[GNUz] O/S compare

[Rik Tindall]

Jim Cheetham wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 01:41:28PM +1300, Rik Tindall wrote:
>  
>
>>So OS/X is 'a Mach'
>>    
>>
>
>Well, it's got the same microkernel architecture as The Hurd, but I very
>much doubt that there is any code sharing.
>  
>
Me too, but there's a common root. Can we say 
'implemented_kernel_design+license' = an 'o/s type' perhaps?

Which gives us Hurds, *BSDs, one LINUX® (a real strength in that unity), 
MSDOS.SYS (or is it IO.SYS?), and others irrelevant to 99.9% of Users 
(unless I've omitted something important, like Commodore). I may add a 
Hurd column to the NixDiff table, but for the time being it's too 
complicated. So OS/X is out (for now).

>>I haven't 
>>heard that OS/X's Mach kernel is open-source yet, tho Wes put up the MIT (BSD-like) license that showed it needn't be.
>>    
>>
>
>What's your definition? MIT license is "OSI Open Source"
>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ ... isn't their definition a sub-set
>of "open-source"?
>  
>
I'm referring here to the kernel code still actually being open-source 
(accessible), rather than to the license that allows the option to close 
it. That license must be retained amongst the binaries, and would 
continue to qualify the o/s among the o/s categories I am profiling. So 
a closed-source MacMach kernel is still CMI-'MIT'-licensed, just as it 
is while still open-source. The detail I have elicited so far leads me 
to believe that the MacMach kernel is still actually open-source, but I 
am unsure (and instincts tell me no).

>I know you like to play with definitions 
>
For me this is work. I have a Win-servicing background, and no real 
programmer skills or aspirations (which is what makes BSD more appealing 
to me than LNX, because it's purer communications tech). My chosen job 
is to interpret the Nix environment into layperson's terms, in the hope 
of helping to grow the client base for us all / the good of Nix. My 
yardstick is, "if I can't understand it, my clients surely won't". So 
this is training, current and future.

>... and in the culture many of
>these definitions have grown into people's understandings, and are
>therefore inadequately expressed for newcomers.
>  
>
You got it. :-)

>So, to establish your license-tolerance level, here's a question. Is
>qmail open-source? (Go to google, qmail is an MTA - mail server)
>  
>
http://www.qmail.org/not-open-source.html

>Actually, judging by some of the discussion here, are you trying to
>compare kernels, distributions or licenses?
>  
>
Well, it was distributions to start with. But I've honed in on 
kernel+license platform because of what you pointed out last week. I'd 
tagged Windos " Sourcecode - freedom to close - Yes" because of the 
Win-OSS workzone prolific now (e.g. Moz, OOo, etc. + mega-opportunity 
for developers). But you pointed out the contradiction there concerning 
Win-o/s, so I am no longer thinking much about apps & userland, except 
in terms of complete o/s useability.

So we're looking at the more fundamental criteria giving substance to 
people's choice beyond Win-o/s. This is about assessing what's under the 
hood. Once we can tell a rally car from an urban communter, we know 
which roads to put them on (checking the tyres first, of course ;).

>Personally, I think that the kernel is significally important only to a
>small group of people, usually the "extreme system administrators" or
>embedded system developers. As you have seen recently, you can get
>pretty much the same user-experience with BSD/X/Gnome as you do with
>Linux/X/Gnome ... and I can get pretty much the same experience from
>Darwin/Quartz/Aqua (i.e. OS X) ... and at a push, enough from
>XP/Win/Cygwin!
>
>  
>
Yes, I think the table ends up showing that, in that BSD-LNX are really 
equivalents. But the reason Win-o/s comes out so low in our rankings 
lies below the (arguably better) app level, and this is what we are 
evaluating - trying to get specific about. Each o/s has its own place in 
the sun, but my career choice has been not to facilitate the Redmond 
empire by any manner of means. (Yes, this does mean sacrificing $ :-|)

So the choice requires full explanation (by distilled tabular means, if 
that helps).

>I'm in Wellington now, although I am back in Christchurch for about 3
>weekends a month up until Christmas ... Still trying to sort out
>accommodation, but covered for the time-being ...
>
Have you found a preferred part of Wellington yet? I lived there for 
three years, so know & like the place well. Sorry I missed your 
farewell. I hope the family are fine. It would be good catch up one of 
those weekends. Please let me know if you ever get a moment free.

All the best,
Rik