×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

iPhone Not Running OS X

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the but-but-steve-said-it-was dept.

OS X 476

rochlin writes "We know that Steve Jobs has said the iPhone won't accept third-party apps. The iPhone looks to be running on a Samsung provided ARM core processor. That means it's not running on an Intel (or PPC) core. That means it's not running OS X in any meaningful sense (Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like). Darwin, the BSD based operating system that underlies what Apple has previously been calling OS X, does not run on ARM processors. The Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement says the source would have to be made available if it is modified and sold (paraphrased; read it yourself). A Cingular rep has said the iPhone version of the OS source will not be made available. It will be closed, like the iPod OS and not like Darwin. So if it ain't Darwin, it ain't OS X (in any meaningful way). An InfoWorld article on an FBR Research report breaks down iPhone component providers and lists Samsung as the chip maker for the main application / video cpu. So, that leaves the question... What OS is this phone really running? Not Linux or the source would need to be open."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

476 comments

I can exclusively reveal (5, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594642)

Its running Vista. Thats why its not available for a few months, Apple are waiting for the first service pack to be released.

Re:I can exclusively reveal (5, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595292)

That means it's not running OS X in any meaningful sense (Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like).

How does it mean it's not running OS X in any meaningful sense? I'd say having Cocoa/AppKit (and therefore an Objective-C runtime), Core Animation, and other OS X technologies constitutes being OS X.

So if it ain't Darwin, it ain't OS X (in any meaningful way)

Again, what is with this "meaningful" crap? Objective-C, Cocoa, AppKit, and the like are OS X. OS X is the NextStep-derived stuff running on top of Darwin. It can most certainly be OS X without Darwin. In fact, it might be Apple's first steps toward moving off of Mach sometime in the future.

Re:I can exclusively reveal (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595320)

Close but no cigar, it's iVista.

Two words (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594646)

Windows Mobile

Re:Two words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595370)

You can expect WinCE to be quietly canned and seamlessly replaced by WinNT on all new PDAs next year. WinCE just can't compete with EmbeddedOSX. Only EmbeddedNT can cut it.
It will be marketed a "new" version of windowsmobileCE or whatever.

Not to mention the lack of graphics acceleration on WinCE PDAs! Also expect all new WinNT pdas next year to ship with 2D hardware acceleration, to compete against iphone.

Doesn't Apple hold the copyright? (3, Insightful)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594654)

Surely Apple's free to do what they want with their source code, unless it OSX is substantially based on code from elsewhere.

Re:Doesn't Apple hold the copyright? (5, Informative)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594686)

Apple's the copyright holder... APSL doesn't apply to them, it only applies to people who download XNU from their website Apple can do whatever they please with their code, it's their code

It's not all Apple Code but BSD doesn't protect. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595134)

Quite alot of the code in OX X is actually not from Apple, but from FreeBSD, so the problem is not Apple's ownership of the code. The main problem is that the BSD license doesn't protect the right's of Apple's customer's at all, so Apple are free to take off with the code and contribute nothing in return. This is not nearly the first time this has come up (SunOS, BSDi, BSD386, IPSO, JunOS, NextStep etc. were also forked from BSD). It seems pretty clear to me that the BSD licenses encouragement of this kind of "selfish" forking with nothing coming back to the original OS is the only possible explanation why, even with far less experts, much weaker (at least technicall) leadership and far fewer resources the Linux Kernal has managed to get ahead of BSD.

FreeBSD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594666)

Why not?

Re:FreeBSD? (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594852)

beacuse NetBSD already runs on ARM perhaps? They have their own coders to do what ever they need inhouse anyway.

Does it really matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594680)

The only questions on my mind are,

What other operating systems will it run?

Will the hardware be easily accesible to write drivers for?

Non sequiturs abound. (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594690)

Last things first: Apple doesn't have to abide by the APSL with respect to their own code.

Second, if it's "OS X" on PPC, and "OS X" on Intel, why wouldn't it be "OS X" on ARM? It could well come from the very same code base, simply an unreleased branch.

