Slashdot Mirror

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Is+Linux+UNIX%3F%22&btnG=Google+Search

Many of those search results tend to state that LINUX is a UNIX...

PLUS, over time, I have heard tell that Linux is indeed a UNIX (heck, it is a UNIX imo, that's where I started in this madness & lunacy: It surely IS a UNIX to myself @ least).

Well, amending that - Except that I personally think LINUX is a BETTER UNIX than most "classic UNIX's" are, & so is MacOS X (but, I respect Linux more)).

Question is though, is it OFFICIALLY (for whoever controls that, & honestly though? "So much for that" anyhow) a UNIX? I have honestly always wondered that myself, but, I am more of a "Win32 fanboy", admittedly (@ least since 1992 I have been).

APK

P.S.=> Apparently, the ONLY reason that Linux has not been (& this might not be true anymore/currently either & my source MAY be "stale"... I say that, because for SOME REASON, I recall that Linux was actually classified as a form of UNIX) officially classified as a form of UNIX, is because of some license fee that hasn't been paid to the Open Group, per this source for that much:

http://tldp.org/FAQ/Linux-FAQ/general.html#is-linux-unix

PERTINENT QUOTE:

"Q: Is Linux Unix?

A: Officially an operating system is not allowed to be called a Unix until it passes the Open Group's certification tests, and supports the necessary API's. Nobody has yet stepped forward to pay the large fees that certification involves, so we're not allowed to call it Unix. Certification really doesn't mean very much anyway. Very few of the commercial operating systems have passed the Open Group tests.

A: Unofficially, Linux is very similar to the operating systems which are known as Unix, and for many purposes they are equivalent. Linux the kernel is an operating system kernel that behaves and performs similarly to the famous Unix operating system from AT&T Bell Labs. Linux is often called a "Unix-like" operating system. For more information, see http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix.html."

(Many of the other GOOGLE search query results tend to say much the same, & I feel that way myself, but... there is that "officiality" (is there such a word?))... apk

1) Open-source. I like to know what my software is doing, and if it lacks some desired functionality, I want to be able to add it. Additionally, this is a matter of trust and privacy. Open-source software helps ensure software makers are competing fairly). Open-source software will rarely, if ever, report web browsing, word processing, or media viewing habits back to 'home base', at least without asking you first. And if they do, there's a great chance someone will notice and speak up (usually very loudly).

2) Security. I don't think I need to say much about this because the inadequacies of Windows, with regards to security and the sometimes unacceptably long invterval of finding a critical bug and patching it, are very well documented. Also, I'm a big fan of security by peer review of source code.

3) Stability. Windows was grossly unstable until Windows 2000 was released. Anyone that's been subjected to using Windows 95/98 should know exactly what I'm talking about, and systems administrators should know well enough the bizarre rituals and alchemies involved in convincing an NT 4.0 server to stay up for even months at a time.

I've been enjoying a stable computing environment since I switched to Linux in 1996. I reboot only after building a new kernel or on the (very) rare occasion that the nVidia module panics the kernel. I've also been using the same Debian installation for the last four years.

(Ironically, though persons who are pro-Microsoft compain that Windows XP still has major stability problems, I've been using it daily on my roommate's laptop for a few months now and the only noticable problem is that sometimes it doesn't like to shut down properly.)

4) Choice. For example, there are scores of open-source window managers that run on Linux and free BSDs, and some of these have eye candy and features still not available in Windows. There are hundreds of third-party extensions and applets for these window managers. There are numerous distributions of Linux and BSD that all have different benefits and shortcomings, sometimes aiming to solve different niche problems. And the best part is that they can all take advantage of each others' contributions - no lock-in. The list goes on and on.

5) Unix. Unix is a well-designed, modular system that is still heavily used thirty years after its inception. And it is thoroughly defined in open, public standards. I've come to be addicted to this system; I'd simply go mad if I were restricted to the DOS command line (though I hear Microsoft is attempting improvements in this area).

Just to name a few...

- Nick

Something is "Unix" if the holder of the trademark says it is. When Unix first went commercial in the early 80s, AT&T defined "Unix" as being any Unix-like OS that ran on their hardware. Nobody else was allowed to call their OS "Unix", even if the OS was simply a port of AT&T Unix to another processor. That's why we have Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX instead of Sun Unix, SGI Unix, and HP Unix.

