Slashdot Mirror
Is Mac OS X real UNIX®?
Adam Attarian writes "And do we really need to answer the question? Apparently so, because OSOpinion asked, and they got an answer. It's not a surprising answer, is Mac OS X's 'UNIX' core is Darwin, which is based on NeXT Step, which is based on some wacky derivitive of BSD, which in itself isn't a registered UNIX system (nor is Linux). Even with this, I'm not sure I know too many people who would directly compare Linux/BSD with standard UNIX Systems like Irix, Solaris, etc. The article is short and sweet, and provides some good links."
Linux being called "the DOS v2.2 of UNIXs". But for the Slashdot crowd, of course, Linux is the center of the world.
having used it since the day it came out: it is about as UNIX as it gets. Yes, I couldn't believe either that Apple would make sed and awk and all of those beauties standard (on a Mac!!) but they are there and they work just like they should.
Man, you're scarin' me. What the hell is a "GNU proogie"? It sounds like a sex act Richard Stallman would engage in. The thought of that is enough to give me nightmares.
Why don't you just cut the BS and post a story like this: "Please Start A Flame War Here. It can involve Linux vs. BSD vs. Unix, Free Software vs. Commercial Software, Apple vs. Everyone Else, Open Standards vs. Closed Standards vs. No Standards, or pretty much any other subject you want to argue about. Let the games begin."
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Does it meet your requirements? Well, perhaps you think that should be the question, but that wasn't the question, now was it?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
SysV is irrelevant - to obtain the UNIX branding, you have to meet TOG's Single UNIX Specification (version 1 for UNIX95, version 2 for UNIX98).
BTW, The Open Group are now the sole proprietors and licensors of the "UNIX" mark.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Probably more like the (now ancient) A/UX operating system that Apple produced for the olden 680x0-based Macs. I believe that was a branded UNIX, back in its day.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Windows wouldn't have to drop any features to be UNIX certified. But it would have to add some, most notably hard links, which to this day are not possible with FAT or NTFS.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Whyever not? NT is Posix compliant, and I believe with layerered products meets UNIX95 compliance too.
Gee, you'd think stability would be a requirement of UNIX status
Never used IRIX, have you? *ducks*
No, seriously, stability has never been one of Unix' strengths. It's pretty easy to accidentally fork() bomb most of them even now, which can even lock the system administrator out. It's happened to me (a poorly coded Pro*C daemon which couldn't contact Oracle and went crazy, spawning child processes every time it attempted to connect again). An OS like VMS would simply contain such a process within quotas and leave the system fully usable.
Getting back on topic, Apple's regular customers (i.e. Photoshop/DTP at one end, families and students at the other) don't really care about "official" Unix status. The only people who might are the US Government (who have FIPS, which includes POSIX, as a minimal specification).
And don't drink so much coffee
Kid, I've barely gotten started....
Right at the bottom of the article there is a link to:
n ix_specification.html#platform
http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/single_u
Which includes apple in their lists of vendors who support their UNIX specification.
--
So if I ship a Linux without vi, ls, cp and X, but includes CDE, it's a UNIX?
Who gives a fuck about this, anyway? MacOS X might not technically be a UNIX, but it's still a damn good operating system. Isn't it time for the Linux open source crowd to stop developing applications for X, and create a worthy replacement without the moronic solutions?
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.
C:\>./configure
'.' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
C:\>make; make install
'make' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
C:\>What do you know, I could actually type it!
> don't know how to do this... I'm not a >programmer, I'm a sysadmin.
./configure its childs play.
you really are a sad excuse for an SA if you cannot build & install bash on any unix system. With
I was building/installing GCC & bash on SCO back in 1994. How much linux knowledge do you really have, if any ?
greg
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
Besides, did you read the note at the bottom of the lrand48 manpage? "These functions are declared obsolete by SVID 3, which states that rand(3) should be used instead."
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
try c++ -v: Reading specs from /usr/libexec/gcc/darwin/ppc/2.95.2/specs
Apple Computer, Inc. version gcc-926, based on gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
You can make symbolic links, but only programs that use the cygwin libraries works with them, which makes them pretty close to useless.
PS: symbolic links would be much more useful (I'm sure there are many people who think hard links are a mistake in Unix design and symbolic links should be used everywhere), and could easily be implemented in NT (or any other system) without affecting the file system, as long as there is space for one bit that can be set on each file entry (to indicate that it is a symbolic link). The reason MicroSoft does not support them is obvious: it would instantly allow interoperability with Unix because you could eliminate the drive letters and make things like home directories appear in the "Unix" locations without breaking any Windows software. Actions like this, much more than "secret interfaces" (which are really the result of incompetent programmers who don't document what they are writing, than of some evil conspiracy) are a much clearer indication of how much MicroSoft wants to disallow interoperability. MSDOS had a simple symbolic link (the destination had to be a disk) called "assign", this was conspicuously deleted from newer versions of the system. From my own experience with writing portable software, the drive letters are a bigger hinderance to interoperation than anything having to do with GUI.
This may be true on newer NT systems (this was NT4.0). However the lack of symbolic links (which should be trivial to implement compared to hard ones) is still glaringly obvious.
At least, that's how I see it. Basically, if the OS kernel supplies sufficient compatibility that more or less "standard" tools, shells, and apps will run with minimal or no modification (short of mods for processor families), then it's Unix. It doesn't matter if an OS can use the little Unix (tm) symbol or not.
