lnx > all if your into coding at all... not that wussy vb shit :P

 

Earth to Commander Retarded, what is Mac OS X made from?

 

BSD.

 

AKA Berkeley UNIX.

They used BSD instead of Linux because BSD has a license that basically says you can do whatever the hell you want with it. Linux, on the other hand, is generally released under the Nazi watchdog of the GPL.

 

nazi watchdog? that's pretty harsh, considering that the GPL is a license which tries to ensure that all of the software released under it is entirely free and open source. if you mean that they didn't want to use the linux kernel because they'd likely have to release the source code to OSX to the public under the GPL, then that makes sense. but nazi watchdog the GPL is not

 

GPL benefits developers. BSD license benefits users.

 

Earth to retardo.... civic si and civic dx both made from???? doesn't mean civic dx wont drool over SI

 

that is the worst analogy i've ever heard.
...this makes the GPL a nazi watchdog how? and by this logic, apple computer is a user, not a developer...?

it makes perfect sense why apple would choose to use BSD over the linux kernel, because in doing so they avoid having to release the source code freely to the whole world. BSD is already open source, but if it had been released under the GPL any and all features and enhancements apple made to the core OS would be revealed - such as security, file system, memory management, etc.. and they probably want to hold onto those. GPL is a good thing, but it's obviously not for everyone and every circumstance. still doesn't make it a nazi watchdog

 

IMO, Mac OS X is everything that Linux on the desktop wants to be, just that it's on a PPC chipset and it has a price tag.

Think about it. It's a robust and secure operating system that can run many MANY opensource apps in root-less X11, has a UI that is easily understandable by novices and is functional in nature, has a immense collection of various terminal and text editors to support any preference, is frequently updated against security concerns, and is rock-solid stable.

It's just confined to the PPC chipset and costs money...

 

Here's a better analogy. Imagine Honda made two identical cars, the Civic CX and the Civic DX. The DX has a better interior. The CX is free. Which is better?

Were it not for a truly open source available for a base (BSD), Mac users would have been stuck with more evolutions of the previous Mac OS, which IMHO was trash. Thus, users benefit. Apple really doesn't benefit a great deal, because their user base would have purchased Mac OS X even if it was built off some Commodore 64 code. They release a better product for no added cost.

Similarly, Microsoft has taken several toolsets and most of BSD's TCP/IP stack handling for the Windows 2000 kernel. Again, users benefit. Same as the above with Microsoft's benefit. It isn't like they are hurting for users.

Offhand, I can't think of a large company that has used any GPL code in their products... maybe because it would financially ruin them? Thus, the developers of GPL code won't be used by the megacorps they despise, and who benefits from the GPL code?

If Apple was smart they'd port it to x86. But they're horribly shortsighted.