Sech - Relación (Video Oficial)

Pretty decent rundown and from what I understand not entirely inaccurate to how macOS works even now.

That said, I do feel like she's kind of implying that because Apple did it differently that somehow makes it better. I'd kind of argue that there's probably a reason why Windows and Linux continue to do the things the way they do. Sure, some of it's compatibility, but it's not like Linux or Windows couldn't do some things as macOS does without being altogether disruptive. In many many many cases, there's just no real technical edge given by the Mach/XNU ways of doing things.

A few examples I can think of.

Kernel caches are great! But initramfs is truly more useful. Calling it a "hack" feels disingenuous. There are things you can do in an actual early userspace that you would never be able to do in a kernel cache without having to go out of your way to make a kext to do it when in intramfs you can write a no-nonsense shell script. This means an initramfs can bring up all sorts of custom and unusual boot environments a kernel cache couldn't even dream of supporting.

Her description of how PCs boot was both outdated even then and also inaccurate. For example: BIOS does understand partitions. It's filesystems that BIOS doesn't understand. It's a very important difference. BIOS also does more than just "load the MBR." But on top of that, even 12 years ago when this talk was delivered: PCs were making the jump to UEFI at this time and so her information was largely outdated.

She also didn't seem to acknowledge that EFI was not an innovation that came from Apple, but Intel for their Itanium platform. In fact, the way Apple implements EFI is largely criticized for not really being all that compliant with the actual standards of UEFI, largely for the sake of locking down macOS.

I personally don't really find the idea of making device drivers behave in an object-oriented design is actually a good idea, and might be one of the chief things people hold against I/O Kit negatively. This is largely because "objects" are meaningless to hardware and this approach only really makes sense to developers who are solely focused on developing their drivers for macOS, which is not really how drivers are written today, where most drivers usually have a component for hooking into the kernel or I/O API and the other part that does the actual device driver stuff. A better approach for a driver framework is one that encourages abstracting a device as if it was an API, not an object.

Also, there's a good reason Linux does the unstable ABI and doesn't take efforts to make things easier for third party driver devs: The philosophy of drivers for Linux is to get your driver into the kernel tree, not to make it something you have to go download off of the manufacturer's website. The whole idea is that if the driver is done properly by the hardware manufacturer for Linux, you don't even HAVE to go to the manufacturer's website to get drivers, you already have it as part of the kernel package. This has the benefit of forcing manufacturers to have to deliver drivers with a certain quality standard and not introduce drivers that break things. Even if the driver has poor hardware support, you can't accuse the drivers in the kernel of being unstable. There are downsides to this (Out of tree drivers suffer a bit, even if they're open source.), but I do find it odd she thinks it's more convenient to get drivers off a manufacturer's website, as opposed to the Linux way of doing it, which is just to have the driver already there and available as part of the kernel package, which means the average Linux user literally has to do nothing to get their hardware working, which was true even 12 years ago.

yes, she is so correct. This is why linux have overtaken mac os x (sarcastic)

Great talk! 12 years later still mostly up-to-date.

I love how comments are 10+ years old but the responses to the comments are 10 days old. I guess the algorithm blessed us all with this video in 2023

"C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM64"
what the hey is that?

Is she wearing a wig??

Wow, what a mess! I knew that OSX was a hodgepodge of borrowed (and stolen) software NIH to Apple, but didn't know just how much of a hodgepodge it was! And considering that the Berkeley Software Distribution was defunct some 30 years ago, why the constant reference to "BSD"? This is a joke, right?

when women in IT used to be real women, happy times

The algorithm brought me here.

Why was this recommended to me at 3 AM..

Said runtime ifs for the runtime but showing build time ifs on the screen. Furthermore the solution was explained at being C++ abstraction which will be a build time solution. So it seems the problem was at development and could not have any effect at runtime.

Mostly bullshit, but if you weren't around at the time this can sound convincing.

What does she mean with "Mark"?

mach kernel micro architecture.

what the fuck is she talking baout system 7 etc mac os is xnu since mac os x

Thanks for uploading this!

These videos looked HD back in the day.

System 7 was released 4 years before win95. To say "it couldn’t keep up" with something that wasn’t even around is kinda silly.

absolutely amazing, thank you

wig

macOS is no longer POSIX conformant now.

Wow I watched this for reference to see how big sur x64 mode only would change the Kernel and I got way more information and clarity thanks good video.

She is so judgemental. I find her snobby and a bit annoying.

where i can find this keynote?

Her true expertise lies exclusively within the intricacies of fellaciatic methods.

Diss n leave

Beautiful engineer <3

Now I will read you my lecture as to how I passed last weekend at the lake.

I really can't take her seriously.

What an insightful keynote. The micro kernel myth for Mac OS X has been running for far too long. The speaker delved into almost all of the core parts that form the innards of Mac OS X. Great job. I don't I have ever seen anyone touch these topics on Mac OS X inner workings in such great detail and more importantly, compressed in under a 40 min keynote. The explanation has been done quite succinctly.

No body here knows what the hell is talking about! 
#1 No home computer is fully 64-bit that doesn't exist. *Home computers.
#2 If you want to learn about kernels a girl doing her school assignment is not the way to go. And God forget me for this BUT HER HAIR LOOKS FAKE.

blonde

Why cant the hardware manufacturers just place the source code into the Linux tree ready for users to just compile the kernel as needed for the hardware when they buy it. Oh wait of course MAC want to keep it propriatery lol

When I was at college studying I.T. we got to use some of the Mac's they had and the tutor was a Mac users going on about have stable they are and the Mac he was on locked up and did a Kernel Panic on him the look on his face was priceless his first words where oh I think they have not updated the system in a while, I love when any one says such OS is better than another OS they all have there good & bad parts no matter the OS

The blond wig will work for me if she just keeps talking :D

i'd tap

10.6 and higher are 64bit, with the ability to run in 32bit mode (to support older Intel Core 2 Macs), and load 32bit drivers/kexts. Besides, what does it matter whether the kernel is 64bit or not? If you can run 64bit apps then why complain?

Mac OS X as of version 10.5 "Leopard" IS a UNIX® System, despite what it's kernel is named. It conforms to version 3 of the Single UNIX® Specification, and as such is registered by The Open Group. The reason why Apple hasn't been sued for saying that it is UNIX® is because in fact it is, and they have a license to prove it.

WAIT Mac OS is Open Source

She doesn't know what a microkernel is

No, it is old white MacBook.

she's useing a Windows PC.

At 31:40, did she just say "The architecture is slower because we have lazy programmers" or did I completely misunderstand that? 0.o

hmm, did not know that.

the kernel is 64 bit. at least since 10.6.

Or, Modify Linux to act more like XNU, providing a proper KernelCache sytem, and letting 32bit applications run on 64-bit machine....

Cool, thanks.So, it's technically possible to develop your own OS using the XNU Darwin Kernel?.... Hmm....