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (4, Funny)

Jonny Ringo (444580) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594744)

Well, it just wouldn't be on ARM in a "meaningful way". :)

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595076)

Not on ARM, but in your pocket or on your HIP.

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (4, Informative)

mnmn (145599) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594750)

OSX/Darwin are based on FreeBSD. Samsung does produce ARM9 chips which have an integrated MMU, which FreeBSD requires.

I really don't think its quite a stretch to have OSX on an ARM9 chip. GCC will compile BSD for ARM9.

What I wont buy is the full set of Cocoa, Aqua and other graphic-heavy API in its full glory on the iPhone. The device probably uses Darwin compiled for ARM9 with mobile-Cocoa and mobile-Aqua (and others).

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (5, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594834)

Darwin/OSX is based on the FreeBSD userland. The kernel is based on Mach. Regardless of whether either one requires an MMU or a nuclear reactor in order to run keep in mind that it's software. Which means that clever types and go in and make some changes and maybe take away a requirement or add a feature. Gosh kids these days.

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (3, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594896)

Darwin/OSX is based on the FreeBSD userland. The kernel is based on Mach.

Mach is not a complete kernel. It's a superset of microkernel functions for the BSD 4 kernels. FreeBSD was used as the new base-kernel so that Apple wouldn't have to use the (rather ancient) BSD 4.3/4.4 code base.

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595286)

Who cares whether it runs OS-X on it or not? Since it's locked down, it really doesn't matter what it's like to develop for - there will be no 3rd party apps.

Going on a tangent here, but I've been extremely frustrated by the failure of Java to provide a write-once-run-anywhere environment for PDAs. Turns out J2ME doesn't even support AWT, you must use a completely separate GUI API (MIDP), which is a pathetic piece of junk. Imagine a widget set without buttons!

Smartphones and PDAs are so frustrating, all that cool hardware and so little access to it.

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594764)

And ARM is much closer to PPC architecture than x86. Yes, I agree, non sequiturs abound.

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (5, Informative)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594772)

Last things first: Apple doesn't have to abide by the APSL with respect to their own code.

True. And whatever code in OS X that isn't theirs is, if I am not mistaken, BSD-licensed, so that is no problem either.

Why would Apple create a new OS from scratch? This is probably a port of OS X to ARM (or whatever processer is used), designed for a small memory footprint and so forth.

Re:Non sequiturs abound. (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595158)

I agree, the submitter exhibited clearly faulty logic in his deduction that it would not be running XNU.

Also, I have to say, after the announcement that the phones will be locked down and prohibit third party apps, all stories about the iPhone ceased to be 'News for Nerds' or 'Stuff that matters.' At least until the story about how to hack around the locks appears...

  Too bad we can't moderate the stories offtopic.

POWERPC from Samsung .. google it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595314)

Google for these three words together: IBM Samsung PowerPC

According to a couple of links there SAmsung licensed the POWER stuff from IBM in 2005. That shows it's possible the Samsung CPU is a Power .. of course if/when they announce that people will be shocked. Just like how people are claiming nobody predicted an all touchscreen phone when it was widely speculated.

Doesn't the UK version have a camera too? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594696)

Hasn't this been available for a year in the UK/EU?? With a camera too?? What gives, does Steve Jobs hate america?

"source would have to be made available" ? (4, Insightful)

defy god (822637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594710)

I think you are a bit confused. The license holders, in this case Apple, have the right to license out their works to people in an agreement that defines what the licensees can do with Apple's product. The "Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement" you quote is just this, Apple's agreement with whoever wants to use it. Apple, being the owners of the Mac OS X, can do whatever they'd like with Mac OS X because they own the rights. We, on the other hand, are only licensing it.

Re:"source would have to be made available" ? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594804)

I think you are a bit confused yourself. Apple only hold the rights to the small parts of OS X that they developed themselves. The majority of OS X (including the kernel) is based on BSD, GNU and other Open Source code that never originated within Apple. If they are to reuse any of that for the Apple iPhone, they would have to release the source code.

