[News] What if Mac OS X Was Built upon Linux?

If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....

,----[ Quote ]
| In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn’t even stand a chance
| on the desktop market.
`----

[url]http://www.jameshooker.com/sitev3/?p=72[/url]


Recent:

Wozniak hates Open Sauce

,----[ Quote ]
| In an interview with eWeek, Woz said that there are always people who want
| things to be free and the open-source movement starts with those sort of
| people.
`----

[url]http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/25/wozniak-hates-open-sauce[/url]

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:1296050.xuN21MHPfF@schestowitz.com...[color=blue]
> If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn't even stand a
> chance
> | on the desktop market.
> `----
>
> [url]http://www.jameshooker.com/sitev3/?p=72[/url]
>[/color]

So... what if it was? Exactly what benefits would MacOS get from a linux
kernel compared to the current BSD kernel?

Answer: None.


About as relevant and intriguing as the age old question of "What if
concrete were brown - How would that change the world?"




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Barb Dwyer
<dwyer@gmail.net>
wrote
on Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:56:34 -0400
<4705397f$0$26455$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:[color=blue]
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:1296050.xuN21MHPfF@schestowitz.com...[color=green]
>> If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn't even stand a
>> chance
>> | on the desktop market.
>> `----
>>
>> [url]http://www.jameshooker.com/sitev3/?p=72[/url]
>>[/color]
>
> So... what if it was? Exactly what benefits would MacOS get from a linux
> kernel compared to the current BSD kernel?
>
> Answer: None.
>
>
> About as relevant and intriguing as the age old question of "What if
> concrete were brown - How would that change the world?"
>
>[/color]

One might also phrase the related question:

"If Windows had a Linux kernel".

A partial answer is at [url]http://www.winehq.org/[/url] .

:-)

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:39:02 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn’t even stand a
> chance | on the desktop market.
> `----
>
> [url]http://www.jameshooker.com/sitev3/?p=72[/url]
>
>
> Recent:
>
> Wozniak hates Open Sauce
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In an interview with eWeek, Woz said that there are always people who
> want | things to be free and the open-source movement starts with those
> sort of | people.
> `----
>
> [url]http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/25/wozniak-hates-[/url][/color]
open-sauce


I think there may be some misunderstandings going on. It seems Woz
doesn't like the "everything has to be free ($0) mentality", not the
freedom of the code. He used to pass out his code.


--
Rick

After takin' a swig o' grog, Barb Dwyer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
[color=blue]
> Would it make a difference? AFAIK the primary problem with Windows is
> security. But I don't believe that the Windows kernel is the weak-link in
> the security model.[/color]

I agree. It does have holes in it, though. (As does the Linux kernel.)
[color=blue]
> It's the apps that people typically run as Administrator
> that causes the problem. You could probably stick any sort of kernel you
> wanted underneath the user apps but as long as people continue to visit porn
> sites using IE while logged in as Administrator then the security problem is
> going to remain.[/color]

Windows still doesn't have quite the compartmentalization of function
that UNIX does. Too much emphasis on "integrated solutions" and "easy
access to OS features."

What I really like about Linux is how you can snap one part out of a
system and replace it with another.

As I'm learning recently, even the boot process of Linux is amazingly
customizable.

--
Tux rox!

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
>Wozniak hates Open Sauce[/color]

"Open Sauce"? Did Ken Davis release his recipe under the GPL?

8)

Verily I say unto thee, that AHappyCamper spake thusly:
[color=blue]
> If Windows used the Linux Kernel, it wouldn't be 'Windows'!
>
> Windows has a 'system' but, no kernel. Isn't that really the
> problem?[/color]

Erm ... what about kernel32.dll?

As for whether the Windows kernel has a particular problem, I couldn't
say, but the overall system does seem to have "issues". Certainly
Windows lacks a -->proper<-- multi-user environment, for which the
kernel is at least partly responsible, and this tends to affect things
like security.
[color=blue]
> Applications can be input to the registry in an auto-execute form,
> that most users have no idea how to eliminate.[/color]

The Registry is simply a rather inelegant and monolithic configuration
file in a proprietary binary format. It can be edited, but the location
and nature of much of the secrets it holds tends to be mystifying, and
thus not conducive to simple administration. Additionally, repairing
said configuration, in the surprisingly likely event that it becomes
damaged, is a somewhat non-trivial task, particularly outwith the
comfort of the Windows shell.