The other side of my view, though, is that if Unix compatibility is provided through a bolt-on layer (like the POSIX layer to Windows NT that was built just to get government check-offs), it ain't the real thing. So MacOS X is Unix - Aqua and the "Macishness" of X are bolted onto Unix, not the other way around.
This standard of mine also makes Linux and all the BSDs = Unix, and I believe it would also cover the Hurd as well. And Apple's old A/UX (the 68K Unix they had for servers in the early '90s) qualifies - the Finder ran as a process under A/UX, not the other way around.
Tenon's otherwise excellent MachTen, though, would not be a true Unix (despite being compatible with damn near everything) since it runs on top of MacOS (through 9.x) and doesn't own the machine. It's a bolt-on - just far better than Microsoft's kludge.
To paraphrase the late Justice Potter Stewart, "I may not be able to define Unix, but I know it when I see it". And I see Unix when I look at MacOS X.
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Thanks for posting that MacSlash post. It's always good to see a little cross-Slash post lovin'
Anyway, the gist of the MacSlash discussion is the Unix trademark is doled out if you meet the technical requirements AND pay a license fee to the trademark folks (the open group, me thinks). As far as I'm concerned, OS X is every bit as good a Unix as anything else I've used (solaris, linux, irix).
Brought to you by a current OS X user.
My other computer is your Windows box
Two thoughts:
1. How can you be a sysadmin without knowing how to compile software? How do you install software which isn't pre-packaged? Lord help us if "sysadmins" today are dependant on RH or Debian packages. That's almost as bad as NT "admins". Don't get me wrong... My preferred OS is Debian, but I wind up recompiling stuff fairly often because the packaged binaries don't do what I need them to.
2. LEARN HOW TO DO IT! It's not as if you need a 4-year CS degree to run less README; ./configure; make install ... No one asked you to write your own shell from scratch.
Sorry if this comes off as harsh... It's just troubling to hear someone call themselves a sysadmin when they openly admit to not being able to compile something as simple as bash. We all started somewhere, but most of us didn't have the chutzpah to call ourselves something we weren't.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast...
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Technically there a different forms of Unix and there is Linux. The Unix systems include the BSDs since they evolved from now proprietary versions by slowly replacing all code with newly written code under BSD license.
Linux however was written from scratch and does not share ancestry with Unix systems (and is in that way not a Unix, even if it looks and feels like one). Therefore I don't understand what place the arrow from Minix 1.0 to Linux 0.01 has in the diagram you linked. It was written and compiled on Minix, but I would not consider that as an "evolved from" which the arrow implies.
I'm probably a bit late with my reply but anyway...
Linux was originally a Minix clone.
Nope. Minix is an academic microkernel design, Linux is a monolithic kernel. These are already pretty fundamental differences.
I don't know if Linus actually used any Minix code
The Minix license was pretty strict. Linus would have been in a lot of legal trouble if Minix code were found in Linux back then.
Minix filesystem support still exists in some dark corners of the source tree
MS-DOS filesystem support also exists, but that doesn't mean Linux has anything to do with MS-DOS. Linux was written and compiled on Minix (before it became self-contained), so it's only logical that it had support for the Minix filesystem format (which should be pretty well documented, given the academic nature of Minix). ext, xiafs and ext2 were only introduced to overcome the limitations of the Minix filesystem.
and Andy Tanenbaum knew about Linux quite early on
Linus at some time announced the existence of Linux on the Minix newsgroup. This was what started the long "Linux is obsolete" thread which is archived in a number of places.
If the UNIX term is simply based on some microsoft like money-coughing-up registration, then why not have a GNU term? (ironicaly a 'Not Unix' compliance).
Something like any unix like os that can run the GNU programs 'out of the box' is entitled to have GNU in the name..
I think Jailbreakr's point is that interoperability
doesn't come from acronyms. NT is or was able to use
the POSIX label -- marginally -- but I'm pretty sure none
of the free BSDs are. Which do you think will give you
more trouble compiling and running common
POSIX[-ish] applications?
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Listen, the debate on whether Mac OS X should be considered a true Unix or *NIX variant is a interesting if somewhat silly discussion.
However, the article truly failed to say much of anything. It draws no conclusions in an almost bland newspaper fashion and then turns around and gives no meat to its story in terms of new or interesting information or quotes.
In the end, who cares? Most hard core geeks will not mess with the GUI centric Mac OS X especially since Apple will not and probably could not really focus on the server side of the business market.
Most Apple fans will not bother worrying about the command line and such use will happen only for that small group of Apple users that are true Apple scripting power users.
Whether or not the Mac OS X is considered an Unix is purely academic unless Apple releases a full x86 version and makes the damn thing free.
ACK
Dude, I'd fuckin' love to be able to ./configure, make and make install.,,
But the linker that came on my OSX Dev Tools CD-ROM has let NOTHING past it. I tried compiling Postfix to replace sendmail, php4.0.5 to replace php 3.x and apache 1.3.19.
As a result, my mail doesn't work anymore and apache doesn't work anymore.
I was less than thrilled. Right now the ball is back in apple's court and I'm back to being a page surfer. I am pissed...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The real question is does this really matter? OS X will provide the stability of UNIX as well as better multi tasking and protected memory just like BSD, Solaris, and other UNIX OSes.