--
*Art

Re:"source would have to be made available" ? (4, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594904)

No the parent is right. There is very little GPL or otherwise copyleft code shipped with OS X, and what is there is all userland stuff that really doesn't need to be on a phone. The vast majority of the stuff that Apple/NeXT didn't write is licensed under BSD-like terms, and therefore allows them to do whatever they want with it.

Re:"source would have to be made available" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595346)

WebKit? Isn't that GPLed?

Re:"source would have to be made available" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594928)

Do you even understand how the BSD license works?

And do you have any proof that Apple is using GPL-licensed code in the kernel?

And I think you are a bit confused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594934)

You should re-read the BSD license.

(And I don't think there is any GPL code in there)

Re:"source would have to be made available" ? (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594952)

The majority of OS X (including the kernel) is based on BSD, GNU and other Open Source code that never originated within Apple.

BSD does not require that modified source code be released. AFAIK, there is no GNU software in the mainline distribution of OS X. The only significant piece of GNU software that I'm aware of is the optional GCC compiler. Since Apple is unlikely to ship GCC on their iPhone, they're almost certainly free and clear.

Re:"source would have to be made available" ? (2, Informative)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594998)

I think you are a bit confused yourself. Apple only hold the rights to the small parts of OS X that they developed themselves. The majority of OS X (including the kernel) is based on BSD, GNU and other Open Source code that never originated within Apple. If they are to reuse any of that for the Apple iPhone, they would have to release the source code.

No, if I'm not mistaken, OSX is based largely on FreeBSD. The BSD license doesn't require the source code to be released. In fact, I could grab the FreeBSD source code, rebrand it as anything I want, and sell it without releasing a single line of code. Not smart, but allowed by the license, and 100% legal. The only caveat is that somewhere I would have to state that I'm using BSD copyrighted code.

Re:"source would have to be made available" ? (3, Funny)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595230)

psssst! BSD isn't licenced under the GPL. The name of the license BSD is under escapes me right now, but I'm pretty sure it isn't GPL (or any other license you were thinking of which requires releasing source code). (end sarcasam).

Plus 1, Tr0ll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594716)

trutH, for aal Distributions over a quality is dying and its

so what? (2, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594718)

So it's not running OSX. Who cares? Why does it have to be running some variant of a desktop OS anyway? There are plenty of embedded OSes to choose from...

Re:so what? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594758)

Because in the keynote Steve Jobs said it would run OS X, and now that was clearly misleading if not completely false.

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595128)

Steve Jobs said it would run OS X, and now that was clearly misleading if not completely false.

You say that as if this guy's notion somehow proves that, rather than being simply ill-conceived logic. But no, what actually happened is that Jobs figured "Heck, only a few million people are ever going to see this, I might as well go ahead and throw in some bullshit about what OS it runs. Nobody will ever know the difference."

Re:so what? (3, Insightful)

themonkman (877464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595324)

Just because it's not running Darwin does not mean that it's not based off of some of the similar if not directly linked technologies that OS X is built off of. Apple could've created their own proprietary "Darwin" for iPhone if they wanted, much how Linux was a clone of proprietary "Unix". Seeing as it's built for a small and limited device, you wouldn't have to clone all of the OS.

When Jobs refers to OS X, I assume he is talking about the system that they built on top of Darwin. To me, Darwin will be just that; Darwin. It's a BSD. There have been many interviews where Jobs has said that OS X was built on top of Darwin or Unix, so the only logical avenue of thought is that he's not stating that Darwin and the OS X are one in the same (since you CAN run a system off of Darwin alone without OS X), yet recognizes that they hold a symbiotic relationship in Apple's application of merging the two together.

Re:so what? (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594790)

There are plenty of embedded OSes to choose from...

Exactly. As long as it's not Windows Mobile, s'all good...

-b.

Re:so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595234)

Well, Symbian is not the finest mobile OS nor is Palm. Frankly almost all the popular ones seem to suck. Having said that, I'm not expecting that much from OS X either in embedded space but hopefully Apple will surprise me positively.