The Windows Registry can also be excruciatingly cryptic at times,
employing the use of keys and data with outrageously long and
meaningless names. On occasion, this practice seems to be a deliberate
attempt to hide information (most notably - I recall something to do
with the currently stored DVD region code). The problem is that relying
on this kind of security through obscurity is largely ineffective
against those determined enough to discover the truth, but sufficiently
difficult to pose a security problem for less adept (i.e. normal) users
(Malware writers can easily hide information in the Registry).

In particular relevance to the point at hand; the fact is that there are
actually several locations within the registry that hold information
regarding programs and services which are started at boot-time, and
hunting down and removing any offending rogue entries (e.g. browser
hijackers, etc.) is a task that is difficult to the point of requiring
third-party utilities, and even /they/ are not always successful.

*nix also has the ability to launch applications at boot-time, using SYS
V Init (although other methods look set to eventually replace this, such
as Ubuntu's "Upstart"). However, compared to the incomprehensible
Windows Registry, initscripts are relatively simple and transparent
plain text files, that are sometimes commented, usually documented, and
trivial to enable or disable using the chkconfig tool (or GUIs like
serviceconf).

In all the years I've used GNU/Linux, I've never known any program or
service to be launched without my explicit consent, on any Linux machine
I've ever owned. I've never encountered any Linux virus, rootkit, or any
other form of Malware on those systems either. They /are/ out there,
allegedly, but I've yet to see one, or even /hear/ of a personal encounter.
[color=blue]
> Major trouble is IE.[/color]

Indeed, and for many reasons and in many ways - ActiveX and broken
standards being just two.
[color=blue]
> The fact that IE has absolute access to the registry is a major
> problem, evidenced in a few posts close by to this one, today.
>
> Repeated here:
>[color=green]
>> Media Player Exploits: New Vectors, New Threats[/color][/color]

Quite correct; IE does play a major role in Windows security problems. A
properly implemented security model would help, starting with an
improved kernel, but the the whole Windows system is so inherently
dependant on lax security, that such a step would essentially break the
entire operating system and all applications. A drop-in replacement
would need to be equally lax in order to not disrupt the current
methodology, which would sort of defeat the purpose.

The only solution is a complete rewrite which, if you recall, has
already been attempted at least twice, and we've all seen the results of
/that/ futile exercise.

--
K.
[url]http://slated.org[/url]

..----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
15:30:47 up 57 days, 14:25, 2 users, load average: 0.11, 0.03, 0.01

Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:[color=blue]
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Wozniak hates Open Sauce[/color]
>
> "Open Sauce"? Did Ken Davis release his recipe under the GPL?
>
> 8)[/color]

Dunno about "Open Sauce", but have you tried ...

"Dave's Ultimate Insanity Sauce"

[url]http://www.davesgourmet.peachhost.com/ct_PRdaui.htm[/url]

.... Reputedly the hottest sauce on planet earth?

--
K.
[url]http://slated.org[/url]

..----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
15:37:47 up 57 days, 14:32, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.20, 0.09

Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:[color=blue]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Barb Dwyer <dwyer@gmail.net> wrote on Fri,
> 5 Oct 2007 10:51:39 -0400
> <47064387$0$26479$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:[color=green]
>> "AHappyCamper" <@thelandfill.com> wrote in message
>> news:4706270d$0$24281$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...[color=darkred]
>>> Barb Dwyer wrote:[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Applications can be input to the registry in an auto-execute
>>> form, that most users have no idea how to eliminate. Major
>>> trouble is IE.[/color]
>>
>> And there are plenty of places to "hide" the startup of various
>> linux apps that most users will have no idea how to eliminate.[/color][/color]

Well thanks to ACLs (or in the case of SELinux, MACs - Mandatory Access
Control lists), simply bunging arbitrary executable files in arbitrary
locations will not be very useful to the hacker, since those files will
not execute, however much one would like them to. Can't say the same
about Windows. Indeed, I recall several occasions where my Windows
system was overrun by Spyware, including all kinds of nasties in the
"impenetrable" Registry (according to Spybot and Adaware). Can't say the
same about Linux.

Oh well, nice try though.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And your point is?[/color][/color]

ActiveX.
[color=blue]
> IE is also a multilayered affair (with IE4's installation system a
> spectacular example thereof, although part of that might be
> convenience/laziness on the part of Microsoft back then).
>
> Presumably, in gross terms, IE consists of:
>
> - an executable stub
> - various accessor/helper libraries (WinInet, WinHTTP, the HTML
> rendering engine proper).
> - registry entries for those libraries.[/color]

And ActiveX.