You can open up an terminal window in OS X and start issuing UNIX commands do you really care if people call it UNIX or not???
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Unix now has become a standard rather than an operating system.
Folowing the source isn't helpful. Unix forking itself has made clones more compatable (in some cases) than "offical" source.
Basicly clones make more effort to stay true to Unix.
The rule seems to be the harder it is to do the more likely it is to happen.
Managment may not consider the impact changes may have to compatability when using the offical code.
It's more "in your face" as it were...
So Unix is basicly just a standard.
Folow the standard past the review and liccens the name.
Apple didn't, Linux didn't, So it isn't Unix.
Of someone feals like it they could build a Linux distro folow Unix standard and fork over for the liccens.
Apple could also do this.
So.. considering the diffrence is a liccens to use the name "Unix"... dose it even matter?
I don't actually exist.
>What name would you give the common functionality of Linux, BSD, and MacOS X, anyhow?
*nix seems the populare notation...
Unix is basicly trademarked so it means what the current owner wants it to mean.
People faithful to Solaris and other systems who liccens the Unix name aren't much diffrent from Linux zelots or Microsoft zombies...
But to use the term as it has been used by Unix experts for years Linux and MacOsX are Unix systems.
But they aren't becouse nobody liccensed the name...
I don't actually exist.
Considering you don't have to live and breath 'computer' to use an Apple system, I don't think MacOS X can be classified UNIX.
You just classifyed the entire AT&T 3B (Unix) computer line as not Unix...
They were rather easy to use (as text systems go)
You also ended up calling Windows "unix"...
Macs and AT&T 3B computers have one thing in commen (Nothing else)
They were made ground up to run the operating system they run.
Sparcs and PCs were not specally made to run a given operating system.
One issue that is now pritty universal for all current operating systems is the off switch.
It is dangerous to give the user control of the off switch.
Mac and 3B2 systems don't give the user access to the off switch. The off switch they offer triggers the system to shut down the operating system. THEN the computer turns itself off.
It is more convent this way.
A user could mistakenly switch the system off at the wrong point during a complex shutdown.
They could.. looking at a blank screen.. think the process is over...
Also Macs can change radicly while PCs have to remain more or less compatable with the original PC.
(The side effect of this is that it's a bastard to install something that isn't MacOs on a Mac...)
I don't actually exist.
Maybe Apple's legal department should take a page from the Open Group's. If it had been Apple at the helm, I am sure they would have sued themselves ten times over to keep the Unix stamp off of the OSX webpage.....
Bryan R.
Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
it does:
Open SSH
PHP and Apache
Works just great for me, and I'm a die-hard Mac head. I don't necessarily know what I'm doing 100 percent of the time, but I can follow that just fine.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You'd be surprised. The MacNN OS X forums have been *insanely* active for months now. The amount of posts since the Public Beta came out through til now has steadily increased.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Mac OS X isn't UNIX because a real UNIX system has to ship the Common Desktop Environment.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
The memory requirements are a bit exaggerated for one. 128M is a practical amount of RAM for *any* Linux system where you plan on using KDE or GNOME. 64M just won't cut it. If you want a browser that takes little RAM, try Lynx. But just don't expect things like Netscape plugins (Flash, etc.) or even graphics.
I used to be able to say Opera had low memory requirements, but Opera on Linux is a pig.
My journal has hot
There is actually standards test put forth by the Open Group. It tells you what is Unix and what isn't.
Many commercial Unixes that weren't in fact derived from the *original* AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX (the original determination for what is UNIX and what is not) haven't even passed this test. (Neither has Linux, I'm not sure about the *BSDs, but I'd be willing to bet not all of them have passed either).
So there's your answer: if it passes the Open Group's test, you can call it Unix.
My journal has hot
Having also adminned on Solaris, SunOS 4, Irix, etc...
Discussing whether or not it's 'real unix' is splitting hairs. The answer as to whether it can be called 'Unix' or not depends on Trademark. Do you have rights to use the mark? That's a simple yes/no question.
Linux is fine. The *BSD's are fine. All have their strengths and weaknesses. For most administrative jobs I've had, I would *prefer* to work with most modern Linux or *BSD distributions than with Solaris or SCO, all other things being equal.
Calling NT 'Unix' is a joke. Posix compliance is a good thing, but not the be-all-end-all of compatability. Heck, even Unix apps can't run cross-platform if one system has the required libs and the other doesn't.
Or, ignoring trademark issues, OS-X is as much a unix as FreeBSD or Linux, for all intents and purposes.
Really? What is the point?
Unix(tm) can only be technically used by those with rights to the trademark. os-x does not, nor does linux, or FreeBSD & friends. SCO does. Solaris does. Irix does (I think.....).
If we ignore trademark, and go by feel, and how 99% of the administrators of those systems would describe them...
Linux is a unix.
*BSD are all unix.
Solaris is a unix.
SCO (uck) is a unix.
OS-X is a unix.
I've had to administer all of the above, with the exception of os-x (I've only briefly tinkered with it). They are all basically the same. They all have their own quirks. They all fall under what I consider in my mind to be unix.
What the original trademark means, or what the exact technical definition of unix is, doesn't matter. It's like arguing over the meaning of the word 'hacker'.