Nowadays the criteria is a little more logical, but still mostly legal. The "Unix" trademark belongs to The Open Group, and to get a license to use this trademark, you just need to prove that your OS fully implements the Single Unix Specification. You don't even have to have based your source code on an existing Unix implementation.

But there's a catch: how do you prove that you've implemented the SUS? The only way is to run a bunch of expensive compatibility tests. Which you probably won't pass on the first try, because there are a lot of nit-picky little things you have to implement exactly. Some of the OS developers I've worked with at SGI and elsewhere think the necessary changes are very lame, and, if they had a choice, would avoid the whole process.

Naturally, they're overruled by upper management, and Sun, SGI, and HP all now have the right to use the Unix trademark. But they don't really use this right, except for a few references in marketing collatoral. ("Solaris is the leading Unix platform!") Linux could claim to be "real" Unix, if somebody wanted to spend the money to prove compliance with the SUS. But nobody does, because Linux hasn't needed this to be widely accepted.

Something is "Unix" if the holder of the trademark says it is. When Unix first went commercial in the early 80s, AT&T defined "Unix" as being any Unix-like OS that ran on their hardware. Nobody else was allowed to call their OS "Unix", even if the OS was simply a port of AT&T Unix to another processor. That's why we have Solaris, IRIX, and HP-UX instead of Sun Unix, SGI Unix, and HP Unix.

Nowadays the criteria is a little more logical, but still mostly legal. The "Unix" trademark belongs to The Open Group, and to get a license to use this trademark, you just need to prove that your OS fully implements the Single Unix Specification. You don't even have to have based your source code on an existing Unix implementation.

But there's a catch: how do you prove that you've implemented the SUS? The only way is to run a bunch of expensive compatibility tests. Which you probably won't pass on the first try, because there are a lot of nit-picky little things you have to implement exactly. Some of the OS developers I've worked with at SGI and elsewhere think the necessary changes are very lame, and, if they had a choice, would avoid the whole process.

Naturally, they're overruled by upper management, and Sun, SGI, and HP all now have the right to use the Unix trademark. But they don't really use this right, except for a few references in marketing collatoral. ("Solaris is the leading Unix platform!") Linux could claim to be "real" Unix, if somebody wanted to spend the money to prove compliance with the SUS. But nobody does, because Linux hasn't needed this to be widely accepted.

The GNU Project is an open development initiative sponsored by Free Software Foundation and its contributors that is working to develop a free software version of the Open Group Single UNIX Specification development platform.

They may develop independant libraries, but the core of it is just implementing the Open Group's UNIX platform which is the core library. They will always be catching up in that initiative, and they might as well just develop a completely new base of libraries.

It's UNIX, it's trademarked to be all upper case.

Here is the site that actually owns the trademark.

Read it, learn it, love it.

This is UNIX

A small portion of the text:

Today, the definition of UNIX (R) takes the form of the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces.

San Francisco, CA - January 30 2002- The Open Group announced today completion of the joint revision to POSIX® and the Single UNIX® Specification. The new standard is now available at http://www.UNIX-systems.org/version3/ in keeping with The Open Group's policy of open and free access to its standards.

I thought that apple paid the Open Group to certify themselves as a Unix, around the time that OS X came out. What am I missing here?

One simple thing. They didn't. Their OS is based on Unix code for certain, it's pretty close to BSD compatible, but it's not Unix(tm) and, as your post shows, they've been marketing it in a way that can be argued to be misleading in that sense.

From The Open Group's own website:

Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification:

Acer; Amdahl; Apple; AT&T GIS; Bull; Convex; Cray; Data General; Compaq; Encore; 88 Open; Fuji Xerox; Fujitsu Ossi; Hal; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; IBM; ICL; Matsushita; Mips ABI; Mitsubishi; Motorola; NEC; Novell/USL; Oki; Olivetti; OSF; PowerOpen; Precision RISC; Pyramid; SCO; Sequent; Sequoia; Sharp; Siemens-Nixdorf; Silicon Graphics; Sony; Sparc International; Stratus; Sun Microsystems; Tadpole; Tandem; Thompson/Cetia; Toshiba; Unisys; Wang Labs.

Here's also an osOpinion piece from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:

Since osOpinion's publishing of this piece, the Open Group has updated their web site to include Apple into its list of vendors that support the single Unix specification.

