it to, especially multimedia libraries that tend to be more sensitive to odd floating point differences or endian changes between architectures.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: hooflung

Originally posted by: sourceninja
http://developer.apple.com/documentatio...ix/background/chapter_2_section_2.html

I read that as next had some infuence, but the majority of it comes from BSD.

Thats just how I read it.

Go play with GNU/Step. Write an objective C application NSxxxx gui commands and all. Then take your source and compile it on OS X. Notice your application is now OS X native. So when does the userspace come into play? It is the library that in nextstep/openstep, gnustep, and OS X that is the defining attribute not userland. GNU/Step will work on a mach kernel, Linux Kernel, BSD kernel etc etc. It will even run on a windows kernel thanks to Cygwin.

So if they all seem to work in the same mannor... at what point do we say this is like this or this is like that? I say in the history and implementation of the design. Afterall, Linux is just a kernel and not an operating system and that is not me arguing semantics... its fact. Now Linux does follow a pattern that the others have as well but the history has been firmly placed in OpenSource from day 1. FreeBSD cannot say that. Microsoft NT OS's cannot say that NOR can OS X say that. Those said OS's have a rich background involving lawers, trade secrets and folding companies into companies to paint their story.

FreeBSD has been open from day 1. Linux has it's lawyers right now, look at sco.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: hooflung

Linux is a kernel... NOT an Operating system. If it supports the arch of the hardware it will compile. Embedded Linux has been used in prototype Dodge and Chrysler dash units for quite some time (~2 years). All a car radio has to have in order to be called a car radio is and am/fm tuner which linux can interface with. Linux already has CD DA and MP3/OGG libraries and again... if they can compile on the arch then it will run. And if you want a GUI there is always framebuffer and terminal over LCD.

Linux is a kernel, it doesn't have mp3 or ogg libraries.