And I can think of LOTS of admins who would easily say that any of these variants is 'unix' without even giving it a second thought.
don't worry, I can... oh shit, I can't anymore :)
Quasix... semix, dietix, hmmm. beginning to sound like an operating system that Asterix and Obelix would use...
>BTW, what Linus Torvalds did is reverse engineer the AT&T UNIX kernel (major league task). IMHO that is not "writing from scratch" which
suggests creating something completely new.
no...linux was an extension of minix.
---
Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
BTW on a more serious note MULTICS supports a helluva lot more features than UNIX. it included stuff like the ability to use and hot swap bad RAM and CPUs (including nifty stuff like killing the processes whcih used the bad blocks of memory only and leaving the rest intact) which modern UNIXes cant do (nope not even solaris on the E10K). the only things that come close to MULTICS is the S/390 mainframes from IBM.
Quote:
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.
Gee, you'd think stability would be a requirement of UNIX status, eh? *wink wink, nudge nudge*
(Disclaimer: This is a joke. If you have a serious response to this post, please seek professional help. And don't drink so much coffee.)
I'm sure there is, and like the IBM PC, not many people use it.
There are so many different unix clones out there, it doesn't matter anymore. And from an application layer perspective, it really doesn't matter. When Doom was ported to Linux, it didn't take very much work before it was ported to every other d*mn unix-like food product in existence.
What MacOS X does offer is a easy to install, easy to configure, professional looking UI on top of it all. Now if Apple would port that UI layer and configuration tools over to other unix clones, like say, linux, then linux might have a credible shot at replacing MS on the desktop.
As long as you have to know your monitor's refresh rate to change your screen resolution, linux will never make it.
... and by the number 131072, because that's how many K of ram you need to make Konqueror practical. ... What's STL?
------
I'm a C++ guru
Well, I said it ages ago, but I might not have been the first (since it's obvious). ... What's STL?
------
I'm a C++ guru
WTF? Why should I get more RAM just because someone decides to write bloated software? If it was Microsoft, you'd bitch too. ... What's STL?
------
I'm a C++ guru
Having spent a couple of hours on Friday configuring OS X to use NIS and NFS, I can say it is NOT *NIX like. Sure ls, rm, etc are there, but most of the configuration stuff still seems to require you to use the GUI. Perhaps there are easier ways, but it's not terribly obvious (/etc/fstab, where are you?).
As long as I can type
./configure
make; make install
It's a good enough OS for me.
Presumeably you're using (t)csh, with the spell-checking option turned on, and c++ before g++ in your $PATH.
Steve
---
I thought you couldn't mix apples and pears?
Free Software vs. Commercial Software
Well, on the topic of flamewars, I'd like to point out you're incorrect there.
Neither of the four definitions of commercial in my dictionary involve being sold for profit. Many free (as in speech, or beer) projects (eg, Red hat Linux, Zope, etc) are commerical in nature, and produced with the aim of profit. Many others are not.
Whether an app is commercial or non-commerical has no bearing on whether it is free (speech) or Open Source.
I believe the phrase you were looking for was `free software versus proprietary, commercial software versus non-commercial software'.
Oh well...
Just one shell, not unix enough.
-------------------
arcane for life
I have never heard of anybody unchecking the BSD subsystem in a Mac OS X install. I mean, yeah, you can do it but why? You can lobotomize a linux install to provide even less functionality than a BSDless Mac OS X install but nobody does that either.
Just some more anti-mac FUD. For most anybody who installs Mac OS X, they are all going to just stick the CD in, hit the OK and agree buttons and get a pretty reasonable UNIX system.
db
Make sure you have the dev tools installed and just start hacking away.
Control-click on any app and you see inside the guts of the 'package'. You can change look and feel, add language support, and change more things post-compile than you could in most linux binaries.
DB
iMacs are going for between $500-$600 on ebay and there are plenty of them out there. Any iMac is going to run OS X just fine. Just load up on ram though, 128 Mb is just not enough to do all the graphics tricks that OS X does without severe paging problems.
As for whether OS X is Unix, if such a label were to enable more sales then I'm sure that Apple would fork over the cash to get the official naming rights. Otherwise, I don't think that Apple is likely to ever do it.
db
I've played with it, briefly however, and when I opened a terminal it sure smelled and breathed like a typical Unix.
Many of us will find it right at home in many ways, and the best part about it is it has a GUI shell that's so easy to use your mother can use it.
I highly reccomend Linux/Unix freaks (and windows freaks too) check it out sometime, it's very impressive.
Now if I could only afford a machine that can run MacOSX
Who cares if it is UNIX, BSD, POSIX, whatever. They are just labels. All that really matters is how well it works, and how well it interoperates with other operating systems.
I could care less if it has a BSD core, so long as I can compile a GNU proogie on it and it'll work with no hidden tricks, hooks, or extensions.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
OK, that's it. Now I'm really upset. Someone moderated the above troll, which is older than JESUS HIMSELF, +1 informative? Come on! This is ridiculous. This is what happens when too many people read at +3 and then get moderator points so they decide they should drop down to -1. They can't recognize the same old rehashed shit when they see it. I read at -1, and to tell the truth, it's not so bad. After about the first 10% of the article pretty much all the crap goes away. So do all the moderators, so you get to read a lot of interesting stuff posted later that's at 0 and 1. Even some good stuff at -1, since some of the moderators are on crack or just feel they need to censor opinions they don't agree with.
