BZFlag on Mac OS X Server
BZFlag on Mac OS X Server
Is there any BZFlag wich works on Mac OS X Server?
- netochka nezvanova
- Private First Class
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 4:58 pm
- Location: NL
OS X Server is basically OS X with a boatload of serving tools thrown in. I would guess that there is no better and more secure platform to run bzflag on than on OS X Server. (cue OS flamewar.. here)
To answer the question definitively, I just copied the binary to a PPC XServe running OS 10.4 Server and it worked just fine.
To answer the question definitively, I just copied the binary to a PPC XServe running OS 10.4 Server and it worked just fine.
this signature intentionally left blank
-
- Private First Class
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:32 pm
- Location: Gainesville Florida
I don't suppose it's because OS X is based on the FreeBSD Unix kernel. Nah, that wouldn't have anything to do with it....Tedius wrote:...I would guess that there is no better and more secure platform to run bzflag on than on OS X Server. (cue OS flamewar.. here)
http://developer.apple.com/documentatio ... index.html
Actually, OS X is based on the Mach kernel that was used for Nextstep OS that Steve Jobs worked on while he was away from Apple. While it does use a BSD userland, and works similarly in many respects, OS X is not a unix derviative, regardless of what Apple's marketing would like you to think.anomaly wrote:I don't suppose it's because OS X is based on the FreeBSD Unix kernel. Nah, that wouldn't have anything to do with it....
Regardless, the difference in security between OS X and Linux (or any flavors thereof) for bzfs is probably negligible- in either case, running bzfs chrooted should be very secure, notwithstanding any vulnerabilities in bzfs itself.
Going from Tedius' test, I don't see any reason OS X server wouldn't work. I'd think that, worst case scenario, you'd have to build a binary on the server.
Optimism is just a milder alternative to denial.
-
- Private First Class
- Posts: 220
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:32 pm
- Location: Gainesville Florida
Actually I was referring to:
Integrated with Mach is a customized version of the BSD operating system (currently FreeBSD 5). Darwin’s implementation of BSD includes much of the POSIX API, which is available from the application layers of the system. BSD serves as the basis for the file systems and networking facilities of Mac OS X.
from the apple dev website.
Integrated with Mach is a customized version of the BSD operating system (currently FreeBSD 5). Darwin’s implementation of BSD includes much of the POSIX API, which is available from the application layers of the system. BSD serves as the basis for the file systems and networking facilities of Mac OS X.
from the apple dev website.
The "BSD operating system" is not the same thing as the unix kernel. They do take code from freeBSD, but it's still mach at the core.
Mach was originally designed to be a drop-in replacement for the existing Unix kernel, so it only makes sense to design a unix-like OS around it. However, this does NOT mean that OS X is Unix, or based on unix. It is unix-like in the same way that Linux is unix-like. Yes, they're similar, they can share apps, and even share code. Anything beyond that is marketing hype.
Mach was originally designed to be a drop-in replacement for the existing Unix kernel, so it only makes sense to design a unix-like OS around it. However, this does NOT mean that OS X is Unix, or based on unix. It is unix-like in the same way that Linux is unix-like. Yes, they're similar, they can share apps, and even share code. Anything beyond that is marketing hype.
Optimism is just a milder alternative to denial.
- a dead man
- Private First Class
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:50 am
- Location: Canberra, Australia