 |
 |
10.4 to include Linux API's ???
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Washington DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://www.macosrumors.com/
Not sure if they are high or what - but macosrumors is reporting that 10.4 may feature a number of Linux APIs, and advertise that feature heavily.....
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status:
Offline
|
|
"Panther already implements a number of Linux APIs."
I wonder what those are?
|
|
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Developer:
"Panther already implements a number of Linux APIs."
I wonder what those are?
Probably anything around Xwindows, eh?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
first thing you need to realize...
macosrumors.com=full of sh*t
|
|
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Status:
Offline
|
|
The question which immediately springs to mind is: WTF is a Linux API? The syscalls? Glibc? Module interface? Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by stuffedmonkey:
http://www.macosrumors.com/
Not sure if they are high or what - but macosrumors is reporting that 10.4 may feature a number of Linux APIs, and advertise that feature heavily.....
God, these guys again? Their rumors are so wrong that if they tell you if today is Monday that tomorrow is Tuesday I -still- wouldn't believe them.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CatOne:
Probably anything around Xwindows, eh?
No, Apple's X11 manager is based on XFree86, nothing to do with Linux other than that they both use it. So does FreeBSD, which is what Darwin is based on.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pinching up a storm on the Star Destroyer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Oh dear God. MacOsrumors junk again. Ignore it.
|
"If it's broke, you choke."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
No, Apple's X11 manager is based on XFree86, nothing to do with Linux other than that they both use it. So does FreeBSD, which is what Darwin is based on.
I know that. But, the X11 APIs are common to both Windows and OS X.
So are lots of other libraries. But the fact that they're in common doesn't "truly" mean they're "Linux" APIs, but you could confuse someone (perhaps in the way you wanted) if you said this.
A constructive way of letting someone know that porting apps from Linux to OS X could be pretty easy. Whether the APIs started with Linux or started somewhere else and were "inherited" by both Linux and OS X isn't the real issue -- most people wouldn't understand the semantics anyway.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status:
Offline
|
|
Some libraries were changed to fucntion more like Linux, which is one of the reason why fink was pretty broke when Panther came out.
|
|
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status:
Offline
|
|
Alright! A new funny place to go to!!! Woohoo!!! 
Originally posted by dwishbone:
might as well believe the stuff here...
www.crazyapplerumors.com
at least their stuff is INTENTIONALLY funny.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Please unbookmark macosrumors.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Steb Mad:
Please unbookmark macosrumors.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The only way this would truly make sense is if the Mach kernel being used right now will "incorporate" some of the features of the Linux kernel. But the Linux (kernel) API is huge, and somewhat a totally different beast compared to Mach.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Status:
Offline
|
|
PAM - was introduced in Panther - Is that a Linux API?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by entrox:
The question which immediately springs to mind is: WTF is a Linux API? The syscalls? Glibc? Module interface? Inquiring minds want to know.
fopen()
|
Stink different.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Mahwah, NJ USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well I am not sure what they mean by Linux APIs. Do they mean Linux the OS or Linux the kernel? If I assume Linux-the-kernel then there are many ways that Mac OS X can benefit from this... mainly in interoperability and portability of applications and services that make use of standard system calls to the kernel. Would be very convenient if they were made in the same way.
An example...
The way Mac OS X implements file locking for NFS. Mac OS X Jaguar had no file locking, neither did FreeBSD from which Mac OS X inherits their NFS code. Early in 2003 FreeBSD added file locking to their NFS code. This code is still in beta. For some strange reason they made the nfslock cookie 16 bits. Everyone else who uses NFS locking uses 8 bits. Not to be outdone... Apple took the beta NFS locking code and made the cookie 20 bits in Panther. The result of this is ALL Mac OS X Panther clients can no longer mount NFS shares properly from anything but Mac OS X Panther servers. Which, needless to say, is not very good for interoperability. There is a workaround... edit /etc/hostconfig and add the line:
NFSLOCKS=-NO-
Which forces the NFS client to behave like the one in Jaguar (no NFS file locking).
There was some discussion on this on the FreeBSD, Darwin, and Linux kernel mailing lists. I am not sure what the eventual fix will be. The maintainers of the NFS code in Linux figured they would make the file locking cookie 32 bits just to cover all forseeable future mods and some code to "fail gracefully" if the cookie is ever greater than 32 bits. This change will probably appear in 2.6.x Linux kernels. The patch has already been backported to some versions of the Linux 2.4.2x kernels. Since the FreeBSD/Darwin/Mac OS X code is, as of this writing, still really beta it remains to be seen how it will be dealt with by their developers.