A magic compiler (1)

Morky (577776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594726)

Why the heck couldn't it be a stripped down OS X on ARM. It's just a matter of compiling the bits they need for ARM. Darwin should be pretty damn portable, just like Linux. Your that it isn't OS X just because it isn't running on x86 or PPC is flawed.

Re:A magic compiler (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595120)

Exactly. Apple has shown in the past that they are capable of recompiling their OS for different architectures -- they did it from PPC and x86 -- why wouldn't they just have recompiled a stripped-down kernel for ARM? After all, they have all the source code, so if anyone could do it, it would be them.

This article just doesn't make any sense. I don't know if the Slashdot editors were looking for an anti-Apple article so as to appear to be giving "equal time," but this is pretty idiotic. There are better criticisms of Apple in general, and of the iPhone in particular, than this.

programmers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594740)

Most programmers allready knew this, who in their right mind would actualy port OSX (darwin + the rest) to a tiny handheld?

Its only the apple whores who believe in steves hype machine.

Dubious conclusion (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594774)

1) Licenses are for people who don't own the code. Apple can make a new product using its own code (and BSD code) without releasing sources, even though a third party would be required to do so (I'm assuming your interpretation of the APSL is correct).

2) OS X is not Darwin. For most people, the identity of the system has nothing to do with the kernel or even the BSD-level userland programs. This applies not only to users, but also to developers working with high-level APIs (Cocoa, Carbon, any of the Core* technologies...). They could replace the kernel entirely, and it would make little difference.

It COULD be running OS X... (1)

Woody (1159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594780)

Look at the XNU source code - it's in Darwin, and you can see info here [macosforge.org]. XNU is portable, obviously. An in-house team at Apple could have ported it to ARM. And there's no reason that Apple could "dual-license" the source *to themselves* and use something like a BSD license.

But none of that matters. It's all just speculation until the device ships. No one knows.

Why isn't this article titled "iPhone Not Running OS X ???" It's not fact, and phrasing it as such doesn't make it so.

Should be obvious it's not (2, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594794)

First, if it was really OSX, why would they need Google's help to implement Google Maps? It would just run.
Second, the interface is obviously significantly different.
Third, it's hard to believe a handheld would have the resources to run OSX.
Finally, if it was really OSX, then any OSX app would run on it (in theory).

I suspect it's "OS X" like my PDA runs "Windows".

Re:Should be obvious it's not (4, Interesting)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594966)

First, if it was really OSX, why would they need Google's help to implement Google Maps?
It's possible that the "Google helped with maps" line is more of a marketing move than any real technical requirement. It benefits Apple to say that Google backs their phone. It benefits Google to say that Apple chose them over any other map supplier. A good win/win even if it turns out to be a little white lie.
 

Re:Should be obvious it's not (2, Interesting)

cuzco (998069) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595212)

The Google map portion of the iPhone demo showed off the double-tap and "pinch zoom" if I recall correctly. These scaling methods may have required some tweaks on Google's end. One thing that was clear from the demo is that Google Maps had it's own button on the home screen so there could also be some handshaking/connection code specific to the iPhone.

Re:Should be obvious it's not (1)

Sleepy (4551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595308)

>I suspect it's "OS X" like my PDA runs "Windows".

Close. I suspect this is different.

We already know that "OS X" is CPU independent, and probably will always remain so since this only needs to be maintained.
There was a time once where Windows NT was CPU architecture independent, but this was just an experiment to if Microsoft customers could be used as a scare tactic and as pawns to strongarm Intel (Microsoft had no serious intent to be CPU portable).

Windows CE is not really a cousin of Windows NT (XP etc..). They have no genes in common.

Where OSX Intel and OS PowerPC do have much (most things) in common. Linux in the OpenWRT project is just as much "Linux" as the Intel "Linux" in my server.

