Actually he is somewhat correct in regards to the X standing for 10.
Apple tried, and failed to make it clear that the X stood for 10.
They have since broken their own policy on this and now it goes by
Mac OS X v10.4. I would imagine it was a large argument between the
engineers and Marketing.
Initially it was Mac OS X (X =10). Now... the people that called it
X (ex) won.... sort of. I still call it Mac OS X (10)... or just
10.3, 10.4, etc.
And yes, whatever you call it has no underpinnings (that weren't
ported) that come from the 9 days....
Ryan Stasel
Systems Administrator
School of Journalism & Communication
University of Oregon
On Jun 6, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Rodney Mishima wrote:
I don't know much about MacOS. But I thought that MacOS X was
someting like MacOS 10
I think there was MacOS 7, 8, 9, and the X stands for 10...
I am right?
No. You are wrong.
For the sake of a timeline, OS X uses version numbers 10.x.x
which indicate that it is a SUCCESOR to Mac OS 9 and earlier.
BUT it is a major departure from the "Classic" Mac OS 9 and
earlier, which are NOT unix-based.
Beneath the Aqua/Cocoa GUI, Mac OS X has a Mach kernel and much of
its DNA comes from Open BSD.
It's not Linux... but not a bad alternative.
Rodney
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
_______________________________________________
EUGLUG mailing list
euglug@euglug.org
http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
