61–70 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, Apple has never used Linux for anything in any capacity. OSX's kernel is XNU, and it's a hybrid of BSD code and Mach.
So OSX has nothing to do with unix/linux?
And that means all the basic tools and system calls one expects on a true UNIX machine are present in OSX.
"I’d argue that this is probably the single most important tech acquisition of all time." Microsoft buys the pieces that eventually become MS-DOS? Going back further, pharma companies buying tech that they turned into mass produced antibiotics and gave us the sulfa drug revolution? Apple buying NeXT hardly compares to the acquisition of steel smelting.
I'd suggest the author's definition of 'tech' meant 'computers'. I don't believe Microsoft acquired QDOS, just the IP. Furthermore, bringing Jobs back to Apple resulted in Apple going from nearly bankrupt a top 5 Market Cap Company in the world ( http://dogsofthedow.com/largest-companies-by-market-cap.htm )
I wouldn't be surprised. It's a common affliction around here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve Jobs, the team he assembled, and a willingness to cut. Apple at the time was running the Newton which, although I loved programming it, was a totally wrong direction. It just wasn't connected as Mr. Jobs explained in his Q&A[1]. He built a much better OS than the Mac at that time. Palm couldn't build the iPhone with Palm and had to build WebOS. QNX is amazing, but its UI and client developer library wasn't ther…
> GNU thing at NeXT. Can you elaborate on this?
"I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer.
What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program, rather than how it is labeled.
So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed by the GPL.
The direct result of this is that we now have an Objective C front end. They had wanted to distribute the Objective C parser as a separate proprietary package to link with the GCC back end, but since I didn't agree this was allowed, they made it free."
(from http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-...)
I'd be curious to hear more firsthand details from any parties involved. There's a widely held perception that this was a really divisive and drawn-out fight that left a lot of bad blood on both sides, but based on RMS' account, it wasn't. RMS' account just sounds like Jobs contacted him about it, said "is it OK if we ship it this way?", RMS checked with his lawyer and responded, "no, you need to ship it this other way to comply with the GPL", to which Jobs' replied, "OK, we'll do it that way then".
It would be great if someone wrote an article about the alternate histories where Apple chose other strategies. For instance, what an Apple-Be merge would have resulted in, what kind of products and tech. And how NeXT would have lasted without Apple.
None of the tech really mattered, not much anyway. What Apple really got with NeXT was Steve Jobs' vision, along with a more seasoned CEO better capable of realizing that vision. Whether Apple had gotten BeOS or NeXT didn't really matter all that much in comparison.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/4B800F78-0F7... http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/14
It would be great if someone wrote an article about the alternate histories where Apple chose other strategies. For instance, what an Apple-Be merge would have resulted in, what kind of products and tech. And how NeXT would have lasted without Apple.
None of the tech really mattered, not much anyway. What Apple really got with NeXT was Steve Jobs' vision, along with a more seasoned CEO better capable of realizing that vision. Whether Apple had gotten BeOS or NeXT didn't really matter all that much in comparison.
Hundreds (thousands?) of API calls in both Desktop iOS development are prefaced NS_ ... that is NeXTSTEP
It would be great if someone wrote an article about the alternate histories where Apple chose other strategies. For instance, what an Apple-Be merge would have resulted in, what kind of products and tech. And how NeXT would have lasted without Apple.
Wow, I haven't heard someone mention BeOs in over a decade. That was a pretty OS, but I'd take that black NeXT case any day. Those NeXT boxes were so cool.
I read that the NeXT, let's call it, "adventure", is the reason Apple went with a Linux distribution as basis for their new OS and thus, we're all using OSX now?
As far as I know, Apple has never used Linux for anything in any capacity. OSX's kernel is XNU, and it's a hybrid of BSD code and Mach.
I read that the NeXT, let's call it, "adventure", is the reason Apple went with a Linux distribution as basis for their new OS and thus, we're all using OSX now?
As far as I know, Apple has never used Linux for anything in any capacity. OSX's kernel is XNU, and it's a hybrid of BSD code and Mach.
”MkLinux started as a project sponsored by Apple Computer and OSF Research Institute, to get "Linux on Mach" ported to the Macintosh computer and for Apple to explore alternative kernel technologies on the Mac platform. At the time, there was no officially sponsored PowerPC port of Linux, and none specifically for Macintosh hardware”
I read that the NeXT, let's call it, "adventure", is the reason Apple went with a Linux distribution as basis for their new OS and thus, we're all using OSX now?
As far as I know, Apple has never used Linux for anything in any capacity. OSX's kernel is XNU, and it's a hybrid of BSD code and Mach.
>> What came out of this deal not only saved Apple and the Mac, but made the iPhone, iPad and more possible as well. What prevents Apple from making the iPhone and iPad? They could have bought Palm, QNX, did something based on Linux... What was the key? BSD? Objective-C? I don't see those being that important. The one thing NeXT did enable them to do was the PowerPC to Intel switch.
If Apple had planned to build the iPhone in 1996, they probably would have bought Palm and ended up with something a far cry short of the iPhone as we know it, for obvious reasons.
Palm's OS was designed for what mobile hardware was capable of in the 90s, whereas NeXT's OS was designed for what workstation hardware was capable of in the 90s. By the time the iPhone was released, Moore's Law had made mobile hardware capable of running the superior NeXT software (full unix kernel under the hood, Objective-C and its APIs, etc.) and you end up with a better end product.