There are probably quite a few places between Linux and Mac OS X that have similar problems or potential problems.
So... if Apple decides to pay closer attention to the Linux APIs, this should be a Good Thing(TM) for everyone. It won't mean that, as far as the user interface is concerned, that Mac OS X will become "more Linux like". It should mean that Mac OS X and Linux will interoperate better. It should mean that there are fewer show stoppers like the NFS file locking problem.
|
|
-DU-...etc...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2002
Location: On the moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
this rumor (if you can call something from MOSR that) is probably fueled by the work of the guys that are porting the KDE apps over to MacOS X. it is very impressive what they have done. they have gotten KOffice, Konqueror, and may other KDE apps at partially or nearly fully working. OpenOffice is also coming along very well. the java based one OpenOffice, NeoOffice, is especially impressive. Now that X11 ships with the OS you will see more and more unix (and linux) apps getting ported over. all of the systems are similar they really don't need to include any part of linux except maybe a few custom libs...which odds are you would have to install into linux anyway (otherwords...not a part of the distribution).
|
|
24" iMac 2.13ghz C2D | 15" MBP 2ghz CD | "Soundwave" 60GB 5G iPod
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
No they were never a stated feature.
The page you link to talks about something else: "UNIX/Linux portability APIs" which means APIs on the Mac to help port over stuff from UNIX/Linux, not APIs that belong to Linux since there is no such thing or at least, it's bad terminology.
So, nice try, but no cigar. MOSR is still full of shi!t as they always have been.
|
|
•
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Germany
Status:
Offline
|
|
A few thoughts about Mac OS X and Linux:
(I just read things about that topic so i don't now if I'm correct - if something is wrong, please correct me)
Mac OS X uses the mach kernel and a BSD personality. It acts like a BSD and is able to run most (all?) GNU applications after a recompile. The biggest problem is to get the missing libraries and to link against them.
That should be the thing that fink does. That is done on other BSDs as the needed libraries are in different locations on BSD and Linux.
I don't think Apple will drop the mach kernel in favour of the linux kernel. I don't see any need for such a move.
It surely would be nice to be able to run linux applications that are compiled for ppc without the need to recompile (link to the libraries).
For all i know there are on BSD some efforts to eliminate the need of a recompile.
Apple could support those efforts or use the methods BSD uses to run linux apps. This would be a big advantage for Mac OS X.
This would eliminate the need for special Mac OS X binaries of linux apps as Mac OS X could use the same binaries as PPC-Linux distributions. Thus making it easy for linux developers to support Mac OS X with their apps. The other way would work to and thus make Mac OS X a much more interesting platform for software development.
In a nutshell: The ability to run linux apps without "natively" on Mac OS X and to be able to easily create linux apps on Mac OS X would be a big advantage for Mac OS X.
Just a few thoughts - nothing more.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Simon:
The page you link to talks about something else: "UNIX/Linux portability APIs" which means APIs on the Mac to help port over stuff from UNIX/Linux, not APIs that belong to Linux since there is no such thing or at least, it's bad terminology.
A "Linux API" would be an API that is used a lot on Linux. An example of this is dl* family of functions introduced in Panther -- these functions are widely used on Linux, and now that OS X supports this API, it is easier to compile Linux programs for the Mac.
The term "Linux API" may not be precise, but I don't see why people are jumping all over it.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Thank you Chuckit - a correct response, finally.
Wade
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by stuffedmonkey:
http://www.macosrumors.com/
Not sure if they are high or what - but macosrumors is reporting that 10.4 may feature a number of Linux APIs, and advertise that feature heavily.....
The BSD's have a Linux Emulation environment which they can use to run Linux executables without recompilation. Maybe this is coming to Mac?
From my understading this would only work with binaries compiled for PPC anyway.
|
|
Nobody made a greater mistake than
he who did nothing because he could only
do a little. Edmund Burke
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by bygimis:
The BSD's have a Linux Emulation environment which they can use to run Linux executables without recompilation. Maybe this is coming to Mac?
From my understading this would only work with binaries compiled for PPC anyway.
Exactly, and there aren't really many particularly exciting binary-only PPC Linux things.
It's also good to note that they're now claiming that Apple will port various core apps to Linux, which is a complete, total and utter joke. Ignore MOSR, they're crackheads.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top