You're obviously not going to get the same kernel features, floating point support, etc. in the iPhone, but that's customization. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is an OS X platform. We call "Linux" Linux when it runs on a MMU-deprived CPU on 8MB RAM.

Well, considering... (3, Interesting)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594808)

it's a microkernel, why not just drop aqua onto whatever kernel they feel like? If it's not a gpl or other open licensed kernel, there's no requirement to publish code, and Apple still retains the right to call it OSX. Unless I am missing something, It's always been called OSX running on BSD, I'm assuming this means the look and feel of the GUI, the window manager, the kernel, and several other things are what make up an operating system. In the case of a kernel swap it might not be UNIX or BSD any longer, but won't it still be OSX?

An awful summary. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594810)

That was a truly awful summary, filled with obviously (and painfully) biased statements backed with a bitter sentiment. I don't read slashdot summaries to find out the inner hatreds of the poster, I read it as an introduction to the story (so I don't have to read it, of course). Just shocking that this was let through by the editors.

Re:An awful summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594884)

Just shocking that this was let through by the editors.

Welcome to our planet we call Ear^H^H^H /.

What ?? (2, Interesting)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594848)

The iPhone looks to be running on a Samsung provided ARM core processor

Well what makes you think that???? seriously just a job posting on apple.com [apple.com] is not enough to say that.

OSX != Mac OSX (5, Insightful)

robbieduncan (87240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594856)

I think you are confusing OSX with Mac OSX. Mac OSX is the OS that Apple sell and put on their computers. At no point in the Keynote or after has anyone said that the iPhone runs Mac OSX. They have simply said that it runs OSX. To my mind this means that it is running a subset of Mac OSX. At the very least the iPhone OSX appears to be missing Carbon (no loss to me), the Finder and other "built in" apps and quite possibly Quicktime. Whilst Steve said it had Cocoa that normally just refferrs to the main Kits: Foundation and the App Kit. This does not include PDFKit, QTKit and so on.

Whether is's based off Darwin or not is hard to say. At a certain level that does not matter. What would matter if Apple decide to open up to third part developers is the APIs that are available. There may be a small subset that want POSIX on their phone but for actual application development Cocoa with some custom PhoneKit is probably all that is important.

Re:OSX != Mac OSX (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594984)

I think you are confusing logic with MAC logic. Logic applies to the real world, while MAC logic is what apple sells to its loyal fans. Apple logic is a similar subset of logic that does not support 3rd party ideas.

Re:OSX != Mac OSX (1)

dabraun (626287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595078)

As if there was ever a public understanding that there was a differnence between "OSX" and "Mac OSX"? What other OSX do you think people would know about?

This is clearly running "OSX" to just about the same extent that PocketPCs are running "Windows" - except that Microsoft never pretended that they were running the "full desktop OS" - it was always well known that they were based on WinCE (which was the actual brand used for several years before being renamed to Windows Mobile).

Jobs clearly implied that the phone was running the "real" OSX to give people the impression it was powerful and open, before having to admit that it is really very closed (and likely also very limited with major OSX APIs missing, lame arguments about the semantics of what exactly is and is not an "OSX" API not withstanding).

None of this says that the iPhone is good or bad (in fact it looks extremely intersting), just that Jobs appears to be getting more and more willing to mislead people to help product launches. One of the first things I heard about this phone was that Jobs said it had the highest res display of any phone, only to look up the specs and see that it is not even a VGA phone (and VGA PocketPC phones have been available for years). I'm sure he's got some subtle-semantic reason passed through legal that makes his statement defensible, but it's still a lie in my book.

Re:OSX != Mac OSX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595220)

I read somewhere that the iPhone can view PDF files which may mean it has PDFKit.

Huh? (5, Informative)

shawnce (146129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594874)

1) Apple isn't affected by the APSL in this way. The APSL affects 3rd parties that contribute, use or modify the source that Apple makes available. It doesn't require Apple to make source or changes to source available.

2) Mac OS X is portable. It already runs on x86, x86-64, ppc, and ppc64. It looks like Apple has it running on ARM ISA (not sure exactly which) given statements by Apple.

