PDA

View Full Version : OSX linux distro?



DMGrier
March 1st, 2011, 04:04 PM
I was on one of my other forums and a guy on there referred to OSX as a Linux Distro known as Darwin, is he just talking out his *** or is there truth to this? Also I was wondering just for my own knowledge does Ubuntu out perform OSX. I did google it but it would only show for gaming which it was hit and miss depending on the game.

aeiah
March 1st, 2011, 04:06 PM
osx is built upon darwin. darwin is unix. linux is like unix.

Spice Weasel
March 1st, 2011, 04:08 PM
More closely related to BSD and Nextstep.

tgalati4
March 1st, 2011, 04:36 PM
Darwin ports is a system with a lot of free linux programs compiled for OS X.

boydrice
March 1st, 2011, 04:38 PM
osx is built upon darwin. darwin is unix. linux is like unix.

Darwin is built upon code from FreeBSD and NetBSD with lots of modifications. OS X is certified as UNIX.

FoxEWolf
March 1st, 2011, 04:59 PM
OS X's core is Darwin-based but it isn't any way classified as a Linux Distro.

Linux = Unix

OS X = Unix

OS X ≠ Linux

boydrice
March 1st, 2011, 05:04 PM
OS X's core is Darwin-based but it isn't any way classified as a Linux Distro.

Linux = Unix

OS X = Unix

OS X ≠ Linux

Sorry but Linux does not equal UNIX, Linux = UNIX-like. OS X can be called UNIX because it is certified as such.

FoxEWolf
March 1st, 2011, 05:08 PM
Sorry but Linux does not equal UNIX, Linux = UNIX-like. OS X can be called UNIX because it is certified as such.

yes you are right... My bad.. =/

YesWeCan
March 1st, 2011, 05:35 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.png

Unix is very old, older than Microsoft DOS which was launched in 1981.
Apple moved to Unix-derived OS X in 2001.

So Apple has it all now - a robust OS and great applications, including MS Office. But you pay for it!

3Miro
March 1st, 2011, 05:55 PM
When Apple first released Darwin, they marketed it as "Linux like kernel" with better graphical environment. At their core, Linux and Darwin are more alike then different, but the two projects are not "associated" with each other, they simply "borrow" ideas (to the extent allowed by copyright).

EDIT: I should say, they marketed that to the science community.

BrokenKingpin
March 1st, 2011, 08:12 PM
I would definitely say Ubuntu out performs OSX, and at the very least could be configured to out perform it.

Shining Arcanine
March 1st, 2011, 08:15 PM
Darwin is built upon code from FreeBSD and NetBSD with lots of modifications. OS X is certified as UNIX.

Darwin is based on BSD. FreeBSD is based on FreeBSD. Apple recently ported improvements made by FreeBSD to Mac OS X, but Darwin itself is not "built upon code from FreeBSD and NetBSD".

unknownPoster
March 1st, 2011, 08:36 PM
I would definitely say Ubuntu out performs OSX, and at the very least could be configured to out perform it.

Any proof or is that just baseless FUD?

What do you mean by "outperforms?"

handy
March 1st, 2011, 10:09 PM
Arch is quicker on my iMac, though OS X, was quicker when I had Ubuntu on it a few years or so ago though. My Arch install is a far more minimal than a Ubuntu install & has far fewer services running.

As far as the kernels are concerned OS X, & GNU Hurd are based on the Mach microkernel. There is a functioning Arch/Hurd in progress these days for anyone interested:

http://www.archhurd.org/

conundrumx
March 1st, 2011, 10:15 PM
Linux and OS X (which runs on a kernel called Darwin) are both POSIX compliant operating systems. Darwin (and by extension OS X) is a certified UNIX, Linux is not.

Darwin is based on XNU/Mach which are microkernels developed to replace the BSD kernel. BSD is a derivative of UNIX.

Linux was written as an alternative to MINIX, which in turn was a UNIX analog (not descendent or derivative) used for educational purposes.

There was a point in time when a distro based on the Darwin kernel was maintained and released, but it has not been for years.

forrestcupp
March 1st, 2011, 10:18 PM
I was on one of my other forums and a guy on there referred to OSX as a Linux Distro known as Darwin, is he just talking out his *** or is there truth to this?
He's probably talking about PureDarwin (http://www.puredarwin.org/). It's an open source OS based on Darwin, which is what OSX is based on. Don't think you're getting a free version of OSX, though. The free version uses X11 and other free software, while OSX has its own proprietary UI.

Also, like others have said, it's definitely not a Linux distro. You can't run Linux software on it. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to port software code to be compiled to run on it, though.

conundrumx
March 1st, 2011, 10:21 PM
Also, like others have said, it's definitely not a Linux distro. You can't run Linux software on it. I'm sure it wouldn't take much to port software code to be compiled to run on it, though.

Most Linux applications based on standard libraries are easy to compile under OS X, I assume the same would be true under PureDarwin.

earthpigg
March 2nd, 2011, 12:23 AM
Your friend is quite confused. Here is a true statement that he could accurately make:

"Darwin is an operating system distribution comprised of Free Software, like most Linux distributions."

As things like Haiku, PureDarwin, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, etc, progress it will eventually come to a point that the general term ought to become "Free Software Distro" or similar instead of "Linux Distro" unless we are specfically talking about something that we specifically know to have the specific kernel called "Linux" or something that has received a relevant sub-license from the Linux Trademark Institute.

Worth noting is that, just like UNIX, Linux is also an owned/controlled trademark (http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/trademark). A new Linux distribution, technically, shouldn't call itself "Whatever Linux" any more than it should call itself "Whatever Unix". First, one needs permission from either the Linux Trademark Institute or The Open Group.

