MacOS is just a distro of Linux

hey G, you think your OS is so grand but really you are just a red-headed stepchild of Linux called BSD.

Discuss

Good thread

>stepchild of Linux called BSD.
no. See pic related.

/thread

>they took the bait

It's not hard to bait on Sup Forums.
I don't know what people are thinking that they can't even distinguish between shit bait, not to mention, not respond to it.

Oh well. Dumbasses exist.

>independent kernel
>independent userspace
>independent gui toolkit
>independent sound stack
it only has FreeBSD coreutils and small portion of kernel interface. MacOS is not *BSD, deal with it.

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

Lets see, independent kernel?
>Originally developed by NeXT for the NeXTSTEP operating system, XNU was a hybrid kernel combining version 2.5 of the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University with components from 4.3BSD and an Objective-C API for writing drivers called Driver Kit.

>it only has FreeBSD coreutils and small portion of kernel interface. MacOS is not *BSD, deal with it.
Yeah. No.

how that paragraph doesn't prove my point?

Where did free, open, and net bad get their kernel?

They got it from BSD, which points back to the original AT&T Unix.

>how that paragraph doesn't prove my point
It just shows you that Macs are just a frankensteined hodgepodge of different *bsd (mostly netbsd iirc).

>they forked few kernels over 20 years ago
>innovative independent development ever since
still don't see it

And yet they work better than most Linux distros.

>They got it from BSD
Interesting. I had always assumed that they started off using a customized Linux kernel at first, because at that time an open source kernel is what everyone was lacking.

>And yet they work better than most Linux distros
They work about the same. Apple pulls a lot of ideas from Linux, and bsd, so there's always that.

>MacOS is just a distro of Linux
No it isn't. MacOS 1-9 were made from scratch by Apple, and then later OS X was made from NeXTSTEP, MacOS 9, and a bunch of BSD stuff. The Mach kernel used in NeXTSTEP was forked into the XNU kernel, which is still used today. Linux is a totally unrelated kernel project from the early 90s, and most Linux distros are using the GNU userland with some BSD components sprinkled in.

Why are macniggers always such tech illiterate morons?

XNU barely resembles Mach anymore. It's not the same kernel.

No they didn't.
I don't really get the whole story, but basically Berkeley got licensed to be able to run Unix, they made a lot of changes to it, and then somewhere along the line there were open source OSes based on it, which are now FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD.
I think what happened though is that the Berkeley people decided to replace all the AT&T code with stuff that can be more freely redistributed (AT&T's code was under a restrictive license), and then that led to the BSDs we know now.
The "System III and V family" I think is OSes that managed to keep the original AT&T code.

>I think what happened though is that the Berkeley people decided to replace all the AT&T code with stuff that can be more freely redistributed
Ah I see. I'm guessing that Minix was still closed source, or proprietary at that time, so they needed to make the other *bsd.

Oops. Minix was always free, and open source. My confusion was in that it was relicensed under bsd in 2000.

Yeah Minix at that time I think had a license that said it could only be used for educational purposes or something like that.
Also, I think GNU was made because Stallman started sperging out about everything being proprietary at the time, so he decided to make a clone of Unix that was was Libre and all that shit. I think it was meant to use the HURD kernel and be a full GNU OS, but then Linux came around and was a better option so they essentially ditched HURD for that. although HURD technically still exists and is maintained, it's practically dead.

They don't.

Why the fuck are Mactoddlers so EZ to bait?

>MacOS 1-9 were made from scratch by Apple, and then later OS X was made from NeXTSTEP,
Nextstep used Mach kernel.
Mach kernel was a free kernel by Carnegie Mellon. Apple combined it with bsd.
>XNU
Was an upgrade Mach kernel (University of Utah version), and free bsd.
Apple is literally charging people for free software, and people eat it up.

>mac

>innovative independent development ever since
Slapping the Apple patent on a mixture of cucked lisenced software= Apple innovation.

as much fun as it is to meme about stallman, without him we wouldn't have so much software that's free ($$ and freedumbs).
glad the guy is so autistic desu

>Why the fuck are Mactoddlers so EZ to bait?
What makes you think the people answering your trolls aren't other trolls pretending to be Macfags?
Mind that hook.

*kernels
Each BSD has its own kernel.

Darwin, the OS that OS X and iOS are based on, is open source.

OS X is free.

>implying being based on BSD/Darwin is a bad thing.

>OS X is free.
Yea apple didn't have to pay shit for it.

you need to learn history.
there were plenty of free licensing paradigms before FSF and GPL.

Nice thread

How many of those were commonly used though?

I meant to consumers.

You can download the latest versions on the App Store for free. It's been that way for a long time.

If anything, Linux is BSD's stepchild