“What do you consider real work in which the minute size of a shell could come into play?”Īnything biological. “I don’t do much scripting, frankly I hadn’t learned enough of it.” But my definition of “real work” in this case includes situations where a computer is not sitting idle as it is always doing something, and as I commented when responding to you earlier, often this means running multiple instances of things, like the shells. I am sure you are aware of what I mean by “real work” as you claim that you “think I do a bit of ‘real’ work”.
FIREFOX FOR MAC OS X PANTHER CODE
FreeBSD is their reference platform however, and most new code comes from them. Apple took code from all three Open Source BSD projects for both the kernel, and the userland. “Same with NetBSD, which was what the Unix subsystem was originally based on (NeXt/OpenStep, and OSX 10.0).” And note that users get “sh” and not “bash”. “And even if you want to make the argument that it’s FreeBSD-based - what’s the default shell for FreeBSD?” Quartz Extreme is snazzy, no doubt, but it will not be a unique entity forever.
Both use monolithic kernels, and both can swap out the GUI components if required. “OSX is based on the FreeBSD user space, but the internals are *nothing* like FreeBSD - which is a *good* thing for a desktop OS”ĭifference of opinion. I do the same thing when comfronted with Bash There are likely many like me. And whenever I get on one of those, I’m often frustrated by it, and end up doing chsh.”
“tcsh always feels uncomfortable to me, because I don’t have a lot of time on systems that use a c-style shell by default. “Because most users of a unix-like os nowadays are more used to a bourne-like shell?” The fact that scripting with it sucking is irrellevant, as most scripts call the shell they require to execute anyway. They both have some features that the other lacks, but tcsh is smaller and faster. Fact remains, there is a BSD based “layer” “on top” of the Mack kernel (which is not being used as a microkernel I might add, as the BSD subsystem makes direct calls to the Mach kernel, as opposed to communicating via messages. To be clear, I am well aware of Mac OS X’s architecture. Same with NetBSD, which was what the Unix subsystem was originally based on (NeXt/OpenStep, and OSX 10.0). And even if you want to make the argument that it’s FreeBSD-based - what’s the default shell for FreeBSD? Oh, my bad, /bin/sh. Old crufty Unix sucks in many respects, especially on the desktop. OSX is based on the FreeBSD user space, but the internals are *nothing* like FreeBSD - which is a *good* thing for a desktop OS. The one thing I had always liked about the new Mac OS is that it is based heavilly on BSD.īzzzt. GNU tools and libs are clunky and bloated (IMO). And whenever I get on one of those, I’m often frustrated by it, and end up doing chsh. Sure, it may sound like mad ranting now (admittedly, it mostly is), but hey, who’d have thought that they’d replace tcsh with bash?īecause bash has more features, maybe? Because most users of a unix-like os nowadays are more used to a bourne-like shell? tcsh always feels uncomfortable to me, because I don’t have a lot of time on systems that use a c-style shell by default. I wonder just how long it’ll be until they randomly decide to rip out everything BSD and replace it with GNU.
0 kommentar(er)