From The Open Group's own website:

Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification:

Acer; Amdahl; Apple; AT&T GIS; Bull; Convex; Cray; Data General; Compaq; Encore; 88 Open; Fuji Xerox; Fujitsu Ossi; Hal; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; IBM; ICL; Matsushita; Mips ABI; Mitsubishi; Motorola; NEC; Novell/USL; Oki; Olivetti; OSF; PowerOpen; Precision RISC; Pyramid; SCO; Sequent; Sequoia; Sharp; Siemens-Nixdorf; Silicon Graphics; Sony; Sparc International; Stratus; Sun Microsystems; Tadpole; Tandem; Thompson/Cetia; Toshiba; Unisys; Wang Labs.

Here's also an osOpinion piece from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:

Since osOpinion's publishing of this piece, the Open Group has updated their web site to include Apple into its list of vendors that support the single Unix specification.

Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification:

Acer; Amdahl; Apple; AT&T GIS; Bull; Convex; Cray; Data General; Compaq; Encore; 88 Open; Fuji Xerox; Fujitsu Ossi; Hal; Hewlett-Packard; Hitachi; IBM; ICL; Matsushita; Mips ABI; Mitsubishi; Motorola; NEC; Novell/USL; Oki; Olivetti; OSF; PowerOpen; Precision RISC; Pyramid; SCO; Sequent; Sequoia; Sharp; Siemens-Nixdorf; Silicon Graphics; Sony; Sparc International; Stratus; Sun Microsystems; Tadpole; Tandem; Thompson/Cetia; Toshiba; Unisys; Wang Labs.

Here's also a report from May '01 questioning MacOS X's certification as Unix and at the bottom is an update noting:

Since osOpinion's publishing of this piece, the Open Group has updated their web site to include Apple into its list of vendors that support the single Unix specification. This appears likely as a direct result to osOpinion's publishing of the report.

that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world

You really meant UNIX®, right ;-)

All those comments about the proper and/or incorrect use of the word UNIX, yet not one spelling it properlly.

"UNIX® is a registered trademark" and should be spelled in all caps.

Thank you ;-)

I assume you're referring to this. It shows that Apple supports the specification, but that still doesn't give Apple the right to use the mark itself.

Link was left out. wopps.

There is no Unix company.

Then what's The Open Group?

[[["Mac OS X is not unix"]]]

The Open Group -- the official holders of the Unix trademark -- classifies UNIX as such:

"UNIX - the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4 and additional standards. The majority of commercial vendors have registered UNIX products, with most at the UNIX 95 level and newer products registering for UNIX 98."

Obtaining an official UNIX title is merely achieved when key functionality is added, thus allowing the OS to meet the requirements of the UNIX brand. In this context, Windows NT could obtain UNIX status. Believe it or not.

Either way, your argument is moot. The open group has already clasified Apple as an official suporter Supporter of the "Single UNIX Specification".

See for yourself

1) Regardless of the OPENSTEP discussion, Apple is on the list of vendors that support the single Unix specification. OS X is a UNIX variant just like Linux or BSD... I dont see any harm in being a variant.

Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification

2) I would argue that Apple has taken over some SGI market share. Personally, I use Maya 4.5 on OS X. I used to use Softimage on an SGI. (The Irix user experience is a lot more buggy than OS X BTW).

3) Quicktime is server software, therefore I would say that it has something to do with servers.

Quicktime Streaming Server

4) Yes, Apple will always need higher-end hardware...There will never be a time when people say "Damn this hardware is just too fast for me".

Back in 2001 OSopinion published an article about this and then the Open Group updated their vendor list to include Apple.

Open Group Platform list (Apple is listed)

Now, they later had a talk with the Open Group and they have no problem with Apple using the UNIX brand.

Note that Apple was NOT on that list before that article in 2001.

So, unless the Opoen Group is contradicting itself, it is UNIX.

Apple is on the Open Group's list of platform vendors that support the single UNIX specification.

I'll bite

Nowhere near as powerful? Perhaps-I'm ignorant of the differences. Regardless, the Open Group seems to think OS X is unix. Check out http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/single_un ix_specification.html#platform

Not that this really matters to me, I'd enjoy OS X even if it were labeled as Belly Button Lint.

Office office suite

"Microsoft Office(tm) application suite" sounds better.

Media Player media player (or is that Windows Media media player these days?)

