OS X vs Linux?

[TechGod]

Please, allow me:

"Although for legal reasons FreeBSD cannot use the Unix trademark, it is a direct descendant of BSD, which was historically also called "BSD Unix" or "Berkeley Unix"."

And:

"OS X is based upon the Mach kernel. Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in NeXTSTEP, the core of Mac OS X. "

Source: wikipedia

A.

And therefore it uses Unix.

 

[Alrescha]

And therefore it uses Unix.

Should be obvious to anyone...

A.

 

[TechGod]

Should be obvious to anyone...

A.

Except SICKBOY, his name is rather fitting don't ya think?

 

[satcomer]

BSD Unix started life as a licensed version of AT&T Unix. Over time, faculty and staff replaced much of the system with their own rewrites. Over a long period of time and a number of lawsuits, it was determined that the BSD operating system no longer contained any copyrighted AT&T code - it was essentially a new OS with no Unix code in it.

This was released as 4.4BSD-Lite and made open source. From this code base, we get FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin (on which OS X is partially based).

OS X does not contain Unix code...

I posted the wiki link Berkeley Software Distribution and all you do is post your opinion. So the whole Internet is wrong and your are the only correct person here. That should tell you something.

 

[bradl]

BSD Unix started life as a licensed version of AT&T Unix. Over time, faculty and staff replaced much of the system with their own rewrites. Over a long period of time and a number of lawsuits, it was determined that the BSD operating system no longer contained any copyrighted AT&T code - it was essentially a new OS with no Unix code in it.

This was released as 4.4BSD-Lite and made open source. From this code base, we get FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin (on which OS X is partially based).

OS X does not contain Unix code...

Umm.. this is wrong.

while both share the same initial codebase, there are two main variants of Unix: BSD, created at Berkeley, and System V, which was created by ATT/Bell Labs.

BSD was never a licensed version of ATT's Unix.

Others here already quoted you the origins of BSD, but there were definitely two main variants of it, which as far as BSD goes, Ultrix, VMS, Dynix, and SunOS were part of it. Nowadays, [Net,386,Open,Free,Dragonfly]BSD are variants of BSD, along with Darwin, and NeXT.

System V came about with System V Release 4, which spawned variants lil OSF/1 (Tru64 Unix), HP/UX, AIX, Irix, SCO, and Solaris.

The Stepchild of all of this is Linux, which is a variant of both.

BSD a licensed version of Unix? Absolutely not true.

source: Berkeley Software Distribution, Unix System V, Essential Systems Administration, 3rd Edition, by Æleen Frisch, published by O'Reilly & Associates.

The book in the last link is sitting in my lap.

BL.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

I like both. I have multiple Fedora and CentOS VMs on my Mac Pro. OS X is Linux but with better hardware support (not technically or literally or whatever). I'm a programmer and many things I work on involve Linux. Now Windows... that's just crap. And yes, that's the technical and literal term.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

I posted the wiki link Berkeley Software Distribution and all you do is post your opinion. So the whole Internet is wrong and your are the only correct person here. That should tell you something.

Wow... Did you even read your own link?

 

[bradl]

Wow... Did you even read your own link?

Did you read it?

BL.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Umm.. this is wrong.

BSD a licensed version of Unix? Absolutely not true.

Both sysv and bsd directly descend from the original AT&T code.

What, you think AT&T just gave Berkeley the Crown Jewels for free or something?

ALL unices started life as licensed modifications of the original AT&T Unix. Every single one.

By the time you get to 4.4BSD lite all AT&T code had been removed from BSD.... Hence no longer Unix...

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Did you read it?

BL.

I think you're missing my point. My point is that historically all Unix variants were UNIX because they had AT&T code in them and had license agreements with at&t.... This includes early BSD.

By the time that The Open Group gets their hands on the IP, being called Unix involves nothing more than conforming to a standard and paying open group hundreds of thousands of dollars per year...

 

[bradl]

Both sysv and bsd directly descend from the original AT&T code.

What, you think AT&T just gave Berkeley the Crown Jewels for free or something?

ALL unices started life as licensed modifications of the original AT&T Unix. Every single one.

