|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 06:59 PM EST |
| RAS [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JimDiGriz on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 12:01 AM EST |
Apple didn't write the Mach microkernel either.
JdG[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 05:04 PM EST |
| Or smokescreen building? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2013 @ 09:00 PM EST |
A bit of meow.
Apple contributed work and hired major committers to BSD. Microsoft left
the DOS code base behind years ago, putting all its users under NT, which
it wrote under the leadership of Dave Cutler.
I think Sun's position was that Google should have given them something
for java or done the run-time from scratch. Ggogle disagreed or agreed in
principle but not with the price tag and here we are with Google prevailing
in its contention that its method of replicating parts of java did not require a
license.
The kernel for Android is Linux. It's the run time and virtual machine that
are
at issue. Better equivalents for Apple and Microsoft might be llvm and CLR.
llvm started at the University of Illinois and a few years later the project's
key people were hired at Apple. The base project continues to be open
under a BSD type of license and one can put a fully functional llvm and
clang on their Linux and BSD systems. At the time Google was launching
Android, I don't think llvm and clang were ready for prime time, otherwise it
might have been a better choice. Sun was shedding engineers, so there
were plenty of engineers who could build dalvik and make it first-rate.
Comme ci comme ca.
As far as I know CLR is entirely written by Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