Microsoft products are often named including a generic term, and "Microsoft" or "Windows" is the trademark. Thus, the WMA player is called "Windows(tm) Media Player (generic)", and the database management system is "Microsoft(tm) SQL Server (generic)". And the OS itself is the "Windows operating system" or "Windows environment", which contains a ".NET framework".

OpenOffice office suite

You need only one generic term: "StarOffice(TM) software"; "OpenOffice.org project".

America On Line online service, AOL Instant Messenger instant messenger

"America Online service"; "AOL Instant Messenger service and software"

Unix operating system

Close enough to the official line.

BSD unix software distribution (for extra fun, spell out what BSD stands for), Solaris unix, Gnu's Not Unix unix

Better: "BSD operating system family", "Solaris operating environment", "GNU system", "GNU/Linux operating system", etc.

Laser Jet laser printer, DeskJet inkjet printer

You're more likely to find those in HP literature as "LaserJet printer" or "DeskJet printer".

That way lies madness.

That way lies trademark law. You need only one generic term, not the monstrosities that you exaggerated.

Though an argument can probably be made that the Linux trademark has not been protected by its holder in that regard, since he actually encourages people to use the term to refer to more than just the kernel, but that is another kettle of fish.

The LINUX® mark covers "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation".

"tissue" has a meaning very different from anything Kleenex makes

OK, "Kleenex facial tissue".

I've seen a Barbie doll commercial where the word "doll" was awkwardly dubbed in, presumably after Mattel legal complained.

Even without trademark law, what's better: to be pedantically correct, or to be understood?

Technically when you're talking about unix you're referring to a trademarked owned by Open Group but practically we mean posix compliance and os x does a pretty decent job at this.

We're giving this blowhard kid waaay too much attention but actually MacOS X is a legitimate user of the Unix trademark. The Open Group did a press release about it awhile ago and you can see Apple listed here

MacOS X is Unix. It is technically. It is legally. It is functionially. Indeed it's the best-selling commercial Unix out there.

That some poor dork confused GUI or lack of or X Windows or whatever as "Unix" is between he and his doubtless depressed compsci faculty.

The Open Group has loosened up with the UNIX trademark as time has gone on, and do include Apple as a vendor complaint to the UNIX specification.http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_ unix/single_unix_specification.html#platform
Mac OS X is UNIX.

Where you been, son? Mac OS X was released over a year ago!

Yes, but Mac® OS X is not a UNIX® brand system. FreeBSD's not UNIX. NetBSD's not UNIX. GNU's not UNIX. (This trademark confusion almost makes me want to put together a distribution of GNU/Linux software and call it KLEENIX.)

OK, now what UNIX® system has a GUI as pretty as Mac OS X's?

Anyone that is programming for Unix (or a POSIX compliant system) should definately have a bookmark for (or download a copy of) the Single Unix Specification from The Open Group. The SUS version 3 was recently released on the web and for download here. You do have to give your name and email address (although I don't think they are validated), and you can bookmark the resulting page.

The problem is not the filesystem. Only users uncertain about the FileSystem Hierarchy Standard or the basis of the POSIX layout could make that mistake. Once you start installing your own files, you'll find most of them goto /usr/local/share, which, for a Windows, is much the equivelant of C:/Program%20Files.

The problem with RPMs comes out of the libraries used by the individual compiler. The most noticeable of these is when an unsuspecting regular GNOME user tries to install a binary constructed by a Ximian GNOME user. Most often when you're told by your package management utility that the particular package has a dependency issue, over fifty percent of the time, I would bet, it's really complaining about a library someone else has that you don't, and the remainder is typically a particular application it was designed to use. If you installed from sources, you would see, and I'm saying from experience, around 85% of these problems dissipate. A large part of this in thanks to considerate programmers who put the time to write alternative configure lines for the to-be-abstracted make file.

For all other questions about POSIX, feel free to pickup this handy guide

For anyone else with actual standards questions, my email still works (just in case those of you who still care about standards, both of you, still want some guidance).

The Single UNIX Specification is supported by the X/Open UNIX brand, which in turn is supported by a verification program. The X/Open brand provides the guarantee that products adhere to the relevant X/Open specification. Systems that provide the Single UNIX Specification interfaces can be X/Open UNIX branded as proof to the marketplace. The Single UNIX Specification is the programmer's reference to the portability environment provided on X/Open UNIX branded systems.