Exactly which aspects of XNU, IOKit, BSD layer, user-land frameworks, etc. that make up "OS X" are running on the iPhone is unknown (Cocoa has been stated to exist by Apple, which implies a handful of other frameworks also exist). It is also possible that something other then XNU is being used... but I doubt that... much more likely it is has been slimmed down to exactly what the iPhone needs.

Re:Huh? (1)

SumoRoti (1000740) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595054)

Remember, guys, NeXTstep runs on PA-RiSC, Intel x86, Mips, 680x0, Sun Sparc processors. OpenStep 4 became Rhapsody 5 which finally became MacOSX. Why MacOSX can be compiled for ARM or UltraSparc T1?
The xnu structure is even more modular than ye olde Mach 4 for NeXT, so everything is possible. About the APSL, it doesn't matter. By releasing an opensource kernel, Apple is not forced to release free driver for close embedded tools; I mean, OK, Darwin runs on my ARM riscPC or my cellphone, but what else? PDF display, Cocoa API, specific drivers will never be free...

Re:Huh? (1)

shawnce (146129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595094)

Exactly. NeXT folks at Apple have a lot of experience with writing software and operating systems that can be compiled for multiple ISAs.

Don't forget SPARC and Motorola 68xxx and HP ... (1)

weston (16146) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595338)

2) Mac OS X is portable. It already runs on x86, x86-64, ppc, and ppc64.

And its base (NeXTStep) ran on Motorola 68xxx to start with, and IIRC, SPARC and whatever HP had inside its old HP-UX workstations.

OS X appears to be quite demonstrably portable... not much short of NetBSD appears to be more portable.

HA HA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594886)

It is NOT a miniature Mac in your pocket. It does NOT run Mac software and it does NOT support 3rd party apps.


It IS a miniature Mac in your pocket. It runs OSX and you have no fucking idea if it supports 3rd party apps or not since that hasn't actually been announced.


PWNED

Re:HA HA (0, Flamebait)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595086)

It has been announced, idiot. Apple has said that the iPhone will not run unsigned applications... because "Cingular expressed concern that errant applications could crash their entire west coast cell network" (which to me indicates that Cingular have more to worry about than 3rd party applications on cellphones) and that "You don't want your phone being an open system" (apparently those were Steve Jobs' actual words!

The poster is an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594908)

You are an idiot. Your logic doesn't make any sense. See OS X for intel and OS X for ppc. Also, see NeXTStep for intel, motorola 68x, and sparc.

ARM ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594926)

Where did you get the ARM info ? it may run Cell or PPC or x86...

The kernel is not the operating system... (3, Insightful)

Goth Biker Babe (311502) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594936)

Even if there isn't an ARM version of the kernel, and who's to say there isn't. Apple do not have to follow their own licence. That doesn't preclude the rest of the operating system being standard OS-X libraries compiled for ARM. The video iPod is also ARM and some time ago Apple were advertising for a quicktime expert with ARM experience which suggests that at least quicktime has been ported to ARM. If you can have Linux on an AMD-64 and an ARM 7 why not OS-X?

Utter nonsense (0)

mccalli (323026) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594938)

Of course it's OS X. Think they put in Dashboard and then did all the resolution-independent UI work for nothing?

Cheers,
Ian

It's PowerPC on a Samsung! Google it. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594970)

Seriously don't people use google anymore? It's a search engine one can use to verify things before postting their moronic assumptions on slashdot. Samsung licensed the PowerPC core from IBM and this is probably a use for that:

Google for: Samsung IBM PowerPC

Here:

http://www.pennwellblogs.com/sst/eds_threads/2006/ 10/061006-samsung-may-sneak-ibm-back-into.php [pennwellblogs.com]

"Last year, Samsung announced that it had licensed the PowerPC-core IP from IBM for inclusion in SoC designs." (last year=2005)

Here is stuff showing that Samsung would have experience building it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/ibm_outsou rces_powerpc_production/ [theregister.co.uk]

False Statements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17594976)

Kdawson, you can add a question mark to the title and make numerous other corrections to the body of the write-up, if you do not wish Slashdot to be sued for publishing false statements about a company's product. I do not think Apple will be laughing about your defamation here.

