10 ms·

Making a switch is one thing, but using Linux from the start for OS X would have made more sense. The only reason that didn't happen is because of Jobs' attachm

Making a switch is one thing, but using Linux from the start for OS X would have made more sense. The only reason that didn't happen is because of Jobs' attachment to his other baby. It wasn't a bad choice, but it was a choice made from vanity and ego over technical merit.

monocasa 1y ago
AFAICT Linux wasn't even ported to PowerPC at the time of NextSTEP being acquired by Apple.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- johndoe0815 1y ago
  Apple was firstly involved in porting Linux to PPC, albeit running on top of Mach 3 in MkLinux, since early 1996: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux
andrewf 1y ago
This presumes that Apple brought in Jobs as a decision maker, and NeXTSTEP was attached baggage. At the time, the reverse was true - Apple purchased NeXTSTEP as their future OS, and Jobs came along for the ride. Given the disaster that was Apple's OS initiatives in the 90s, I doubt the Apple board would have bought into a Linux adventure.
- lunarlull 1y ago
  Why wouldn't Apple have been interested in a Linux option? They bought NeXTSTEP because of Jobs. Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000, and they could have added in the UX stuff and drivers for their particular macs on top of it. There wouldn't have been any downsides for them, and it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival.
  - musicale 1y ago
    > Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000 Apple made its decision in 1996.
  - pjmlp 1y ago
    Not only was the acquisition during the 1990's, as someone that happened to be a Linux zealot up to around 2004, usable was quite relative in 2000, if one had the right desktop parts. And it only became usable as Solaris/AIX/HP-UX replacement thanks to the money IBM, Oracle and Compaq pumped into Linux's development around 2000, it is even on the official timeline history.
  - DeathArrow 1y ago
    >it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival. If by biggest rival you mean Microsoft, it was Microsoft who saved Apple from bancrupcy in 1997.
    - kfir 1y ago
      Microsoft did that not out of charity to Apple but as an attempt to fend off the DOJ trial accusing it of being a monopoly
    - philistine 1y ago
      The investment Microsoft famously made in Apple in 1997 did not prevent Apple from going bankrupt. By the time the money was in Apple's accounts, its fortunes were already reversed. The fact Microsoft announced they were investing, and that they were committed to continue shipping Office to Mac, definitely helped.
  - wpm 1y ago
    Jobs initially did not want to come back to Apple. Apple bought NeXTSTEP because between it and BeOS, Jean-Louis Gassee overplayed his hand and was asking way too much money for the acquisition. Apple then defaulted to NeXT. Jobs thought Apple was hopeless just like everyone else did at the time and didn't want to take over a doomed company to steer it into the abyss, and it's not like NeXT was doing great at the time. >There wouldn't have been any downsides for them Really? NO downsides??? - throwing away a decade and a half of work and engineering experience (Avie Tevanian helped write Mach, this is like having Linus being your chief of software development and saying "just switch to Hurd!") - uncertain licensing (Apple still ships ancient bash 3.2 because of GPL) - increased development time to a shipping, modern OS (it already took them 5 years to ship 10.0, and it was rough) That's just off the top of my head. I believe you think there wouldn't have been any downsides because you didn't stop to think of any, or are ideaologically disposed to present the Linux kernel in 1996 as being better or safer than XNU.
musicale 1y ago
In 1996, Apple evaluated the options and decided (quite reasonably) that NeXTSTEP - the whole OS including kernel, userland, and application toolkit – was a better starting point than various other contenders (BeOS, Solaris, ...) to replace the failed Copland. Moreover, by acquiring NeXT, Apple got NeXTSTEP, NeXT's technical staff (including people like Bud Tribble and Avie Tevanian), and (ultimately very importantly) Steve Jobs.
dagmx 1y ago
You haven’t really expanded on why basing off the Linux kernel would have made more sense, especially at the time. People have responded to you with timelines explaining why it couldn’t have happened but you seem to keep restating this claim without more substance or context to the time. Imho Linux would have been the wrong choice and perhaps even the incorrect assumption. Mac is not really BSD based outside of the userland. The kernel was and is significantly different and would’ve hard forked from Linux if they did use it at the time. Often when people say Linux they mean (the often memes) GNU/Linux , except GNU diverged significantly from the posix command line tools (in that sense macOS is truer) and the GPL3 license is anathema to Apple. I don’t see any area where basing off Linux would have resulted in materially better results today.
- jart 1y ago
  Well for starters, it would have better memory management. The XNU kernel's memory manager has poor time complexity. If I create a bunch of sparse memory maps using mmap() then XNU starts to croak once I have 10,000+ of them.
  - dagmx 1y ago
    Please re read the comment you’re responding to about how the kernel would have diverged significantly even if they did use the Linux kernel. Unless you think a three decade old kernel would have the same characteristics as today. What benefit would it have had at the time? What guarantees would it have given at the time that would have persisted three decades later?

