Casper Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 http://www.columbusracing.com/stillman/kdeonmac.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngryBMW Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 What are we supposed to be looking at? -Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 See, you're not a geek. Very good, Marc! **Note: Its KDE 3.4.0 running on a Mac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 I hate to say anything good about Mac, but they do have some good hardware. Being able to run Linux is about the only way I would use a Mac though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 18, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 I hate to say anything good about Mac, but they do have some good hardware. Being able to run Linux is about the only way I would use a Mac though. I think you may have just said the most retarded comment about Macs I've ever heard. http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ Linux is the underlying operating system. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD. KDE is not an operating system. KDE is not Linux. KDE is a desktop environment. Darwin is Linux. Mac OS X uses Darwin and Aqua. Aqua is a desktop environment. So... What you see in the screenshot is a Mac running KDE as the desktop environment instead of Aqua. The operating system is still Darwin. Darwin is opensource. KDE is opensource. So, saying the only way you'd use a Mac is if it were running Linux is retarded. Mac OS X is a Linux based operating system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 Hey Ben have you put OSX on an x86 arch at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fush Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Darwin is not Linux. Darwin is basically three pieces, "Mach", "BSD", and "IOKit". IOKit is the device driver support component of Darwin; BSD is the primary "OS"; and Mach is used to provide memory management, process/task/thread support, and messaging. The BSD portion is based on FreeBSD which has nothing to do with Linux. Linux is a kernel as well and only a kernel. Red Hat, Suse, Slackware etc are all collections of tools and software which comprise an OS built around the Linux kernel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Darwin is not Linux. Darwin is basically three pieces, "Mach", "BSD", and "IOKit". IOKit is the device driver support component of Darwin; BSD is the primary "OS"; and Mach is used to provide memory management, process/task/thread support, and messaging. The BSD portion is based on FreeBSD which has nothing to do with Linux. Linux is a kernel as well and only a kernel. Red Hat, Suse, Slackware etc are all collections of tools and software which comprise an OS built around the Linux kernel. http://www.freebsd.org/ "It is derived from BSD, the version of UNIX® developed at the University of California, Berkeley." linux n : an open-source version of the UNIX operating system So, FreeBSD has nothing to do with Linux? Is Apple and the entire opensource community lying? http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/darwin/ I realize Darwin isn't technically Linux. The BSD guys get really pissy when you call BSD Linux (you must be a BSD guy ). But by the definition, Linux is an open-source version of UNIX. Darwin is open-source. Darwin is based on FreeBSD. FreeBSD is a UNIX based OS, often called UNIX (UNIX being used as a general term). So... I think you can figure it out. Its easier to call Darwin Linux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Oh, and I'm kinda drunk right now. So please ignore any typos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted November 19, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Hey Ben have you put OSX on an x86 arch at all? I'm working on it right now, actually. Well, not right now. Right now I'm drunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mensan Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 KDE > Gnome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemosley01 Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 I think you may have just said the most retarded comment about Macs I've ever heard. http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ Linux is the underlying operating system. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD. KDE is not an operating system. KDE is not Linux. KDE is a desktop environment. Darwin is Linux. Mac OS X uses Darwin and Aqua. Aqua is a desktop environment. So... What you see in the screenshot is a Mac running KDE as the desktop environment instead of Aqua. The operating system is still Darwin. Darwin is opensource. KDE is opensource. So, saying the only way you'd use a Mac is if it were running Linux is retarded. Mac OS X is a Linux based operating system. FreeBSD is not based on linux. The two have binary compatibility, but they don't use the same kernel. Further Linux is not based on the AT&T code. So no - Linux is not FreeBSD and FreeBSD is not Linux. They do not even share a common ancestor although they function similarly. One can write an OS that looks like another OS, yet not use the original OS code. Links for your reading pleasure: Linux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux FreeBSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fush Posted November 19, 2005 Report Share Posted November 19, 2005 Calling Darwin Linux is really doing it a disservice. Just because FreeBSD is a UNIX clone and Linux is a UNIX clone doesn't mean they're anything alike. I understand the reasoning there, but its just a bad comparision because OS X internally really has nothing to 'directly' do with the Linux kernel. I used to run BSD on everything btw, but not anymore. My main workstation runs OS X at home, and Solaris at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.