I think only people who regularly read at -1 should be allowed to moderate... Be sort of an interesting system. If you're not willing to be in the trenches, we don't want you fighting. Or something like that.
Hemos writes...
I'm not sure I know too many people who would directly compare Linux/BSD with standard UNIX Systems like Irix, Solaris, etc.
What a maroon. Ever look at... oh.. slashdot?
s/UNIX approved OS\'s/UNIX approved vendors/
This is why the list shows "Apple" and not a specific OS.
--
Do we need to set up a site which compares Unix variants? A little 1 to 10 rating scale where people can decide if FreeBSD is a Unix, or if OSX is not a Unix?
[
At least it doesn't plug into .NET. :)
From the OSOprinion article:
Don't be fooled. While Apple's OS X (as well as Linux and BSD) is not an officially sanctioned UNIX, that does not make it any less powerful or compatible than the official UNIX standard, nor does it trivialize it as a bastardized offshoot with only limited capability.
I've sysadminned on SCO, Solaris and Linux. Linux may not qualify for use of the trademark, but it's more than close enough for me. I can't comment on OS X, tho, haven't tried it.
--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
if GNOME or KDE were ever to become so easy that they would let someone use linux without 'living and breathing computer', would linux still be considered a UNIX?
I remember reading a while ago that Apple was not going to try and get OS X "certified" as an official version of Unix... they just wanted to take advantage of the power of Unix but were not going to try and sell OS X as a "Unix" OS. Please correct me if I am not remembering correctly.... by the way, I've been running OSX since DP4 and full-time since it was officiallly released on March 24. I _really_ like it.
Oh, and it's (an admittedly broken version of) php4 that ships with OS X. nobody seems to know why it doesn't work.
i thought it was well known why PHP4 that ships with MacOS X doesn't work. PHP4 has a directory called PEAR in one directory, but also has a file named pear in that same directory. MacOS X's file system defaults to HFS+ which isn't case sensitive. if you use the UFS file system instead you'll have no problems whatsoever. this has been documented on many sites, including stepwise and php builder.
- j
It states that Apple supports the UNIX group, and says NOTHING about Mac OS X being 'branded UNIX'.
Apple has had a couple of different unix versions. There was a 68000 based version of A/UX of which I remember little. Then there was the re-labeled AIX version of A/UX that ran on the Apple server line.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Seems NT can be UNIX: http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/flavors_o f_unix.html#windowsnt
NT and Win2k have fork, exec, and exit, all via the POSIX subsystem. Does that make it UNIX ?
(aside: the POSIX subsystem as shipped is all but useless (mostly because if if its a posix app it cant make win32 calls))
You can run apache on W2k out of the box. Does that make it unix ?
You can write scripts in NT. You can compile gcc for NT. You can use gcc to compile other code.
Does that make it unix ?
(heres where i get modded to "troll")
Its amusing that LINUX die hards give a damn about judging some other OSes "unixness" - linux makes some deviations of its own. It's own IP stack, it's own notion of userspace threading (has that been worked out yet ?), its own version of VFS, etc etc.
Each UNIX is different enough that portability for a non-trivial app takes a competant C programmer. People that think autoconf is a solves-all should be gut from throat to anus (or should have to compile your average "pengiun pimp powered" GTK app on an IRIX box with MIPS compilers)
One of NTs design requirements was that it is POSIX compliant. They put enough of a posix subsystem in there to meet the spec, which allowed them to have NT compete for certain contracts. Good luck trying to make anything unixy work on the NT posix subsystem without SFU or standing on the shoulders of cygwin.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
You can read it here.
Or7 35247&mode=nested
http://www.macslash.com/article.pl?sid=01/05/04/1
for those worried about 'bad' links.
How is this in any way informative? It's just wrong. It doesn't have any content, and it's not even interesting speculation!
The problem with a moderation system is that it relies on the moderators being competent. And not knee-jerk ibdeologues.
--
Max V.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Didn't Caldera create a Unix(tm) based off the Linux kernel? I thought that they had shipped an OS complete with a licensed copy of Motif and CDE. I think that they didn't maintain it when it didn't carve the niche that they were aiming for, but I was pretty sure that someone made an effort to hit the Unix workstation market.
Alex
The question is: will Linux be able to do better?
Ciao
----
FB
After running wget, I compiled and installed PHP and MySQL. I then went to /etc/httpd and edited Apache's httpd.conf using pico in a terminal window. All from work using SSH.
It's a UNIX system if you ask me...
What difference does it really make if OSX/GNU-Linux is Unix(r) or *inx? As long as it's stable and runs Setiathome at a command prompt isn't that all that really matters? :-)
Probably because simply pasting a link into a comment with no description isn't good form. But, nonetheless, I think modding it all the way down to -1 (where it's at as I type) is a bit harsh.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
When I upgraded my Spectrum from 16K to 48K it cost me £100 (thats pounds sterling) for that 32K.
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
Linux was originally a Minix clone. I don't know if Linus actually used any Minix code (if he did it's long been removed, and besides, a lot of the early kernel was written in x86 assembler and is horribly unportable), but Minix filesystem support still exists in some dark corners of the source tree, and Andy Tanenbaum knew about Linux quite early on (and didn't like it much).
