1 Jan
2017
1 Jan
'17
7:56 p.m.
Yes, I know it's Mach: I really meant the userland and (to a smaller extent) the
system calls. Given my aim of a desktop machine on which to live that's actually all
I care about: if I have to worry about the guts of the kernel then the system has failed
to provide what I need from it.
On 1 Jan 2017, at 13:01, Ron Natalie
<ron(a)ronnatalie.com> wrote:
OS/X (Mac) is Mach-derived I think you do it a disservice to call it BSD-derived.
While the kernel-to-application interface was compatible with 4.2 BSD, the kernel is
largely of CMU’s only creation.
The thing came layered with Doug Gwyn’s (where is he? I invited him) BRL SV on BSD user
environment to silence the critics that it wasn’t SVID compatible. I hadn’t even
realized it until I got a few Mach kerneled machines (notably our NeXT cube) and found
that it had my version of the Bourne shell with job control and command line editing
hacked in (to battle the tcsh guys at BRL because I detested the csh syntax and Korn’s
shell hadn’t gotten out of the labs yet at that point).