By the time you get to 4.3BSD lite all AT&T code had been removed from BSD.... Hence no longer Unix...

So in short, you didn't read his link.

You would have found this gem there:

Historically, BSD has been considered a branch of Unix, Berkeley Unix, because it shared the initial codebase and design with the original AT&T Unix operating system. In the 1980s, BSD was widely adopted by vendors of workstation-class systems in the form of proprietary Unix variants such as DEC ULTRIX and Sun Microsystems SunOS. This can be attributed to the ease with which it could be licensed, and the familiarity the founders of many technology companies of the time had with it.

Shared initial codebase =/= licensed from ATT.

Further, from System V:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_V#Rivalry_with_BSD

In the 1980s and early-1990s, System V was considered one of the two major versions of UNIX, the other being the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). Historically, BSD was also commonly called "BSD Unix" or "Berkeley Unix."[1] Eric S. Raymond summarizes the longstanding relationship and rivalry between System V and BSD during the early period:[2]

In fact, for years after divestiture the Unix community was preoccupied with the first phase of the Unix wars – an internal dispute, the rivalry between System V Unix and BSD Unix. The dispute had several levels, some technical (sockets vs. streams, BSD tty vs. System V termio) and some cultural. The divide was roughly between longhairs and shorthairs; programmers and technical people tended to line up with Berkeley and BSD, more business-oriented types with AT&T and System V.

While HP, IBM and others chose System V as the basis for their Unix offerings, other vendors such as Sun Microsystems and DEC extended BSD. Throughout its development, though, System V was infused with features from BSD, while BSD variants such as DEC's Ultrix received System V features. Since the early 1990s, due to standardization efforts such as POSIX and the commercial success of Linux, the division between System V and BSD has become less important.

The main difference in the Unix Wars around that time: Businesses went the route of System V: universities and research labs went the route of BSD. When SVR4 came out, that all changed.

BL.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Did you read it?

BL.

How about this link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

The suit has its roots at the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at the University of California, Berkeley, which had a license for the source code of UNIX from AT&T's Bell Labs. Students doing operating systems research at the CSRG modified and extended UNIX, and the CSRG made several releases of the modified operating system beginning in 1978, with AT&T's blessing. Because this Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) contained copyrighted AT&T UNIX source code it was only available to organizations with a source code license for UNIX from AT&T.

Students and faculty at the CSRG audited the software code for the TCP/IP stack, removing all the AT&T intellectual property, and released it to the general public in 1988 as NET-1 under the BSD license. When it became apparent that the Berkeley CSRG would soon close, students and faculty at the CSRG began an effort to remove all the remaining AT&T code from the BSD and replace it with their own. This effort resulted in the public release of NET-2 in 1991, again under the BSD license. NET-2 contained enough code for a nearly complete UNIX-like system, which the CSRG believed contained no AT&T IP.

Berkeley Software Design (BSDi) obtained the source for NET-2, filled in the missing pieces, and ported it to the Intel i386 computer architecture. BSDi then sold the resulting BSD/386 operating system, which could be ordered through 1-800-ITS-UNIX. This drew the ire of AT&T, which did not agree with BSDi's claim that BSD/386 was free of AT&T IP. AT&T's Unix System Laboratories subsidiary filed suit against BSDi in New Jersey in April 1992, a suit that was later amended to include The Regents of the University of California.

Also: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Shared initial codebase =/= licensed from ATT.

Oh, and here is a copy of an actual license UC got from ATT for access to Unix code:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/BSD_ATT_License.pdf

Its basically reaffirming previous licenses for earlier versions of BSD which go something like this:

1. Berkeley can use AT&T Unix code in their BSD operating system
2. AT&T can can use Berkeley code to improve Unix
3. Any entity which wants to use BSD other than UC needs an AT&T Unix license as well.

 

[Alrescha]

Also: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt

Umnn, what the "court found" was this:

"In summary, I find that I am unable to ascertain whether
any aspect of Net2 or BSD/386, be it an individual line of code or
the overall system organization, deserves protection as Plaintiff's
trade secret. Since Plaintiff has failed to provide enough
evidence to establish a "reasonable probability" that Net2 or
BSD/386 contain trade secrets, I find that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for
misappropriation of trade secrets."