/Brian
This reminds me for reasons I can't quite articulate of an old creationist argument that "the son of a lion is still a lion", a statement that both does and does not apply in this case...
Define *BSD first. It is generally accepted that Darwin (and Lites and xMach) are all *BSD, though they probably share more in common architecturally with OSF/1 (i.e. Compaq Unix) than they do the original BSD series. (Or is OSF/1 a BSD as well?) The fact of the matter is this:
-NextStep exists partly because of Avie Tevanian, Apple's chief technology guy and one of the creators of Mach.
-NextStep was built similarly to Lites and xMach as a BSD-code-base-derived layer over the Mach microkernel.
-Most of Darwin/OS X's userland comes from FreeBSD, and I think much of the BSD layer that went into Rhapsody was built (from scratch?) from 4.4lite code.
Furthermore, the community at large says so.
?
/Brian
Well...
Okay. First off, HFS+ is a necessity -- UFS is there if you want it, but remember that you're on a Mac. The OS is different, but if all you're doing is slapping an upgrade onto an existing system you don't want to be going back and relearning the entire thing from scratch.
Alien directory format is to be expected for much the same reason (though the OS X tree is weird even for Mac users). If it's any consolation, old school Unix directories are still there; you just have to convince your system that you're good to run as root in order to do it (there was something in a MacAddict a couple of months ago that told how, I think).
But at least you're not too critical; I like seeing votes of support like that. Makes my Mac-fan heart happy.
/Brian
AUX is apple's old server OS from a few years ago.
Even MS has a nix if you go back far enough - ever heard of Xenix.
Nowadays, I always kick myself whenever I use my Win98 startup disk to install Linux on my old non-boot-off-cd computer by using the boot.bat file, because I alway type bo(tab)(insert expletive)(backspace multiple time)ot.bat at the prompt expecting command line completion... droool..... Thank god for cygwin.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
If it work, great!
UNIX must include CDE and Motif. If it doesn't, it's not technically UNIX. Mac OS X doesn't have either. Therefore it's not UNIX.
I know you're trying to be funny... but y'know, SGI IRIX doesn't include CDE (though it does have both "pure" and SGI-modified varieties of Motif). Cray UNICOS doesn't have either.
Solaris 9 will still have CDE and Motif, it just won't have Openwin. Solaris 8 was the phase-out of OpenWin... not installed by default but still available.
I guess I should clarify... Solaris 9 will still have CDE/Motif, but GNOME will be the default (and the marketed/maintained desktop environment).
About 15 years ago Apple made their own version of "real UNIX" called A/UX. It featured X as well as a Mac application layer. (Gee, sounds a lot like Mac OS X...). This had *nothing* to do with AIX and it only ran on a few 680x0-based Macs.
Fast forward to the PowerPC era. Apple made a series of nifty (for their time) Apple Network Servers running IBM's AIX (UNIX) OS.
Good point. I wish I could mod that up.
Apple's A/UX OS used the licensed "Unix" name as did Apple's AIX-based Network Servers (Apple hardware running IBM's version of Unix).
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/
It's a *GREAT* resource for finding out what came from what and when.
So, what? ;-)
MSRP - Tax, Title & Licence Extra Your Milage May Vary
(I know somebody said this on /. ages ago :-)
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
It must feel good to be such a productive member of society.
// It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis
Now how do I install g++ on this thing?...
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
--
``I'm not sure I know too many people who would directly compare Linux/BSD with standard UNIX Systems like Irix, Solaris, etc.''
You're kidding, right? Go talk to anyone who's been around UNIX for 10 or 15 years: they will explain to you that (a) UNIX is a valid description of any ideological descendant of BTL UNIX, that (b) the interesting differences between the modern incarnations of these environments are very small, and that (c) the difference between the systems you described is mainly one of corporate vs. (semi-)open, not UNIX vs. ???.
What name would you give the common functionality of Linux, BSD, and MacOS X, anyhow?
does it have fork(), exec() and exit()?
then it is unix. Well I am exagerrating a point
here, but just because there is huge propietary
app running on top of an os that is UNIX that does
not mean that is shall not be considered one.
You can write scripts, download gcc for it,
and compile your code that way... apache
runs on it fine, out of the box, so do other
fine unix software. Whats the problem ?
Just another hype bomb to improve slashdot's ratings?
Ok, I am off to o'reilly developer network.
Nuff of OSDN stuff for me.
Damn. I asked this question the day I *got* OSX... Who do ya hafta know to get an article in??!!
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
So... You people consider that's a good thing ?!?
Who is this "Open" Group to tell us "respect my authoritah"? The only answer they provide is :
"We are proud to have some of the world's largest IT buyers and vendors as active members representing both government and commercial enterprises.
Our buy-side members have combined annual IT budgets of over US$50 Billion.
All right, I know it's more and more that corrupted scum that lead the world, but how people can consider it a good thing to willing obey them is a mystery to me.
"As owner of the UNIX® Trademark we continue to strive for greater value from its use, and to address the relationship to Open Source."
In other words, they want more money from the "UNIX® Trademark" and take advantage of the Open Source popularity. I have to admit, it's working really well...
By saying Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX are us, the question that comes to mind is "Who IS Unix then?"
