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."
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."
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.
--
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!
--
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
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!
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.
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.)
As long as I can type
./configure
make; make install
It's a good enough OS for me.
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
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?
[
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
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.
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...
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.
(I know somebody said this on /. ages ago :-)
--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
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.
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
--
Quasi-Unix. The Diet Coke of Unix.
that comment getting +5 scares me.
UNIX POSIX are NOT just labels. How do you think the developers of GNU proogie got it to work on so many UNIX systems. Do you think there are a team of programmers for each OS? Or more than likely just one or two people who do the minimal patch required to get the program to compile on the "secondary" platforms.
Using POSIX or UNIX standard, programs can be written to run on a variety of platforms. These standards ARE necessary.
You can choose not to care about these acronyms because the GNU proogie developers, using UNIX and POSIX standards, have already done the caring for you.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
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...
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?