--
K.
[url]http://slated.org[/url]

..----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
19:02:57 up 57 days, 17:57, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.09, 0.08

____/ [H]omer on Friday 05 October 2007 15:38 : \____
[color=blue]
> Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Wozniak hates Open Sauce[/color]
>>
>> "Open Sauce"? Did Ken Davis release his recipe under the GPL?
>>
>> 8)[/color]
>
> Dunno about "Open Sauce", but have you tried ...
>
> "Dave's Ultimate Insanity Sauce"
>
> [url]http://www.davesgourmet.peachhost.com/ct_PRdaui.htm[/url]
>
> ... Reputedly the hottest sauce on planet earth?[/color]

INQ Speak. I bet that vole is pretty delicious with open sauce on top.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | No Makefile, no business
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - proposing a non-profit search engine

[H]omer wrote:
[color=blue]
>Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:[color=green]
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Wozniak hates Open Sauce[/color]
>>
>> "Open Sauce"? Did Ken Davis release his recipe under the GPL?
>>
>> 8)[/color]
>
>Dunno about "Open Sauce", but have you tried ...
>
> "Dave's Ultimate Insanity Sauce"
>
>[url]http://www.davesgourmet.peachhost.com/ct_PRdaui.htm[/url]
>
>... Reputedly the hottest sauce on planet earth?[/color]

No way, dog. I like hot stuff, but it doesn't take much Habanero to
put most anyone in extreme pain.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer
<spam@uce.gov>
wrote
on Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:05:04 +0100
<gvait4-22u.ln1@sky.matrix>:[color=blue]
> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:[color=green]
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Barb Dwyer <dwyer@gmail.net> wrote on Fri,
>> 5 Oct 2007 10:51:39 -0400
>> <47064387$0$26479$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>:[color=darkred]
>>> "AHappyCamper" <@thelandfill.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4706270d$0$24281$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>> Barb Dwyer wrote:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> Applications can be input to the registry in an auto-execute
>>>> form, that most users have no idea how to eliminate. Major
>>>> trouble is IE.
>>>
>>> And there are plenty of places to "hide" the startup of various
>>> linux apps that most users will have no idea how to eliminate.[/color][/color]
>
> Well thanks to ACLs (or in the case of SELinux, MACs - Mandatory Access
> Control lists), simply bunging arbitrary executable files in arbitrary
> locations will not be very useful to the hacker, since those files will
> not execute, however much one would like them to. Can't say the same
> about Windows. Indeed, I recall several occasions where my Windows
> system was overrun by Spyware, including all kinds of nasties in the
> "impenetrable" Registry (according to Spybot and Adaware). Can't say the
> same about Linux.
>
> Oh well, nice try though.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> And your point is?[/color][/color]
>
> ActiveX.
>[color=green]
>> IE is also a multilayered affair (with IE4's installation system a
>> spectacular example thereof, although part of that might be
>> convenience/laziness on the part of Microsoft back then).
>>
>> Presumably, in gross terms, IE consists of:
>>
>> - an executable stub
>> - various accessor/helper libraries (WinInet, WinHTTP, the HTML
>> rendering engine proper).
>> - registry entries for those libraries.[/color]
>
> And ActiveX.
>[/color]

ActiveX is a funny animal; apparently it's basically
warmed-over OLE, with some permissions protections added
for spice. IE, presumably, has a simple launcher, which
can launch ActiveX components. (I'm assuming these
are some variant of DLL or Intel/x86 PE EXE.)

I know just enough COM to be dangerous, but everything's
based on an interface class, which among other things can
query its capabilities. Of course once that's done,
the control can do pretty much anything it wants.

I doubt they've sandboxed it all that well even now.

[url]http://www.halcyon.com/mclain/ActiveX/[/url] :-), though the
"Exploder" no longer is functional, apparently.

For its part Java sandboxes everything, through its JVM.
Java can't help it, in fact; there's no native code in
a Java .class file AFAIK (and .jar files are simply .zip
archives with a little extra META-INF textually-readable
metadata), and the JVM will interpret it until it decides
to invoke its JIT. A bit safer, and far more portable
than ActiveX.

To be sure, sandboxing is one thing, but Java went one
step further and implemented a securityaccess class.
Everything in the "walls" of the sandbox goes through this
class, and this class cannot be modified from within the
sandbox (it's controlled by the JVM and/or the browser).

99% of the problem, gone -- and the other 1% is probably
already patched by now. At least, one hopes so.