Which is not quite the same thing as "the BSD operating system no longer contained any copyrighted AT&T code"

A.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Which is not quite the same thing as "the BSD operating system no longer contained any copyrighted AT&T code"

A.

From that same link

Indeed, ignoring header
files and comments (see below), the overlap in the critical
"kernel" region is but 56 lines out of 230,9995, and the overlap
elsewhere is 130 lines out of 1.3 million.

And part of the settlement involved removing those remaining code portions.

 

[Alrescha]

From that same link

the overlap in the critical
"kernel" region is but 56 lines out of 230,9995, and the overlap
elsewhere is 130 lines out of 1.3 million.

Those statistics apply specifically to Net2/BSDi and 32v.

And part of the settlement involved removing those remaining code portions.

I am sorry, I saw no references to settlement or removing code in that document.

But (against my better judgement) I am going to ask a question: Given that you seem to think that "Unix" is embodied in the aforementioned 32v code, and as that same codebase was released into the public domain ca. 2002, how can you claim that the code is not incorporated into operating systems today (making them "Unix")?

A.

Addendum: For the sake of accuracy, I said "public domain" above, but in actuality the code was made available to all under the original BSD license terms.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Those statistics apply specifically to Net2/BSDi and 32v.

I am sorry, I saw no references to settlement or removing code in that document.

That's kind of my point: 4.3BSD-Lite (Net/2) with the disputed sections removed/altered is pretty much 4.4BSD-Lite.

4.4BSD-Lite is what all following BSDs were based on.
http://www.informatica.co.cr/unix-source-code/research/1992/0721.html

----------

But (against my better judgement) I am going to ask a question: Given that you seem to think that "Unix" is embodied in the aforementioned 32v code, and as that same codebase was released into the public domain ca. 2002, how can you claim that the code is not incorporated into operating systems today (making them "Unix")?

My opinion is this:

UNIX is one of the following:

1. An operating system which contains copyright-encumbered ATT code AND had a UNIX® license from ATT. This covers all SysX derivatives and all BSD and BSD derivatives based up to the 4.3BSD release (except for BSD/386, 386BSD and FreeBSD 1, which were Net/2 based but did not have an ATT license).

2. An operating system which has passed certification with Open Group and paid the annual royalty fees for using the trademark UNIX®

The 4.4BSD-Lite release (and all subsequent BSDs based on this release) no longer had a legal right to use the UNIX® mark - the tiny amount of disputed ATT code that remained after 20 years of Berkeley development had been removed AND it did not have a license from ATT to use the trademark. This means that FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Darwin and all other later BSD releases are not UNIX®.

My problem is that I feel scenario (2) above is a much less legitimate reason for being able to call an OS Unix, which is why I have an issue with OS X being called UNIX®. OS X is not based on any ATT code nor did it ever have an ATT license.

Until Apple paid the hefty royalty fees to The Open Group it was no more entitled to use the UNIX® than FreeBSD, or even Linux. It was "Unix-like", just as all the other post 4.4BSD-lite BSDs and Linux are.

OS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 fall into this category and were indisputably not UNIX (they contained no AT&T code, had no license to AT&T UNIX, nor were they SUSv3 compliant and paying the Open Group their pound of flesh).

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Given that you seem to think that "Unix" is embodied in the aforementioned 32v code

It's not just me who thinks that.

Regarding AT&T v BSDI:

One detail that the lawsuit did clarify is the naming: in the 1980s, BSD was known as “BSD UNIX®”. With the elimination of the last vestige of AT&T code from BSD, it also lost the right to the name UNIX®. Thus you will see references in book titles to “the 4.3BSD UNIX® operating system” and “the 4.4BSD operating system”.

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd/why-is-bsd-not-better-known.html

 

[hoeij]

I've been using Linux for over 20 years now (since version 0.98) and recently
acquired a macbook pro 15". To me, the #1 reason to use the Mac is
the retina screen. This screen is a one-way ticket, once you get used
to it, you can never go back.

I could think of other reasons to pick Linux and other reasons to pick Mac,
but for me, reason #1 trumps all the other reasons combined.