Why did they keep AT&T's name? Unix(tm) is not a state of mind, but a company's trademark... Oh, right, them Billions DollarS Mans (BDSM) the Open Group are the shareholders of AT&T, duh!
Is the class sleeping again??
Mac OS != Mac 0$
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
Mac OS X is Darwin. Darwin is not UNIX, it's Darwin. But then, who cares? I mean, what's in a name?
--
Hrm, I only see the word "Apple". It doesn't say which Unix based Apple OS they are refering to. Remember, Apple has made more than one "Unix". Namely, but not limited to: Mac OSX Server (Rhapsody), Darwin OS, Mac OS X, mkLinux and A/UX
--
I can understand that some people feel the adoption of BSD over Linux by Apple is a bit of a letdown (they did it before the 2.4 kernel was available anyway) - but what Apple really did was go opensource. It also means that a lot of those great 3rd party apple applications *might* soon be available on any *NIX desktop. Think of running adobe apps on your linux without using wine:)
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Wait - I'm typing this on one of my FreeBSD boxen.So I'm not using Winblowz, right?But I'm not using UNIX, because FreeBSD isn't recognized as a UNIX variant by some stodgy self-aggrandizing standards body?So all those tapes that Bill Joy shipped aren't UNIX either?I'm so confused ...
Oh, screw it, where's my CPM machine?
> Apple would be selling their own flavor of UNIX.
...again.
(Remember A/UX?)
I Remember when a 1mb 30pin simm was $100, that was such a deal.
What makes an Operating system Unix? the ability to compile source code from any given platform? MacOSX has all the compatability layers in it to compile source code from platforms like FreeBSD and linux, even if it takes a little tweaking (telling it where the appropriate files are at) but it all works. At best *BSD and Linux and MacOSX are Unix Compatable.
Quasi-Unix. The Diet Coke of Unix.
Since 1970, the "unix base" (concept, design & philosophy) has been project-forked into lots and lots of different operating systems. Today it's totally f***ed up. It seems like every project HAS to be split up just because each and everyone know exactly how things should work.
;)
./configure for a total of 2 months.
A neat example: If anyone claims that insert-your-preferred-OS-here is the best OS, a flame war is started. (Windows vs Linux, FreeBSD vs Linux or whatever...)
Who cares if OS X is a real UNIX!!!???
It's probably just like all other unices or unixclones; always a little different.
When I think of all different BSDs, Linux dists and other unices, clones or not; only one thing come to mind: All kernels in all unix systems have the fork() system call but there has never existed any merge() system call, so people probably don't know what "merge" means.
What I would like to see is a MERGE between a few free unixclones:
First of all, there should be a strict definition of supported processor arch-s. (There's always NetBSD for the odd people
For example, let's say that a "merged free unix" uses a Linux kernel, GNU compiler and mostly BSD userland&ports. What if all critical components have been controlled and verified by the OpenBSD code auditing team? That's quite ok, right? If this sounds good, why the hell do people use different Linux dists, complain about their design and then start building their own?!!???
(I bet that BSD people would like to kill me because I proposed a Linux kernel and that Linux people would like to kill me because I mentioned ports instead of rpms or debs. See? Where's the "unixclone standard"? "Linux Standard Base"? Don't think so...)
Listen to my desperate plea: MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERGE!!
My computer has been running
Why was this modded down??? The link is on topic, and extremely informative in that it links to a page which lists Apple as an official Unix vendor.
True UNIX is just a label. Look at the structure of the OS. I'm not an expert or anything but OSX uses the UNIX security model, not the bloated NT model. (Which by the way MS said was superior to UNIX's and then came the IIS root exploit stemming from overly-complicated security model). Look at the locking mechanisms, driver philosophy, programming philosophy.
They got XF4 running on OSX pretty quick--it compiles with no user hacking.
I'm glad Apple is finally releasing a decent OS after the MacOS's through nine which internally were level with DOS and Win3.1. After seeing Win for what it really was and choosing a new OS (I chose Linux) I've also seen that MacOS is not a bad thing! Maybe OSX can put some serious pressure on M$!
- "Ford, you're turing into a penguin. Stop it." Go Prefect!
I don't know how to do this... I'm not a programmer, I'm a sysadmin. Never thought of trying though, I'm sure you could compile the source somehow. BASH is SO much more user friendly than the SCO sh... I suppose with Caldera now owning both OpenServer and Unixware that some of Linux's improvements to Unix user friendliness will make it back into "classic" Unix.
BASH is by far the most user friendly command line I've ever used, and I was one of the LAST DOS holdouts (dragged kicking and screaming to `Doze with Win 95)
One reason why I love *NIX is because it is pretty much what I wanted DOS to be... 32-bit, multiuser, multitasking command line based OS.
I test servers and RAID cards for Linux compatibility (and other OS's) for one of the most Linux of the major computer industry players.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I've not had enough exposure to SCO yet for this (only been using it for 4 months)... I'm somewhat hampered by the fact that I'm so familliar with Linux, that the fact that SCO is very similar, yet different sometimes is a barrier.
I know how to compile/install in Linux, never fear.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Who cares? Surely not Mac fans. -ted
Bell Labs System V Release 4 UNIX *IS* AT&T UNIX.
AT&T sold it to Novell who renamed it Unixware.