--
#191, [email]ewill3@earthlink.net[/email]
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

On Oct 4, 3:39 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn't even stand a chance
> | on the desktop market.
> `----
>
> [url]http://www.jameshooker.com/sitev3/?p=72[/url]
>
> Recent:
>
> Wozniak hates Open Sauce
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | In an interview with eWeek, Woz said that there are always people who want
> | things to be free and the open-source movement starts with those sort of
> | people.
> `----
>
> [url]http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/25/wozniak-hates-[/url]...[/color]


Simple answer:

If OSX were built upon the Linux kernel, it wouldn't work correctly
and be a total flop.
Just like Linux is.................

In article <1191625170.393207.73330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
[email]alan.yunick@gmail.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Oct 4, 3:39 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:[color=green]
> > If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn't even stand a
> > | chance
> > | on the desktop market.
> > `----[/color]
>
> Simple answer:
>
> If OSX were built upon the Linux kernel, it wouldn't work correctly
> and be a total flop.
> Just like Linux is.................[/color]

Yep.

But, as long as we're making ridiculous assertions: If Windows was
built upon the OS X kernel, Linux wouldn't stand a chance! If OS/2 was
built upon the BeOS kernel, Mac OS 9 wouldn't stand a chance! If Coke
tasted more like Sprite, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale wouldn't stand a chance!

One makes about as much sense as the others.

Bob Campbell

____/ Bob Campbell on Saturday 06 October 2007 03:18 : \____
[color=blue]
> In article <1191625170.393207.73330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> [email]alan.yunick@gmail.com[/email] wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Oct 4, 3:39 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
>> >
>> > ,----[ Quote ]
>> > | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn't even stand a
>> > | chance
>> > | on the desktop market.
>> > `----[/color]
>>
>> Simple answer:
>>
>> If OSX were built upon the Linux kernel, it wouldn't work correctly
>> and be a total flop.
>> Just like Linux is.................[/color]
>
> Yep.
>
> But, as long as we're making ridiculous assertions: If Windows was
> built upon the OS X kernel, Linux wouldn't stand a chance! If OS/2 was
> built upon the BeOS kernel, Mac OS 9 wouldn't stand a chance! If Coke
> tasted more like Sprite, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale wouldn't stand a chance!
>
> One makes about as much sense as the others.
>
> Bob Campbell[/color]

It's Gary Stewart (flatfish) crossposting again for attention. Don't feed that
scum.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Reclaim your workstation - install GNU/Linux today
[url]http://Schestowitz.com[/url] | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 165 total, 1 running, 163 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
[url]http://iuron.com[/url] - knowledge engine, not a search engine

On 2007-10-04, Rick <none@nomail.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:39:02 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn't even stand a
>> chance | on the desktop market.
>> `----
>>
>> [url]http://www.jameshooker.com/sitev3/?p=72[/url]
>>
>>
>> Recent:
>>
>> Wozniak hates Open Sauce
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | In an interview with eWeek, Woz said that there are always people who
>> want | things to be free and the open-source movement starts with those
>> sort of | people.
>> `----
>>
>> [url]http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/09/25/wozniak-hates-[/url][/color]
> open-sauce
>
>
> I think there may be some misunderstandings going on. It seems Woz
> doesn't like the "everything has to be free ($0) mentality", not the
> freedom of the code. He used to pass out his code.[/color]

When you have an entrenched monopoly, that can continually decide
to add yet something else to the core OS install, there really isn't any
other option. For all practical purposes, Microsoft puts everyone else in
the position of "competing against something that's free".

This is more relevant to the question of whether or not Linux
users should be expected to pay for Motif or OpenGL than issues of
politics or philosophy.

--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
[url]http://www.usenet.com[/url]

On 2007-10-04, Barb Dwyer <dwyer@gmail.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
> news:1296050.xuN21MHPfF@schestowitz.com...[color=green]
>> If Mac OS had a Linux Kernel....
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | In my opinion, if it were to happen - Microsoft wouldn't even stand a
>> chance
>> | on the desktop market.
>> `----
>>
>> [url]http://www.jameshooker.com/sitev3/?p=72[/url]
>>[/color]
>
> So... what if it was? Exactly what benefits would MacOS get from a linux
> kernel compared to the current BSD kernel?
>
> Answer: None.[/color]

The standard answer to "why Linux over BSD" would be 3rd party
device driver support of course. This is one key reason that my mac mini
runs Ubuntu.

I don't want to use that crappy remote that comes included.
[color=blue]
>
>
> About as relevant and intriguing as the age old question of "What if
> concrete were brown - How would that change the world?"[/color]

Not really.

If MacOSX and Linux shared the same kernel they could take
advantage of a larger combined market share for 3rd party support.
Although this would probably end up being much more relevant for
Apple's pizzabox servers.

--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
[url]http://www.usenet.com[/url]