Talk:History of OS X
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
The material here is better covered elsewhere, and there is a bunch of misleading stuff, so massive editing is called for. "humble approach" to open source? Puh-leez - that's the part of Apple I work in, and I ain't seen no humility yet. :-) Unfortunately, as an employee I'm not in a good position to write neutrally, so others will have to fix. Stan 04:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree, this page is very POV, and of limited interest in its current form. It's also not very encyclopaedic - what is APSL? Please write for intelligent but uniformed readers - if they already know, they won't be looking here to find out. GRAHAMUK 09:01, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Added more detail about Rhapsody, Steve Jobs' CEO status, Mac OS X Server 1.0, and a couple other things. Phil Welch, 23 October 2003.
Merge with Mac OS X
I think this page needs to be merged into Mac OS X, since most of the history is already there. Any objections? Ctachme 22:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Windows has it's own history page. I think Mac OS X has a rich history and deserves detail in a separate article. Ryguillian 19:48, 12 May 2005 (CST)
I think it's hard to argue that we need 11 links to seperate ARS Technica articles. One link to their site maybe, and let them handle the internal linking for people who are really interested, but 11 links is too much like link spam, IMO Wikibofh 13:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I think a single link to their site (rather than to actual information about the topic) would be pointless. Someone was going through Wikipedia taking out links and even mentions of Ars Technica, which was obvious vandalism, which is why I put them all back. If 11 is too many, perhaps culling the list to the most significant articles would be better? Tverbeek 14:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with simply culling the list and would support that. I talked with the user doing the full ARS removal and he agreed to stop, but cited this page as the worst offender, which I agreed with. He did have a few pages that the ARS links were gratuitous and I clean a few of them up. I think we're at a good place if we can just agree on a reasonable number here. For a full discussion see User_talk:220.127.116.11. Wikibofh 15:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- When someone comes up with links that provide as much information about the history of Mac OS X (which is coincidentally what this page is titled), then I will fully support cutting some Ars links. Until that time, and considering that most tech reviews these days are little more than re-printed press releases with fresh bylines, I respectfully suggest that these links remain. AlistairMcMillan 01:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with you there - Ars provides some of the best in-depth information out there, and doesn't have an agenda or bias either. They should stay. Graham 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would argue that a better source for in-depth discussion without an agenda or a bias would be the wikipedia. :) I don't also don't think that we need a link to every subversion of the software, as well as several of the betas. Why don't we simply make it a plan to expand this article and slowly diminsh those links? Wikibofh 17:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if I sound snarky, but how about make it a plan to not be influenced by anonymous editors who (1) border on vandalism and (2) for all we know run sites that compete with the ones whose links they are deleting? AlistairMcMillan 16:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I used to have a mailing list post from 1999 or so where someone suggested "Mac OS X" as a name for what was then unofficially being called 'Millennium' and also suggested Apple open source the non-graphical parts of the OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Rhapmovie.png
The image Image:Rhapmovie.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Mac OS X's file system
Mac OS X uses the same HFS+ file system as Mac OS 9, like it says here. So I think that saying that it has a different file system (as the article says) is wrong. It organizes things in a more UNIX-y way, but it uses HFS+ to this day.
- I think the problem is that, in some places, including Wikipedia articles, some people use "file system" to refer to the directory layout (the "organizes things in a more UNIX-y way" stuff) rather than to the on-disk data structures used. Unix filesystem, for example, spends more space discussing the directory layout than the on-disk file system (which is probably just as well, as there's no one on-disk layout that all Unix-like systems, or even all AT&T Unix systems, used).
- I'm not sure what the right way is to mention the directory layout being (not surprisingly) more Unixy in OS X than in OS 9 and predecessors, assuming it's worth noting. Guy Harris (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, there *was* no directory layout other than the System folder pre-X. Around the OS8 time Apple included Applications and Documents folders at the root level but apps could be installed anywhere. I'm sure everyone knows someone that installed everything to the desktop.
Redirect from Eric Gould Bear
Article Eric Gould Bear has been redirected here because his company has patents that, they claimed, would cover several summarizing features of OS X (see article history and last version). I'm adding this note per WP:PRESERVE AND WP:BLAR. Diego (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
OS X is certified UNIX as of Leopard
This article says that OS X is UNIX-like. According to OpenBrand, OS X is certified UNIX 2003, beginning with the Intel version of OS X 10.5 Leopard on October 26, 2007.
I do not understand why the name of the operating system is in quotation marks. Why OS X "Leopard" but not Microsoft "Windows"? Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks are not code names. They are the official marketing names of the operating systems.
One must disabuse oneself of this quirk. It is not proper to add quote marks or other punctuation in a way that edits the trademark (or service mark) or implies that the name is not a trademark (or service mark). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talk • contribs) 16:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- With regards to the first comment, I've added a paragraph noting that Leopard, Snow Leopard, and Mountain Lion are certified UNIX(R), giving the Open Group Register of Open Branded Products pages for them as citations. The OS is still "Unix-like" - all UNIX(R) systems are ipso facto "Unix-like"; you can't get much more "Unix-like" than being a certified UNIX(R) - so I left in the sentence describing it as "Unix-like".
- With regards to the second comment, I removed quotations from locations where they don't belong. They do belong in the first paragraph of the "Releases" section, because the words are used to refer to themselves, not to the releases, and arguably belong in the section titles, because they're separate items from the version numbers. Guy Harris (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Because there is an exact certification of what Unix is and isn't, "Unix-like" basically means that it's not Unix but it's similar. That's how wikipedia's categorization system is used, too. To be more inclusive to a genre, one would say "Unix and Unix-like systems". — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- If that's true, you might want to edit Unix-like so that it no longer says