Surprised? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594980)

Is anyone seriously surprised by this? Surely no-one had expected that the phone would be running the same operating system that runs on macs?

Re:Surprised? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595068)

``Surely no-one had expected that the phone would be running the same operating system that runs on macs?''

On the other hand, I guess that, other than the user interface, it could be done. Mac OS X (at least Panther) has been known to run on 400 MHz G3s with 128 MB RAM, and take up a few GB of disk space. I imagine that kind of performance is available in mobile phones now. With the modified UI, it's probably less CPU and memory hungry, and I guess a lot of apps have been removed, too, cutting the disk space requirements. It won't be the same overall package, but it could be the same core OS.

Re:Surprised? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595096)

Suprised? Probably not. Upset and angered? Most definitely.

When Jobs said 'it runs OSX' every programmer in the world went 'Ooooh'. When it was announced that their apps would never be allowed to run on it, it was like he spit on each and every one of us. If it turns out that it's NOT OSX at all, not even a 'lite' version like MS did with Wince, Jobs might as well have kicked us in the nads.

It's a personal insult to programmers. That's why the outrage.

As for 'sure no-one expected' ... Why not? Linux runs on everything from embedded devices to mainframes. Why couldn't OSX?

Re:Surprised? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595200)

``Linux runs on everything from embedded devices to mainframes. Why couldn't OSX?''

Because Linux is just the kernel, and this is one situation where that really makes all the difference in the world. Mac OS X is a package consisting of a few GB worth of apps. Linux is just the kernel, and, in a wider sense _any_ operating system built on that. That includes Debian with all 15 CDs of packages, but also LOAF, which fits on a single diskette. There really isn't a single "Linux operating system". There are Linux operating systems built for everything from wrist watches to supercomputers. If it doesn't include GTK+, it's still "Linux". If you cut Carbon from Mac OS X, it's no longer OS X; many applications that work on Mac OS X will not work anymore (including, I believe, the Finder). There really is only one Mac OS X (two if you count Server as separate).

Of course it is OS X (5, Informative)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17594992)

Apple own and hold copyright on Darwin, they released their own code under APSL for YOU to use and YOU to give modifications back (i.e. this is their license protection for you making a commercial OS X clone)

They can do whatever THEY like to it and never release the source, just like any GPL code author is free (under the terms of the GPL, even) to relicense their code for any party they see fit (BSD, APSL, whatever). It is up to the author and the copyright holder, if they are even in fact different people. Apple are both!

So OS X doesn't run on ARM? Why not? Because OpenDarwin doesn't? This whole article is horseshit speculation and a completely random nonsense of misunderstanding how software licensing works, who wrote and owns Darwin (Apple!) and the technical aspects involved (they've been working on the iPhone for the better part of a year and a half.. that's plenty of time to do a port to a new processor, especially given how abstracted the Darwin kernel is, XNU Apple additions and so on)

Phone on PPC (1)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595034)

On the octave mailing some months ago there was a project opening for developers that where into PPC for building a new telephone platform on PPC instead of ARM. We are talking about the audio and rf-transmission coding usually happens on the arm. I guess new PPC based phones will come eventually anyway.

Check the expiration date (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595046)

The Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement says the source would have to be made available if it is modified and sold

Wait, are we talking about the same Apple that just told Cisco to fuck off ?

What? (1)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595058)

I think the submitter found 12 different ways to say "the iPhone is not running OSX"

Re:What? (1)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595344)

And yet none of them are actually valid. It could very well be OSX at the core. Just because a particular Linux device doesn't have an X server doesn't mean it's not running Linux "in any meaningful sense".