monocasa 1y ago

AFAICT Linux wasn't even ported to PowerPC at the time of NextSTEP being acquired by Apple.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
johndoe0815 1y ago
Apple was firstly involved in porting Linux to PPC, albeit running on top of Mach 3 in MkLinux, since early 1996: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux

andrewf 1y ago

This presumes that Apple brought in Jobs as a decision maker, and NeXTSTEP was attached baggage. At the time, the reverse was true - Apple purchased NeXTSTEP as their future OS, and Jobs came along for the ride. Given the disaster that was Apple's OS initiatives in the 90s, I doubt the Apple board would have bought into a Linux adventure.

lunarlull 1y ago
Why wouldn't Apple have been interested in a Linux option? They bought NeXTSTEP because of Jobs. Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000, and they could have added in the UX stuff and drivers for their particular macs on top of it. There wouldn't have been any downsides for them, and it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival.
- musicale 1y ago
  > Linux was already useable as a desktop OS in 2000 Apple made its decision in 1996.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  Not only was the acquisition during the 1990's, as someone that happened to be a Linux zealot up to around 2004, usable was quite relative in 2000, if one had the right desktop parts. And it only became usable as Solaris/AIX/HP-UX replacement thanks to the money IBM, Oracle and Compaq pumped into Linux's development around 2000, it is even on the official timeline history.
- DeathArrow 1y ago
  >it would have strengthened something that was hurting their biggest rival. If by biggest rival you mean Microsoft, it was Microsoft who saved Apple from bancrupcy in 1997.
  - kfir 1y ago
    Microsoft did that not out of charity to Apple but as an attempt to fend off the DOJ trial accusing it of being a monopoly
  - philistine 1y ago
    The investment Microsoft famously made in Apple in 1997 did not prevent Apple from going bankrupt. By the time the money was in Apple's accounts, its fortunes were already reversed. The fact Microsoft announced they were investing, and that they were committed to continue shipping Office to Mac, definitely helped.
- wpm 1y ago
  Jobs initially did not want to come back to Apple. Apple bought NeXTSTEP because between it and BeOS, Jean-Louis Gassee overplayed his hand and was asking way too much money for the acquisition. Apple then defaulted to NeXT. Jobs thought Apple was hopeless just like everyone else did at the time and didn't want to take over a doomed company to steer it into the abyss, and it's not like NeXT was doing great at the time. >There wouldn't have been any downsides for them Really? NO downsides??? - throwing away a decade and a half of work and engineering experience (Avie Tevanian helped write Mach, this is like having Linus being your chief of software development and saying "just switch to Hurd!") - uncertain licensing (Apple still ships ancient bash 3.2 because of GPL) - increased development time to a shipping, modern OS (it already took them 5 years to ship 10.0, and it was rough) That's just off the top of my head. I believe you think there wouldn't have been any downsides because you didn't stop to think of any, or are ideaologically disposed to present the Linux kernel in 1996 as being better or safer than XNU.

musicale 1y ago

In 1996, Apple evaluated the options and decided (quite reasonably) that NeXTSTEP - the whole OS including kernel, userland, and application toolkit – was a better starting point than various other contenders (BeOS, Solaris, ...) to replace the failed Copland. Moreover, by acquiring NeXT, Apple got NeXTSTEP, NeXT's technical staff (including people like Bud Tribble and Avie Tevanian), and (ultimately very importantly) Steve Jobs.

dagmx 1y ago

You haven’t really expanded on why basing off the Linux kernel would have made more sense, especially at the time. People have responded to you with timelines explaining why it couldn’t have happened but you seem to keep restating this claim without more substance or context to the time. Imho Linux would have been the wrong choice and perhaps even the incorrect assumption. Mac is not really BSD based outside of the userland. The kernel was and is significantly different and would’ve hard forked from Linux if they did use it at the time. Often when people say Linux they mean (the often memes) GNU/Linux , except GNU diverged significantly from the posix command line tools (in that sense macOS is truer) and the GPL3 license is anathema to Apple. I don’t see any area where basing off Linux would have resulted in materially better results today.

jart 1y ago
Well for starters, it would have better memory management. The XNU kernel's memory manager has poor time complexity. If I create a bunch of sparse memory maps using mmap() then XNU starts to croak once I have 10,000+ of them.
- dagmx 1y ago
  Please re read the comment you’re responding to about how the kernel would have diverged significantly even if they did use the Linux kernel. Unless you think a three decade old kernel would have the same characteristics as today. What benefit would it have had at the time? What guarantees would it have given at the time that would have persisted three decades later?