Apple is listed as a Single UNIX® Specification vendor therefor allowed to use the trademark of UNIX®. Might not be the cold, inhuman UNIX® you are used to but the Open Group allows Apple to call its lickable OS, UNIX® by being a vendor of a Single UNIX® Spec.

This is a really old debate...

OSX isnt Linux, but it is UNIX.

Actually, neither Mac OS X nor any popular GNU/Linux distribution is an official UNIX® system. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.

I believe you're correct. Also see what is UNIX?

I believe you're correct. Also see what is UNIX?

Then stop using a UNIX-like OS and start using a real UNIX OS like...uh...I don't know...like...Mac OS X. There is nothing like the real thing baby!

Seriously, if you want to watch DVDs on a computer that doesn't run Windows, Mac OS X 's built in DVD player stomps on any thing available for Linux. The best part, it just works. No configuration files to modify, no compilation settings to tweak, etc. Just pop in the DVD and watch the movie.

But then again, isn't tweaking settings more entertaining than watching a movie?

Then stop using a UNIX-like OS and start using a real UNIX OS like...uh...I don't know...like...Mac OS X. There is nothing like the real thing baby!

Seriously, if you want to watch DVDs on a computer that doesn't run Windows, Mac OS X 's built in DVD player stomps on any thing available for Linux. The best part, it just works. No configuration files to modify, no compilation settings to tweak, etc. Just pop in the DVD and watch the movie.

But then again, isn't tweaking settings more entertaining than watching a movie?

But if you notice the update at the end of the article, the Open Group later decided to include Apple as a UNIX vendor.

Not that it matters to the majority of Linux or MacOS X users.

I haven't had the time to compare the opengroup's required API's with linux's, but a brief overview doesn't show anything obviously missing. If someone was to pony up the money, and implement any which are missing, then there is nothing stopping Linux from being a certified Unix. This is what happened with IBM's OS/390, which has no code from the AT&T codebase, but passed the tests so was allowed to be called 'Unix'.

1.) It's largely based on BSD. Despite what lawsuits say, BSD IS UNIX, and always has been.

The Open Group disagrees, and since they hold the trademark I tend to go with their opinions. For example, in their FAQ is a question regarding BSD/OS:

BSDI is an independent company that markets products derived from the Berkeley Systems Distribution (BSD), developed at the University of California at Berkeley in the 60's and 70's. It is the operating system of choice for many Internet service providers. It is, as with Linux, not a registered UNIX system, though in this case there is a common code heritage if one looks far enough back in history.

You can argue that it's "Unix", or "*nix", or whatever, but no BSD is UNIX. They could be, of course, if they were willing to foot the bill for certification, but apparently no one has.

2.) Apple's OS X got the UNIX (R) "certification a long time ago [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]. So both technically and legally, OS X is UNIX.

I participated in that thread back on OSOpinion, before it was posted on /., and I don't recall anyone actually showing that OS X had been certified (actually, no one did on /. did either, if you read the thread). Apple is listed as a "Platform Vendor[] Supporting the Single UNIX Specification", but there is no mention of what OS that refers to, if in fact it has anything to do with UNIX licensing (I just scanned that section of the linked document, and it appears to be a list of vendors supporting that standard itself, rather than a platform that complies with the standard). There are no Apple OSes listed as certified UNIX systems under UNIX 98, 95, or 93, which seems to exclude both OS X and A/UX (which I had previously thought to be the best explanation for Apple involvement with the Single UNIX Spec).

It's true that Apple clearly implies that OS X is UNIX (I don't know if they say so outright or just stick to "UNIX-based"), but it appears that they're referring only to the kernel (not that they'll make that clear if they can help it). One the OS X pages states

The Mach 3.0 kernel in Darwin gives Mac OS X its robust UNIX base.

1.) It's largely based on BSD. Despite what lawsuits say, BSD IS UNIX, and always has been.

The Open Group disagrees, and since they hold the trademark I tend to go with their opinions. For example, in their FAQ is a question regarding BSD/OS:

BSDI is an independent company that markets products derived from the Berkeley Systems Distribution (BSD), developed at the University of California at Berkeley in the 60's and 70's. It is the operating system of choice for many Internet service providers. It is, as with Linux, not a registered UNIX system, though in this case there is a common code heritage if one looks far enough back in history.

You can argue that it's "Unix", or "*nix", or whatever, but no BSD is UNIX. They could be, of course, if they were willing to foot the bill for certification, but apparently no one has.

2.) Apple's OS X got the UNIX (R) "certification a long time ago [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]. So both technically and legally, OS X is UNIX.

I participated in that thread back on OSOpinion, before it was posted on /., and I don't recall anyone actually showing that OS X had been certified (actually, no one did on /. did either, if you read the thread). Apple is listed as a "Platform Vendor[] Supporting the Single UNIX Specification", but there is no mention of what OS that refers to, if in fact it has anything to do with UNIX licensing (I just scanned that section of the linked document, and it appears to be a list of vendors supporting that standard itself, rather than a platform that complies with the standard). There are no Apple OSes listed as certified UNIX systems under UNIX 98, 95, or 93, which seems to exclude both OS X and A/UX (which I had previously thought to be the best explanation for Apple involvement with the Single UNIX Spec).

It's true that Apple clearly implies that OS X is UNIX (I don't know if they say so outright or just stick to "UNIX-based"), but it appears that they're referring only to the kernel (not that they'll make that clear if they can help it). One the OS X pages states

The Mach 3.0 kernel in Darwin gives Mac OS X its robust UNIX base.

1.) It's largely based on BSD. Despite what lawsuits say, BSD IS UNIX, and always has been.

The Open Group disagrees, and since they hold the trademark I tend to go with their opinions. For example, in their FAQ is a question regarding BSD/OS:

BSDI is an independent company that markets products derived from the Berkeley Systems Distribution (BSD), developed at the University of California at Berkeley in the 60's and 70's. It is the operating system of choice for many Internet service providers. It is, as with Linux, not a registered UNIX system, though in this case there is a common code heritage if one looks far enough back in history.

You can argue that it's "Unix", or "*nix", or whatever, but no BSD is UNIX. They could be, of course, if they were willing to foot the bill for certification, but apparently no one has.

2.) Apple's OS X got the UNIX (R) "certification a long time ago [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]. So both technically and legally, OS X is UNIX.

I participated in that thread back on OSOpinion, before it was posted on /., and I don't recall anyone actually showing that OS X had been certified (actually, no one did on /. did either, if you read the thread). Apple is listed as a "Platform Vendor[] Supporting the Single UNIX Specification", but there is no mention of what OS that refers to, if in fact it has anything to do with UNIX licensing (I just scanned that section of the linked document, and it appears to be a list of vendors supporting that standard itself, rather than a platform that complies with the standard). There are no Apple OSes listed as certified UNIX systems under UNIX 98, 95, or 93, which seems to exclude both OS X and A/UX (which I had previously thought to be the best explanation for Apple involvement with the Single UNIX Spec).

It's true that Apple clearly implies that OS X is UNIX (I don't know if they say so outright or just stick to "UNIX-based"), but it appears that they're referring only to the kernel (not that they'll make that clear if they can help it). One the OS X pages states

The Mach 3.0 kernel in Darwin gives Mac OS X its robust UNIX base.

Well, depends. *BSD could be considered flavors of UNIX. If you're speaking trademark-wise, the Unix Trademark Page basically says they're not.. OTOH that same page also says you can't use UNIX in the generic sense, so prepare to be sued :)

The modern thing is simply the POSIX shell command language; If you write in the POSIX language, avoiding the quirks and extensions in the proprietary implementation you are using, your script should be highly portable to GNU bash and vice versa.

Similarly, if you want to write a new shell, your best bet is to use the standard as the guide rather than to clone the behavior of the legacy Bourne shell.

If you don't know what is standard and what is not, try the draft Single Unix Specification online.

Search for ``shell command language''.

Reading some more about Unix, on another Open Group page I found:

What about Windows® NT?
Microsoft® Windows NT was developed as a completely new, state of the art, 32 bit operating system. As such, it has no connection with the UNIX system source code. However, market demand for POSIX.1 , POSIX.2 has led to developments by several companies of add-ons that provide partial functionality. Should the functionality meet the requirements of the UNIX brand then indeed it could become a registered UNIX system.

UNIX XP: would you like that?

Apple is recognized as a vendor that supports the the single unix specification but AFAIK, OS X is not registered to use the UNIX brand name

Apple is recognized as a vendor that supports the the single unix specification but AFAIK, OS X is not registered to use the UNIX brand name

The Open Group recognizes Apple computer as implementing the single unix specification although they don't mention if OS X does it, or if it's their old AIX server they used to sell.

They have not registered the UNIX trademark, so it's not technically UNIX, but UNIX-like.