So far my experience with Mac is very short, but it looks like switching
to Mac goes something like this: (a) you'll pay a lot of money, (b) you'll
get something that is much better than what you could have imagined,
(c) you'll be very happy with it.

As far as I know, you simply can't buy a better laptop than macbook retina
at any price.

 

[grahamperrin]

hoeij: thanks. The observations about Retina are interesting.

I quoted you, and made some comments, in post 67 under Yosemite hard to look at?

 

[CarreraGuy]

OS X has ZERO UNIX code in it and until they gave an organisation a whole bundle of money to use the term UNIX, they were simply "Unix-like", just like Linux and just like the later BSD's on which it is partially based.

The term UNIX morphed over the years but UNIX is a specification today. Why say it's *just* a marketing term? If you design an OS 'SICKB0Y OS 1.0' and claim it's UNIX you submit it. The approval process involves labor hence the $. If you're Linux you can say my OS is good enough and screw the $ I can live without the badge.

 

[blackf77t]

Great Thread

I realize this thread is a little old, but I think it is still relevant. It encouraged me to register and share my thoughts. I have used just about every OS you can think of professionally and personally - BSDs, Linux, BeOS, IRIS, BSDI, Windows, etc.


Linux/BSD/Unix
Who cares as long as you have a shell and command line tools? I do admit some concern about systemd and launchd, changing the unix design principle of doing one thing well. I think it will ultimately hurt Linux and BSD.


Server
BSD and linux make good servers. I like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Debian Linux. I currently have a Debian server on Digital Ocean and it works great. However, it does require alot of time and configuration. If FreeBSD was better supported, I would have considered that. I like the way BSD organizes files and directories better than Linux, but both work well.


Desktop and Mobile
The desktop side is really user dependent. Here is my situation. I bought a macbook air a couple of years ago and a macbook pro before that. My kids ended up taking both of them over for school work and all of their friends are into macs, ipads, and iphones. I went back to my windows desktop for a couple of years. My Windows 7 desktop crashed about a month ago. I was planning on waiting for Windows 10 and didn't really want to get Windows 8 and upgrade again the same year. I prefer clean installs of Windows. It has been about five years since I tried Linux/BSD on my desktop. It was time to start looking at my options.

I tried a few options and settled on Linux Mint 17.1. Mint is very fast, nvidia drivers work well, and Cinamon is a better UI than windows. Valve is also starting to get decent games on Steam for Linux. I decided my move off of Windows was going to be permanent. However, the applications just aren't as good as Mac or Windows. I didn't give it much thought.

A couple of days ago, my daughter asked me to fix the old macbook core 2 duo. I saved her data, blew it away and installed Yosemite. My son already has Yosemite on his macbook air. I decided to setup an account for myself. Yosemite looks great and all of the applications are simply better - Mail, Calendar, account integration, iPhoto, and iTunes. It really got me reconsidering my decision to move to Linux.

My plan this Christmas was to get a Amazon Kindle Fire HDX and use that to telnet to Digital Ocean and my desktop remotely. The Fire can do entertainment and light gaming cheaply. I am now considering spending a little more money on a 11" macbook air and turning my desktop into a server. My remaining concern is the price.

 

[2984839]

I realize this thread is a little old, but I think it is still relevant. It encouraged me to register and share my thoughts. I have used just about every OS you can think of professionally and personally - BSDs, Linux, BeOS, IRIS, BSDI, Windows, etc.


Linux/BSD/Unix
Who cares as long as you have a shell and command line tools? I do admit some concern about systemd and launchd, changing the unix design principle of doing one thing well. I think it will ultimately hurt Linux and BSD.


Server
BSD and linux make good servers. I like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Debian Linux. I currently have a Debian server on Digital Ocean and it works great. However, it does require alot of time and configuration. If FreeBSD was better supported, I would have considered that. I like the way BSD organizes files and directories better than Linux, but both work well.