Else, it shouldn't be branding itself as Linux or Unix. Period. "Such and such uses Linux" is different than "Such and such is Linux."

I can start my own linux distro and formally call it "Earthpigg OS" but I should not formally title it "Earthpigg Linux" or "Earthpigg Unix" or "Earthpigbuntu" without permission.

Bit of a rant, sorry.

Tibuda
March 2nd, 2011, 12:56 AM
OS X's core is Darwin-based but it isn't any way classified as a Linux Distro.

Linux = Unix

OS X = Unix

OS X ≠ Linux

Linux ≠ Unix

and

GNU is Not Unix

Pougnet
March 2nd, 2011, 01:25 AM
OS X's core is Darwin-based but it isn't any way classified as a Linux Distro.

Linux = Unix

OS X = Unix

OS X ≠ Linux
You forgot the most important step in solving that;
OS X = Crap
No need for the last two steps.

overdrank
March 2nd, 2011, 01:52 AM
Ok no need for OS bashing. Back on topic. :)

Quadunit404
March 2nd, 2011, 04:02 AM
Statement bashing some OS nobody's really heard about :wink:

Warpnow
March 2nd, 2011, 05:49 AM
Most Linux applications based on standard libraries are easy to compile under OS X, I assume the same would be true under PureDarwin.

Most complex linux software can't just be "compiled" out of the box though. It has to be modified slightly, with varying degrees of difficulty, based on its pre-reqs.

boydrice
March 2nd, 2011, 07:35 AM
Darwin is based on BSD. FreeBSD is based on FreeBSD. Apple recently ported improvements made by FreeBSD to Mac OS X, but Darwin itself is not "built upon code from FreeBSD and NetBSD".

FreeBSD and NetBSD are based on 386BSD
"386BSD never became a stable operating system. Instead, two other projects split off from it in 1993: NetBSD and FreeBSD. The two projects originally diverged due to differences in patience waiting for improvements to 386BSD: the NetBSD people started early in the year, and the first version of FreeBSD was not ready until the end of the year. In the meantime, the code base had diverged sufficiently to make it difficult to merge. In addition, the projects had different aims, as we will see below. In 1996, OpenBSD split off from NetBSD, and in 2003, DragonFlyBSD split off from FreeBSD."

NetBSD.org disagrees with you...
"NetBSD is used by Apple for a large portion of the user-space commands and tools in their Darwin project, and Darwin is the UNIX-based core used by Mac OS X. NetBSD source tends to pay attention to issues of portability and correctness, and is virtually all BSD licenced, which avoids commercial problems with the GNU General Public Licence. At least one of the Apple developers has access to the NetBSD source tree and has fed back some useful changes."

so does apple.com
"Powering all these capabilities is Darwin, an open source UNIX foundation built on
technologies such as FreeBSD, Mach, and Apache. Darwin provides a complete UNIX
environment, with X11 and POSIX services comparable to Linux or FreeBSD, including
the familiar kernel, libraries, network services, and command-line environment described
in this brief"

1clue
March 2nd, 2011, 08:01 AM
Wow.

AFAICT, nobody actually explained WHY and HOW Mac OS X is UNIX instead of something else.

This seems fairly accurate as far as it goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mac_OS_X

Awhile back, Steve Jobs was booted out of Apple. He started NeXT which licensed a version of UNIX from BSD and called it NeXTStep. This UNIX was based on original BSD source code. It later evolved into OpenStep, which was more open source.

Apple later hired Steve Jobs back, and bought NeXT. Thereby they acquired a license to produce UNIX. OpenStep was based on a really old UNIX, and Apple hired somebody (can't remember who) from FreeBSD(?) to help update everything to more recent, more open source. That turned into Darwin. Sorry, that part is fuzzy in my memory.

Mac OS is a bunch of closed-source software built on top of Darwin. PureDarwin is the functional open-source OS which runs by itself.

My mac has Xorg on it, and as nearly as I remember it came on the machine. If it didn't it came on the Apple developer tools package, which I loaded the first day.

rvchari
March 2nd, 2011, 08:14 AM
Sorry but Linux does not equal UNIX, Linux = UNIX-like. OS X can be called UNIX because it is certified as such.

its better that linux is called a unix clone (unix like) and not unix like OSX....
i am not sure but if linux gets certified then it will loose its charm as an opensource !!!
correct me if i am wrong.

BrokenKingpin
March 2nd, 2011, 05:29 PM
Any proof or is that just baseless FUD?

What do you mean by "outperforms?"
Baseless FUD.

1clue
March 2nd, 2011, 07:47 PM
its better that linux is called a unix clone (unix like) and not unix like OSX....
i am not sure but if linux gets certified then it will loose its charm as an opensource !!!
correct me if i am wrong.

The use of the name UNIX is a licensing issue and the requirement that it uses the original source code from UNIX. Linux does not have either of those, so it cannot in any way be called UNIX. The end. There is no certification process, it's a license that a vendor pays money for. Apple has it. Linux does not and by definition cannot, since Linux is a rewritten API-level clone made explicitly to escape the license requirements.

POSIX on the other hand is a compliance test which verifies that a certain percentage of the operating system complies with the standard. If you are POSIX compliant then certain UNIX or UN*X tools will work, as does a certain command set. One example of a POSIX operating system is Windows NT 4.

handy
March 7th, 2011, 10:51 AM
...

My mac has Xorg on it, and as nearly as I remember it came on the machine. If it didn't it came on the Apple developer tools package, which I loaded the first day.

You have to install it from the dev tools. Sometimes you have to download it.