Re: PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
On Feb 4, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Lucas Holt wrote: MacOS X is using a monolithic kernel which derives from between the CMU Mach project v2.0 and v2.5 circa 1990, which was Avie Tenavian's grad project at CMU. Apple is not using the Mach 3.0 microkernel, nor is it using "half of the FreeBSD 5 kernel". Incorrect! The original OS X code base does come from next but apple has upgraded the code in 10.3 to use FreeBSD 5.0 code. apple.com/macosx even mentioned that when panther was released. Another document on apple's site i'm looking for again specified that the latest 10.3 kernel was in fact using only the messaging and memory architecture of Mach and the rest was in fact FreeBSD 5.0 code! http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html This page isn't wrong, and I believe that the OS X kernel does include some FreeBSD 5 code, just as OS X's userland includes some FreeBSD and some NetBSD-derived programs. However, let's consider some real data: 8-base# ident /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* 2> /dev/null | fgrep '$FreeBSD:' | wc -l 138 9-base# ident /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* 2> /dev/null | fgrep '$NetBSD:' | wc -l 281 10-base# ident /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* 2> /dev/null | fgrep '$Id:' | wc -l 1403 11-base# uname -a Darwin base.codefab.com 6.8 Darwin Kernel Version 6.8: Wed Sep 10 15:20:55 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-344.49.obj~2/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc 1-tanya# ident /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* 2> /dev/null | fgrep '$FreeBSD:' | wc -l 258 2-tanya# ident /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* 2> /dev/null | fgrep '$NetBSD:' | wc -l 143 3-tanya# ident /bin/* /sbin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/sbin/* 2> /dev/null | fgrep '$Id:' | wc -l 898 4-tanya# uname -a Darwin tanya 7.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.2.0: Thu Dec 11 16:20:23 PST 2003; root:xnu/xnu-517.3.7.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc So much for userland; shall we consider the kernel, as well? First, CMU largely stopped work on Mach by the end of 1993 and the Mach 3 microkernel was largely developed by U/Utah and the OSF, some of which became Flex and Flux, if memory serves. Neither FreeBSD nor Apple uses a microkernel, largely because the performance hit for context switching between kernel and userspace all of the time is so extreme for a true microkernel architecture. While neither of the two kernels is monolithic, and they support dynamic loading of kernel extensions, device drivers reside in kernel space, networking is in kernel space, filesystem management (the vnode/VFS abstraction) is in kernel space. A true microkernel would have those in userspace and would have nothing beyond a scheduler, VM, and basic thread/task management. Apple did incorporate KAME's IPv6 code, IPFW, and the sysctl MIB infrastructure from BSD, and they are offering various POSIX API's like pthreads, but POSIX threads itself largely derives from Mach's thread model and the Cthreads interface dating back to NEXTSTEP 2.x or earlier. Apple's IOKit depends on Mach and CoreFoundation, and uses Mach primitives and abstractions which are quite distinct from BSD-style device drivers. Take a look at the xnu sources, or how kernel extensions and device drivers are implemented under /Developer/Examples/IOKit. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
Not to be pedantic, but there is no such thing as OS X.3 . There is OS X 10.3 . Thats what I get for following common conventions for developer lists! :) Many people use X.1, X.2, etc. to refer to versions of OS X. Technically you are right though. The one time i use it... Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) 'Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux.' -- Bill Joy, Wired Article 2003 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
MacOS X is using a monolithic kernel which derives from between the CMU Mach project v2.0 and v2.5 circa 1990, which was Avie Tenavian's grad project at CMU. Apple is not using the Mach 3.0 microkernel, nor is it using "half of the FreeBSD 5 kernel". Incorrect! The original OS X code base does come from next but apple has upgraded the code in 10.3 to use FreeBSD 5.0 code. apple.com/macosx even mentioned that when panther was released. Another document on apple's site i'm looking for again specified that the latest 10.3 kernel was in fact using only the messaging and memory architecture of Mach and the rest was in fact FreeBSD 5.0 code! http://developer.apple.com/darwin/history.html Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) 'Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux.' -- Bill Joy, Wired Article 2003 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
On Feb 4, 2004, at 10:31 AM, Lucas Holt wrote: The userland is freebsd.. i.e. the executables in /usr/bin, /bin, etc. I'm sure apple alters a few things. The part of OSX that differs is in the kernel. Roughly half the kernel is FreeBSD 5.0 and the other half is based on the Mach 3.0 kernel design. The MacOS X userland originally and primarily derives from NEXTSTEP. The original PPC port of NEXTSTEP, called Rhapsody, included a bunch of changes from NetBSD and FreeBSD (in that order), and OS X has since followed changes made to FreeBSD more closely. MacOS X is using a monolithic kernel which derives from between the CMU Mach project v2.0 and v2.5 circa 1990, which was Avie Tenavian's grad project at CMU. Apple is not using the Mach 3.0 microkernel, nor is it using "half of the FreeBSD 5 kernel". -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
On Feb 4, 2004, at 8:31 AM, Lucas Holt wrote: This information is based on some articles I read on apple's developer site about OS X.3. Not to be pedantic, but there is no such thing as OS X.3 . There is OS X 10.3 . best Chad ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
The userland is freebsd.. i.e. the executables in /usr/bin, /bin, etc. I'm sure apple alters a few things. The part of OSX that differs is in the kernel. Roughly half the kernel is FreeBSD 5.0 and the other half is based on the Mach 3.0 kernel design. Basically apple hacked two kernel designs together to get a fast, modular kernel. (well if you believe everything their documentation says at developer.apple.com) This information is based on some articles I read on apple's developer site about OS X.3. Apple also doesn't use the ports collection which is a shame! If you want to run a BSD besides OSX/darwin on a Mac, check out NetBSD or OpenBSD. Lucas Holt [EMAIL PROTECTED] FoolishGames.com (Jewel Fan Site) JustJournal.com (Free blogging) 'Re-implementing what I designed in 1979 is not interesting to me personally. For kids who are 20 years younger than me, Linux is a great way to cut your teeth. It's a cultural phenomenon and a business phenomenon. Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux.' -- Bill Joy, Wired Article 2003 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 01:07:51AM -0800, James wrote: > I know you must have better things to do to day then what your time on > dumb email. > But would like to know Is or is not the basic system of OS x 10 .2.2 > FreeBSD ? It incorporates some parts of FreeBSD, but it is not FreeBSD. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
PPC ver of freeBSD ? isent that the main body of os X
I know you must have better things to do to day then what your time on dumb email. But would like to know Is or is not the basic system of OS x 10 .2.2 FreeBSD ? Why dos it seem to to take for ever to find an MAC os X port of some thing. And Yes befor I sent my cheap PC the the PC graveyard I looked at FreeBSD ver 4.0 But cound not whay it would not in stall. I at the time thought it was eather FREEBSD to much work or that the PC's wher junk. You would think with mainly one maker of PPC systems Apple you all know the mother bords like the back of your hand. Sorey thouw I can't help in code this do to the last system I did programing on was OS/2. I would be of no help in unix. I do try to read up on FREEBSD In the hope of one day I may get to see more of it On my MAC G3. Sorey you can keep the PC's it takes to much time keeping the newer ones running. My friends sounds lke an jet on takeoff and He spends more time thinking about heat then using it. MY MAC on the outher hand is lke this heat what is that I at time have to look to see if I left it on . Thanks for your time. P.S I will be whaitting for FREEBSD for the MAC ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