I call BS on this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595104)

It's running all the core technologies that OS X on Intel and PPC have - I think that was the message from the keynote. This moron seems to think that OS's can't be ported to different platforms. I have NEC MobilePro 780 running NetBSD on a 1gb flash drive.....your gonna tell me thats not NetBSD either??? Does slash . have any QA before posting shit as articles?

A little premature? (5, Insightful)

P. Niss (635300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595122)

Any chance we could, like, wait for the iPhone to be, you know, actually released before we make definitive statements on what OS it is or isn't running? Right now, the only people who have any idea what OS is really running on the iPhone are the people who worked on it; I'm taking a wild guess here that you're not one of them.

Sure, I understand it's going to be a long six months with nothing but speculation to keep us warm at night. But let's keep in mind that, until we get our hands on the iPhone, it's speculation only, not knowledge.

what makes an os an os (1, Insightful)

mrcdeckard (810717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595138)

is the question this begs (in my mind at least). is it the UI? or is it the architecture? the kernel?

another post mentioned that if it's os x on intell and ppc, then why not arm?

the summary implies that for it to be os x in a "meaningful" sense, it must be the same kernel (darwin). what if it was a complete different kernel with the same core services on top of it. in other words, isn't it the API that defines an os? if my app can get access to the hardware through the same API calls, and i don't have to worry about said hardware, isn't that the same os? java comes to mind, but it abstracts the os (thus the hardware). . .

i understand the gist of the summary, and there may be a CS defined standard of "what makes an os an os" that i'm unaware of, but it seems it would have to be API-based or architecture/paradigm based, or both.

hopefully other /.'ers can shed some light on this for me!

cheers,
mr c

Relevancy (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595178)

Who gives a crap what OS your phone runs? What's next, hacking the TRON code that runs your washer and dryer?

Who cares? (0, Offtopic)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595238)

I know the fanboys will have trouble not seeing that as a troll, but who does care? Why do they care?

At $500+ per unit and a goal of 1% of the phone market, it won't really make itself into THE platform to write apps for, now will it? Its not going to replace the Blackberry or even the Danger HiptopIII.

So, who and why would care about what OS the iPhone runs on?

There are already similar phones on the market with the main features of the iPhone sans the iCool name, the finger mode GUI, and the iPrice.

What is with all the hype? Its just a ifreaking iPhone iFrom iApple. The hype is starting to be more of a liability to this product than being restricted to the Cingular network is.

meh

iPhone gets five mentions in summary (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595276)

Is this a news article or a product placement ad? Well, this one is a real "whodunit" aint it? Looks like we got a good ol' fashion Easter Egg Hunt goin' on.

It's Mac OS X: MACH - I/O Kit engeneers wanted (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595278)

Just search for "iPhone" in jobs.apple.com:

Bluetooth/Wifi SW Engineer - iPhone

[...]
        MacOS X / IOKit driver development experience
        Mach IPC and/or Mach Server design experience
[...]
        Solid understanding of embedded hardware platforms (ARM processors, SDIO, UARTs, etc

(http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mExt ernal.showJob&RID=4241&CurrentPage=1)

Of course it's not running OSX... (1)

haakondahl (893488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17595310)

...with that tiny screen, and all-in-one form factor, I say it's running The System.

I'll buy one when they come out with the iPhone SE/30.

Stripped down OS X (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595318)

I'm friends with some of the people on the iPhone team. Before I knew about the iPhone, i constantly heard about radical ways to strip down OS X to make it run meaner and leaner and make sure it runs on "limited hardware". I assumed they were working on some sort of PVR or something, but clearly I was wrong. I'm fairly sure that lots of the code written is in CoreFoundation and they ARE using Mac OS X frameworks (stripped down to have only the functionality they need) - but the kernel may something completely new.

who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595326)

stop speculating and just wait till the damn thing comes out. then everyone can find something new to criticize, like the iphone's weight being half a gram more than publicly stated.

why must every discussion on slashdot have a tone of apprehension and conspiracy? relax. steve jobs isn't trying to steal your children.

NetBSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595358)

I bet you money it's running NetBSD. It has a habit of finding its way into lots of embedded devices.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...