| >Some critics, including Bill Gates, noted that Apple ended up not adopting the entire NeXT operating system. There’s some truth to that, because Apple decided not to leap into a completely new system but instead to evolve the existing one. Is there somewhere where Bill Gates said "none of the NeXT code made it into OS X". That's the impression I got the other day from this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3229928 Quoting the relevant part: >One example of this is Jobs talking about how NeXT's software gave the Mac new life. Isaacson says this is a lie, and then goes on to quote Bill Gates who says none of the NeXT code made it into OS X. Now, this is an obvious and bald faced lie on Gates' part, but Isaacson doesn't know any better. He's decided that Jobs is a liar, and therefore , whenever someone says anything that disagrees, it must be evidence that Jobs was lying. >Reality is, OS X is NeXTSTEP with the Mac UI put on top of it, and at this point another 10 years of evolution. Gates was lying for whatever reasons Gates lies (and gates really is pathological in this regard). From your quote from the book, Bill Gates seems to have said a very different thing, not sure one could call him a liar on that(even not allowing that people try to put a bad light on rivals). |
You're twisting Isaacson's words. He said:
> noted that Apple ended up not adopting the entire NeXT operating system
This doesn't mean none of NeXT's code made it in, it means not all of it.
But, putting aside the nitpicks, I, as a technical person, do not care much for the technical details. I'm much more interested in Jobs' hippie counter-culture history and his philosophical view than the technical details of which system was the more important precursor to OS X.