Difference between Mac os ten and BSD

[Mushroom Prince]

I'm not exactly a computer scientist but I like to think that for a 17 year old I am relatively computer proficient.


I have some basic experiences with operating systems like Debian and Freebsd. I have a pretty good understanding of operating systems like Mac os ten and Windows.


So I guess this question goes to all of the hardcore guru's out there: What are the major differences and similitarities of the Mac os ten kernel and the freebsd kernel ?

[slith]

Hm, how to start? Hm...
Okay:

First of all, no matter who told you that, Debian is not an OS!Dont forget that, Linux is, Debian is not!

So, right to the point:

The Mac OS is more like a graphical interface for the Darwin BSD under it, just like the X, but the Darwin is Apple's software (have a very strange license that is not that free), the basic is that, so, is just like FreeBSD, but with their diferent goals, Mac looks for user friendly GUI, freeBSD looks for stability and security...
Lots of differences, but not that different :P

But remember that: Debian is not an OS

I know I was not that clear, sorry, hope you get a better answer :P

[jaboua]

Debian is not an OS!

Yes, Debian is an OS. Linux is just the core parts of the OS, the OS alltogether is called Debian. You won't get that long with just the kernel...

[alancooney]

Actually, the Linux Kernel is an OS,

Things like widows xp, fedora, debian etc are OEs (Operating Enviroment). But every1 calls them OS anyway.
On a side note, Im downloading Freebsd at the mo!

[Vergil83]

I disagree, I say Debian is an operating system.
A OS is more than just a kernel.

In 1963, the concept of an operating system was quite novel. While the term itself was sometimes used, it did not (especially when applied to commercial products) always mean what it does today: a complex system mediating all interactions between users, application programs, and computer hardware. Instead, the term was applied to a collection of compatible utility programs—perhaps including assemblers, compilers, debugging tools, standard routines for input and output, buffers to "spool" printer and tape output, and utilities designed to load a sequence (or "batch") of programs into memory and automate some of the reconfiguration performed by human operators. [end of page 1] Utilities of this kind played an increasingly important part in the bundles of hardware, software and services supplied by computer manufacturers.

http://www.cbi.umn.edu/iterations/haigh.html

[valan]

The kernel is not an OS. Try booting with only your kernel and nothing else installed and see how far you get. An OS includes the applications and all that you need to do things. You need shell, init, mount, etc. to make an OS out of Linux. Debian IS an OS because it puts all this stuff together on a cd and calls it Debian.

I don't know much about Darwin and how it differs from FreeBSD. I do know that Darwin uses the Mach micro kernel on top of a lot of BSD things (not nessecarily FreeBSD). You might find it interesting that the Mach kernel hasn't been developed since 1994 (according to their web site).

[sether]

I don't know much about Darwin and how it differs from FreeBSD. I do know that Darwin uses the Mach micro kernel on top of a lot of BSD things (not nessecarily FreeBSD). You might find it interesting that the Mach kernel hasn't been developed since 1994 (according to their web site).

Yep, Mach was a fork of 4.2BSD which used the 4.2BSD kernel and later the 4.3BSD userland. The Mac OS X kernel is based off of the Mach kernel. FreeBSD is based off of 4.4BSD-Lite. So they've got a common heritage, and they both use a BSD userland. But enough development has happened since the beginnings of these operating systems to say that their kernels are quite different.

Now if you're asking about the BSD userland, Mac OS X and FreeBSD are a bit more similar in this respect. OS X bases its userland off of 4.4BSD, as does FreeBSD. But don't expect all the commands you can do on a FreeBSD system to work on Mac OS X.

but the Darwin is Apple's software (have a very strange license that is not that free)

Would that be the APSL, the license that the FSF approved as a free software license?

[serz]

That's it. Linux (the kernel, the core) is not an operating system..with just the kernel you can't do nothing with it.

[slith]

I am sure that only the Kernel is an OS, it does not matter if you cant fo just with the kernel, it still being the entire OS, bash is an interactive shell, between you and what? Yes, the OS! You dont need a shell to use the computer, no you dont, but you do need a kernel to do that, you use shell cause the OS (os stands for Operanting, and ALL it does is to operate) have not an interation with the user, OS is Linux, Linux OS, Debian is a Distro (Linux Distribution), and what is that? Distro is an OS with the softwares you need to run the computer, cause the OS itself is only the interface between software and hardware, not an OE (like wassaid) an Operating Enviroment, or whatever you call it, will be the OS and the Softwares. I still thinking Debian is not an OS, is a fact, not a matter of taste or "I think it is, so it is" , but of course you cant live with just an OS, try to use PC-DOC qithout the shell, and what do you get? So, OS is Linux, Distro is Debian, and I use distro, not only OS You may disagree, but, I am not the TAO or something :P

[serz]

No, you're wrong.

Linux = Kernel (it's the core of the system)
OS = Kernel + Applications, initscripts, etc = Distribution

Bash an interactive shell that is between you (your keyboard) and the kernel.