Timeline for What is the origin of Mac OS X?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 5, 2019 at 21:03 | comment | added | Tommy | @MauryMarkowitz agreed! From a contemporaneous review of pre-Aqua OS X DP2, arstechnica.com/gadgets/1999/12/macos-x-dp2/5 : "Native Mac OS X applications, be they Carbon, Cocoa, Java, or BSD, are nice and snappy. Cosmetic problems abound, but stability is quite good for a developer release ... There is very little consistency in the UI widgets at this point. Carbon application widgets ... look and behave exactly like classic Mac OS widgets. Cocoa widgets look and behave like ... NEXTSTEP widgets repainted to look sort of like Mac OS.". How long was it before OS X was snappy again? | |
| Mar 5, 2019 at 20:08 | comment | added | Maury Markowitz | "It provides a wonky emulation of the MacOS 8 look and feel atop the NeXTStep stack" - which was, nevertheless, surprisingly functional. It took a while for macOS to get back to that level of functionality. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:44 | comment | added | Tommy | @LangLangC done. I went with 'publicised as' rather than 'claimed', but whatever. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:40 | history | edited | Tommy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 34 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:30 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | Misunderstanding: The untrue claim is that OS X contains(ed) Darwin components, ie in the sense that it's the same components from the same open source. OS X and Darwin are closely related, developed not only in parallel and indeed from the same source; but what is found in Darwin is often stripped down compared to the binaries shipped in OS X and the 'FOSS' parts usually published a bit later. As a compromise "that Apple claimed was intended to produce a complete…"? (I really think until ~10.4 they had engineers bent on doing that for real) | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:25 | history | edited | Tommy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Updated as per concerns of LangLangC.
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:22 | comment | added | Tommy | @LangLangC I'm going to edit to emphasise that Darwin is partly open source since: (i) it was bootable and complete (as per the release notes provided); but (ii) per your comments, the source code released didn't amount to the product offered as the Darwin ISO. So I worry there's a whole semantic argument about what is and isn't Darwin if we're not careful — is it the contents of the bootable ISO labelled 'Darwin 1.4.1' or is it only the open source code components that contribute to that image? — but think it isn't what the OP is asking. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:17 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | Botanical art history term seems warranted as no ordinary user has ever been able to even compile her own kernel that's identical to the XNU shipped by the company. In any version. They just do not disclose what's missing in what is published. Said Apple Engineering. OK: roll your own XNU and it boots, but try to use the so called FOSS components to replace the 'equivalents' in macOS and be bitten, let alone that Webkit on Darwin will be much per aspera and not much ad astra. It never was complete; kernel + "subsystem" is testament to that. "Complete" is misleading marketing speak. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:03 | history | edited | Tommy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Provided explicit scope for my Darwin comments.
|
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:01 | comment | added | Tommy | I'm also going to decline to get into Darwin's current relationship with 10.14 as the question is of origins and the site is about retro computing. I see I've already suffered from poor editing there so I'll just make the change to make it explicit that the provided timeline ends in 2001. | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 17:00 | comment | added | Tommy | @LangLangC "Fig leaf" feels very aggressive — if you've used any WebKit browser, or any application at all built with LLVM or Clang then you've benefitted from work Apple bankrolled — but otherwise, Darwin was fully bootable back in the day, see e.g. web.archive.org/web/20160405162456/https://opensource.apple.com/… which is "the first Darwin release with a bootable PowerPC image" and even "contains binary versions of certain non-open source drivers". | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 16:38 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | Re: Darwin as "complete OS". I think it appropriate to say that that never materialised in any meaningful form for users. "One current goal of this project is to provide a useful bootable IMG –– This is not a full OS like PureDarwin Xmas was, as Apple have closed down a lot of core components, we the community have to pick up the slack." -> Darwin is just an excuse, a fig leaf, so the company can continue to claim it has a FOSS & Unix foundation (and downplay its GPL3 allergy) Q: What components of these Darwin tools are actually used in 10.14? | |
| Mar 4, 2019 at 16:10 | history | answered | Tommy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |