Slashdot Mirror
Is UNIX An OS?
gwernol writes: "David Every has an interesting article over at MacWeek that asks the question: is UNIX an OS? Before you jump off the deep end, read the article. It's actually a pretty good discussion of what components a modern OS needs beyond a kernel and a shell. It also discusses Mac OS X, the forthcoming 'UNIX++' from Apple." At the very least, it should inspire some decent conversation.
Oh, Christ, more of the anti-Mac bias (or is it just anti-!Linux bias?) evident so often on Slashdot... As someone who's programmed for the Mac OS, yes, there are a lot of stupid things about it, but it also has the best UI around.
/etc. XML-formatted property lists... Drool...
What's really important in an OS depends on what you're using it for. Using the current Mac OS for a server would be just plain stupid (which is probably why my company is doing it), just like making an average user use Linux+fvwm would also be stupid. (Dodging rocks thrown by Gnome fanatics) Linux and Unix simply don't have a good GUI yet. The Mac OS does, and has for a very long time. Just as Unix has been refined and polished with time, so has the Mac UI. Understand and accept that, and you'll make the step from zealot to rational human being.
That being said, you missed the point of the article completely. The author is using the changes in the computer world's landscape (move towards personal computers from mainframes) to make what may appear to be a purely symmantic distinction. His real point is that there's now more to an OS than just a good kernel and some utilities.
GUI will make or break you for the average user. They don't care if their apps don't crash if they can't launch them in the first place. Apple understands this, and has filled Mac OS X with Ooey GUI Goodness (tm). For the rest of us (no, not them, us with the clue), OS X just happens to have a very solid foundation. They've also started an effort to clean up the mess of dissimilar config files that is
It seems that the main reason that the article states for Unix not being an OS is that they believe that the "User Experience" is part of the OS. Personally, I disagree.
An OS is what lies closest to the hardware, and allows the programs themselves to deal with the "User Experience". However, this article being written by a Mac person (and I not saying this is bad), they assume that the interface and such must be part of the OS. I don't think it needs to be, and in fact, I don't think it SHOULD be. But that is just me.
Anyways: just because Unix doesn't assume everybody should be forced into the same "User Experience" doesn't make it somehow less of an OS.
But that is just my opinion.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
About the only solid opinion you'll find about what an OS is comes from the unix purists he comments on. They feel that the OS is the kernel, drivers, libraries, and that's it. Ask anyone else with some competancy and they'll draw the line anywhere from the kernel all the way out to whatever comes on a CD from the distributor.
Hey, if he feels that all the 'traditional' stuff, plus whatever new goodies people have come to expect, should be lumped together and considered an OS, then ducky for him. It's a totally relative distinction.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
This is a very interesting way to define operating system. I have always thought of an operating system as the fundamental set of software componants which mediate, support and enable the applications running on a system. I suppose one could make the football (soccer, for Americans) analogy: I would call the Field, Rules, and Officials the OS of football. By the definition used in the article, Windows would not be an operating system (for me, at least) without rendering software installed... otherwise I cannot be productive with it. That doesn't feel quite right, as definitions go.
Of course, reading through the rest of the article makes it clear why the whole question of what precisely constitutes an operating system becomes clear: Marketing OSX. (Yes, I know I should have guessed that just from the link, but hey, I'm an optimist).
The message there is about as clear as they come. Now, I'm not saying that the sentiment is actually wrong -- it may very well be that OS X is the greatest thing since gcc -- but I'm not really sure that I appreciate the way the point is being made. It almost seems to prey on the ignorance of consumers. There is bound to be a long and involved argument here on /. regarding what exactly an OS is, and I'm willing to bet that the average Mac & PC users in the world wouldn't even be able to follow most of it. So, essectialy, the author is using buzzwords (UNIX is becoming one even in the mainstream) and creative premises to make an almost unrelated point.
Journalism at it's finest.
--
Behold the Power of Cheese!
But not for any of the rather dumb reasons suggested in the article . . .
Unix isn't a single piece of software, or single set of software components - it's a culture, and an ideology. That's why there are so many different versions of Unix - because it _isn't_ a single chunk of code, anyone who wants to can reimpliment their own version, and do things a little differently, or whatever.
Linux is part of the Unix culture. FreeBSD is part of the Unix culture. Solaris is part of the Unix culture. Irix, HP-UX, AIX, even A/UX, they're all part of this culture.
So yes, Unix isn't an Operating System. Any particular instantiaion of the Unix Ideal _is_ an operating system, even in the rather pointless sense that's used by this article, but that instantiation _is not Unix_ - it's merely one possible version.
And I'd hate to say it, but I suspect that Apple will become part of the Unix culture, too - Unix seems to be rather . . . contagious . . . Once you know it, once you become acculturated(sp?), it tends to subsume just about everything else . . .
himi
--
My very own DeCSS mirror.