The Open Group recognizes Apple computer as implementing the single unix specification although they don't mention if OS X does it, or if it's their old AIX server they used to sell.

They have not registered the UNIX trademark, so it's not technically UNIX, but UNIX-like.

I've searched the Open Group website and also their UNIX® site, and I can't find anything about Mac OS X being certified. I can't find any references to Darwin. Where is this certification referenced?

That is completely wrong!!

First of all, Mac OS X uses the BSD Mach Microkernel (developed by Rick Rashid.. now VP of research for MS) instead of the a traditional monolithic UNIX kernel! It has a lot of the GNU and BSD tools included with it, but after all, GNU's not UNIX!

As to your various other claims there is no "BSD Mach Microkernel" though MacOS X is based on a derivative of the Mach microkernel originally developed at CMU (I know - those three letter school acronyms all sound alike..)

Mach's " Principal Investigator " was Rick Rashid, with Avadis "Avie" Tevanian who was " principal designer and engineer of the Mach operating system. BTW Avie Tevanian left CMU to continue the development of Mach at Next and is now Sr. VP of SW Engineering at Apple.

Not to sound rude, but clueless mac evangelists should check their facts!

It has been hashed and re-hashed over more times that can be counted: Mac OS X is Unix, like it or not. Many Unix systems have been built on the Mach microkernel. Two I can think of off hand are OSF/1 and NeXT. OS X, of course, is based largely on NeXT. Also, there is no such thing as the "BSD Mach microkernel". That is pure fiction. Mach was originally developed at Carnegie Mellon, not UC Berkeley.

Not to sound rude, but cluess GNU evangelists should check their facts!

The responsible people who form the majority (but of course not all) of people who post legitimate bugs to Bugtraq do so after informing the vendor and after patches have been released by the vendor (in fact it's just happened while I'm writing this long-winded post). I also recall at least one posting submitted mid-day on a Monday rather than on a Friday when the poster had discovered it, the poster specifically said that he had not wanted to post it late in the day on a Friday as admins might not have the chance to patch their systems over the weekend.

Additionally, many of the actual exploits posted to the list by responsible people are not working code that a "script-kiddie" could cut and paste, there are deliberate mistakes in the code that other knowledgeable programmers would catch, incorrect offset values etc.

There are other posters who've made numerous attempts to contact the vendor over several months timespan only to receive no response, and finally have posted to the list. At the very least this makes others aware of the potential risk if they are using the product in question, and it might actually force the vendor to fix the problem as a bonus.

I do agree with you about MS however, many people may knock them but they seem to be pretty good with getting patches out quickly once they've been notified of a bug, and some of the posters to Bugtraq may give MS somewhat less time to come up with a patch than they might for other organizations.

I do really wish MS would concentrate on improving the security of their products however, rather than adding some new bell or whistle at the expense of security (MY security I might add). For instance, I have Win2K on one of my machines at home, I now have to download many megs of patches over a dialup account to feel my system is secure. Further, the default install of Win2K adds in many of these "features" that I surely neither wanted nor needed, such as a little webserver (started and listening by default of course).

I hate to say it, but the OpenBSD mentality of disabled by default would have really benefitted MS in the Code Red debacle. The OpenBSD documentation plainly states that there are very few services turned on by default (Sendmail and SSH daemon) and if the end-user feels they need one of the other services then they'll have to RTFM to turn it on, because at least that way THEY have made the conscious decision that it's necessary.

As a parting thought, let's consider the "recently discovered" telnetd exploit. This is a bug in code that seems to have been in use for nearly 20 years. From what I've read, it's been around since some part of the life of 4.3 BSD, which goes back as far as the 1981-1984 timeframe according to this document: http://www.UNIX-systems.org/images/chronology_big. gif. Not a single vendor found this bug, even though the original source code is widely available. Do you think that scut was the first to find the bug in those 15+ years (especially when the exploit author himself said it was very easy to spot)? How many people would have scoffed at the suggestion that there was a root-level compromise related to telnetd that affected every flavour of Unix available? The exploit code made it very difficult to dismiss however, didn't it? Unfortunately from the vague information in the original post the exploit release was forced by other events out of the poster's control. Apparently "script kiddies" got hold of some (presumably working) exploit code and thus the full-disclosure post was made to Bugtraq since_exploit_code_was_already_out_in_the_wild.

Just my two farthing's worth - peace.