Desktop and Mobile
The desktop side is really user dependent. Here is my situation. I bought a macbook air a couple of years ago and a macbook pro before that. My kids ended up taking both of them over for school work and all of their friends are into macs, ipads, and iphones. I went back to my windows desktop for a couple of years. My Windows 7 desktop crashed about a month ago. I was planning on waiting for Windows 10 and didn't really want to get Windows 8 and upgrade again the same year. I prefer clean installs of Windows. It has been about five years since I tried Linux/BSD on my desktop. It was time to start looking at my options.

I tried a few options and settled on Linux Mint 17.1. Mint is very fast, nvidia drivers work well, and Cinamon is a better UI than windows. Valve is also starting to get decent games on Steam for Linux. I decided my move off of Windows was going to be permanent. However, the applications just aren't as good as Mac or Windows. I didn't give it much thought.

A couple of days ago, my daughter asked me to fix the old macbook core 2 duo. I saved her data, blew it away and installed Yosemite. My son already has Yosemite on his macbook air. I decided to setup an account for myself. Yosemite looks great and all of the applications are simply better - Mail, Calendar, account integration, iPhoto, and iTunes. It really got me reconsidering my decision to move to Linux.

My plan this Christmas was to get a Amazon Kindle Fire HDX and use that to telnet to Digital Ocean and my desktop remotely. The Fire can do entertainment and light gaming cheaply. I am now considering spending a little more money on a 11" macbook air and turning my desktop into a server. My remaining concern is the price.

I fully agree about systemd, but I think there are other important differences between the BSDs and Linux.

The line has gotten muddled because if you install most graphical applications on BSD you'll get a lot of Linux dependency bloat thrown in, but they're still more than just Unix like command lines plus graphical tools. The documentation is unrivaled on BSD. If you want ZFS, FreeBSD offers it whereas Linux doesn't really (I know there are projects to port it and some similar filesystems, but none are as stable as ZFS on FreeBSD yet). PF is a much easier to use firewall than iptables IMO. The nature of BSD's development as one system makes it easier to track down problems, as opposed to Linux where the kernel is devloped by some people, the userland tools by others, and is then packaged together by still others.

I am biased towards the BSDs, but I'm biased because I've used Linux a lot.

 

[skaertus]

I realize this thread is a little old, but I think it is still relevant. It encouraged me to register and share my thoughts. I have used just about every OS you can think of professionally and personally - BSDs, Linux, BeOS, IRIS, BSDI, Windows, etc.

Yes, very relevant. I don't think there is a thread about OS X vs Windows which would be relevant as well.

 

[blackf77t]

Yes, very relevant. I don't think there is a thread about OS X vs Windows which would be relevant as well.

I don't think the OS X versus windows comparison is very interesting. Windows only has two real advantages over OS X/IOS - better desktop/laptop gaming experience and cheaper hardware. It would be pretty easy for Apple to throw money at the problem.

1.) OS X Performance - Apple could make system speed and opengl a priority in the next release.
2.) Buy their way into Gaming - Apple should buy one or more gaming companies and make the exclusive on OS X/IOS. I like the PS4, but Nintendo just feels like the best fit. They would solve each of each other's weaknesses. Apple would provide the platform and Nintendo could provide content.

I don't think Apple realizes how many people would switch, if gaming were a better experience.

----------

I fully agree about systemd, but I think there are other important differences between the BSDs and Linux.

The line has gotten muddled because if you install most graphical applications on BSD you'll get a lot of Linux dependency bloat thrown in, but they're still more than just Unix like command lines plus graphical tools. The documentation is unrivaled on BSD. If you want ZFS, FreeBSD offers it whereas Linux doesn't really (I know there are projects to port it and some similar filesystems, but none are as stable as ZFS on FreeBSD yet). PF is a much easier to use firewall than iptables IMO. The nature of BSD's development as one system makes it easier to track down problems, as opposed to Linux where the kernel is devloped by some people, the userland tools by others, and is then packaged together by still others.

I am biased towards the BSDs, but I'm biased because I've used Linux a lot.

BSD is way more organized on file structure and configuration files. I also prefer pf to iptables. I don't understand why Linux can't set the same guildelines. On the other hand, Linux is faster (based on Phoronix), has more development, more corporate cash, easier desktop options, and more software. If Linux continues to move in the systemd direction that could further restrict code sharing between Linux and BSD. I think this would be a shame.