Novell later sold it to SCO.
SCO sold it to Caldera (the Linux people).
ALL other *NIX (xBSD, System V, etc.) Operating Systems are "UNIX-like". Of the UNIX-like systems some have paid the trademark toll to be able to call themselves "UNIX".
I've worked on many of the various flavors of "UNIX" since my days in the University of California CS lab. I've been running various commercial and free flavors of UNIX at home since 1985. IMHO they are all great when compared to most of the other Operating Systems I've used since getting into this industry in 1974.
Arguing about which "UNIX-like" OS is really UNIX is pointless.
These "my favorite OS is better than your favorite OS" arguments are for lamers anyway.
BTW, what Linus Torvalds did is reverse engineer the AT&T UNIX kernel (major league task). IMHO that is not "writing from scratch" which suggests creating something completely new.
there is an article on this very topic. It contains the point of view of the Opengroup folks, who notably have not attacked apple for trademark infringement. Because of that, the article argues, they must be sanctioning apple's use of the term UNIX. Frankly, I think that this is not a subject worth contending, because regardless of whether it's a *nix or not, OSX is an ugly operating system with some extremely powerful software behind it. Once somebody makes it look a bit more professional, I'll jump at the chance for such a slick, *nix based system. If only it were as easy to customize as Linux....
My Karma is so good, I'm the Dalai Lama...or something.
... How many times is this whole topic going to be hashed out? Furthermore, when are people going to see that certain things can only be seen in shades of grey?
Much worse, the argument in this current rant is very weak; not real UNIX because the Open Group is hasn't received money from Apple for their use of the fucking U word, otherwise known as registration? Give me a break. It makes no mention of POSIX complaince, software compatibility or the presence of Apple's proprietary one of a kind GUI, and those are REAL issues rather then this kind of a trite, petty conclusion.
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
* IBM would be making free, open source software for Linux.
* Microsoft would use a RedHat package as a defense exhibit in an anti-trust trial.
* All the preparations for Y2K would be successful, and nothing would happen.
* AOL would merge with Time Warner, but only after buying CompuServe, Mirabilis, and Nullsoft.
And finally...
* Apple would be selling their own flavor of UNIX.
-Jade E.
UNIX must include CDE and Motif. If it doesn't, it's not technically UNIX. Mac OS X doesn't have either. Therefore it's not UNIX.
--
I dont think any of these system's can be truly calles a *X system. The move away from all assembler code may have been quite convenient, but these lazy coders have sacrificed the pure power and efficiency of the *X platform. Moving to a C code base was the beginning of the end for code bloat. Next thing you know we'll be needing MEGAbytes of RAM...
It's gotta be unix if you can get gnapster to compile on it...
osOpinion has just posted an update to their story. Now stating that OS X has achieved UNIX certification. Appearently Open Group has updated their list of UNIX approved OS's. score 1 for apple
Shouldn't You expect more from your DJ?
Someone else suggested compiling from source. This works, but you can probably find binaries of bash 2.x as well. SCO also distributes it as part of Skunkware - a bunch of Free software. That may be your best bet; it's available for download or purchase (free while supplies last). Check their website.
Reboot macht Frei.
If you like bash so much, why not build it for SCO? The great thing about bash and many other Unix shells is that they work on just about any Unix variant.
Reboot macht Frei.
and I would add that it definitely doesn't qualify as "Yet Another Closed Source UNIX". MacOS X is DARWIN, which is as open as anything under GPL. Sure, Aqua is closed. Who cares? All the "truly free unixes" that Anonymous Coward refers to would (if they're running a gui at all) most probably be running XFree86. You can do that on Darwin too. The innovation happening here, is that a company is able to bring us the best of many worlds if we're interested. If you're not, keep using the other unixes that do interest you, or run Darwin without all the proprietry apple stuff. Choice is a good thing.
I'm not trying to troll here but if you ask for a kleenex(tm) and get a tissue are you gonna complain? What if you xerox(tm) some copies on a canon color copier? Some trademarks are victims of their own popularity and become part of our language. It's a marketing wet dream and nightmare rolled into one. Everyone is saying your brand name, but you lost your brand recognition.
Doesn't the GNU in GNU/Linux mean GNU not UNIX?
http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_ id=1858
Ryan does his mom.
There are many different ways to look at it. You could ask if they get rights to call them selves UNIX from whoever owns that name now (last I recall it was sold to Novell by AT&T and I lost track after that, as I don't care to much). You could ask if it conforms to any of the definitions published for SYS V. I don't recall BSD publishing any specs the way AT&T and later Novell did (but does anyone care about SVR5?) You can ask if it conforms to device drivers and application programming interfaces. You could ask if it has the ability to run a UNIX shell and if most general UNIX software is ported to it (this is how I looked at Linux, the internals are different, but the user utils are there so it looks like UNIX).
On the other hand, you can ask if it really matters? Does it really matter if it's UNIX? I don't think so. The question should be, does it meet my requirements. If the system meets your requirements then use it, if not, don't!
--
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
Darthtuttle
Thought Architect
is wasted on what qualifies as having roots in Unix.
If it's good, use it, if it doesn't, leave it by the wayside.
I'd prefer to hear more about standards *between* loosely-related variants, than whether something was a variant or not.
** The DietCoke of Evil is upon you **