Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/27/07 19:36, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
[snip]
>
> That was true of the traditional BSD 4.3 and 4.4 design. However when people
> refer to "BSD" these days they're referring to one of the major derivatives
> which have all undergone extensive further development. FreeBSD has crowed a
> lot about their finer-grained kernel locks too for example. Other variants of
> BSD tend to focus on other areas (like portability for example) so they may
> not be as far ahead but they've still undoubtedly made significant progress
> compared to 1993.

NetBSD and OpenBSD are still pretty not-good at scaling up.

But they're darned good at running on 68K Macs (NBSD) and
semi-embedded stuff like low-end firewalling routers (OBSD).

>> Not much of a kernel guy here but my understanding is that MacOSX is
>> basically NeXT version 10, which means... Mach... which is entirely
>> different than say FreeBSD at the kernel level.
>
> I think (but I'm not sure) that the kernel in OSX comes from BSD. What they
> took from NeXT was the GUI design and object oriented application framework
> stuff. Basically all the stuff that Unix programmers still haven't quite
> figured out what it's good for.

Even AfterStep is written is plain C...

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA

%SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHTMqjS9HxQb37XmcRAmS+AKCyzxZ9b1jmcye8gEwlun7VrszhfgCfVC6B
LEaSaGlorSQ5lX5eIIgx7dM=
=NvJi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----