Mac OS X Leopard is Now Officially Unix

An anonymous reader writes "Mac OS X Leopard is now officially Unix, according to the Opengroup." I know everyone out there was really worried about this one. Welcome to the August news vacuum!

Comments

I think its a major achievement

[DogcowX]

There aren't many members of that club (IBM, HP, Sun)

Re:I think its a major achievement

[nightcats]

If The Open Group is "making standards work" (TM), then who is Making Work Standard? These are the really big questions that we have long meetings about here in corporate America. These are the things you contemplate when you've finished your third cup of jove and are sitting on the porcelain throne, thinking about death...

Re:I think its a major achievement

[krgallagher]

"There aren't many members of that club (IBM, HP, Sun)"

Yeah that was my reaction. I checked on the site to see the list of other certified OS'. Here it is:

• Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers
• Fujitsu Limited: Solaris(TM) 10 Operating System on Fujitsu PRIMEPOWER® 64-bit SPARC® Based Platforms
• Hewlett-Packard Company: HP-UX 11i V3 Release B.11.31 or later on HP Integrity Servers
• IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.3 dated 7-2006 or later
• IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.2 dated 8-2004 or later with APARs: IY59610, IY60869, IY61405 with VAC 6.0.0.8 or later on pSeries CHRP systems
• Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System plus patch 118844-06 for X86 and on, on 64-bit X86 based systems
• Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit X86 based systems
• Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems

There is no Linux. The only BSD up there is OS X. Apparently even Unix isn't Unix. It looks to me like 'THE Open GROUP' is a PR firm for Sun and IBM.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[ericrost]

Linux isn't UNIX for cost reasons. UNIX is a copyrighted compatibility certification. It costs a lot of money to get that moniker, and it really doesn't mean anything in these days of Linux and BSD.

Linux is Linux, it doesn't NEED to be UNIX.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[gravis777]

Stupid question, but OSX is BSD based, right? So hasn't it always been Unix? I thought BSD was a unix flavor, like Ultrix or Solaris (not Linux).

Re:I think its a major achievement

[TheRaven64]

Part of the problem with this certification is that it needs to be renewed for each version. For Linux, it's not feasible, because it certifies entire operating systems, rather than kernels. The Single UNIX Specification covers a few basic devices, a huge number of C APIs and a set of useland tools (e.g. shell, C compiler, etc). Linux implements a page or two of the spec, and system calls that allow glibc to implement a load more. The GNU tools implement a lot more beyond that.

A distribution of Linux could apply for certification, but the certification would only be valid for the exact version; update the kernel, any of the GNU utilities, etc, and it would stop being UNIX(TM) (although, for PR purposes, if FooLinux 10 is UNIX, then people probably won't care that FooLinux 10.0.1 hasn't been certified).

The certification is more than just PR, however. Any product that has the certification is guaranteed to comply with the SUS spec. This means any software written to the specification will work. I'm glad OS X is getting it, since there are a few gaps in the implementation on 10.4 that should have been plugged before they got this. I've written code to the SUS spec before, and had it work flawlessly on Solaris but have minor issues on FreeBSD, Linux, and OS X. The more operating systems that conform to SUS, the easier it is to write cross-platform code. Whether they get the certification is irrelevant, to a degree.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[larkost]

"Unix" (notice the capitol U) is a specific certification whose criteria Apple has met (and paid for the right to use that designation). Generally people refer to things that have their roots in the old Bell Labs UNIX as "unix" or "unix-like" (notice the lower case u's). This is more of a philosophy of how things should work ("everything is a file, even when its not").

Re:I think its a major achievement

[AttilaSz]

Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers Um... So, does this mean the PowerPC version of Leopard doesn't get the certification? If so, why?

Re:I think its a major achievement

[totally bogus dude]

It's not UNIX(TM).

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Nick of NSTime]

My guess is that since Apple doesn't sell PowerPC-based computers anymore, the certification doesn't apply to discontinued hardware.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[memfrob]

IBM Corporation: AIX[...]

Now we know they're joking. When did IBM port AIX to UNIX? :)

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Poltras]

That's a certificate, not just a statement. This means that, following the UNIX 03 Product Standard standards, your program will work on every OSes that supports it. Directories, POSIX, kernel calls, most things should be compliant between the OSes listed in The Open Group. This is a significant advancement for servers (more certificate for an OS is always good in that way), although not really meaningful for desktops.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[daem0n1x]

If The Open Group is "making standards work" (TM), then who is Making Work Standard?

Well, Soviet Russia, of course!

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Creepy]

Unix is trademarked by the Open Group, and so to be Unix, you need to pay them to certify your OS. There are several other similar cases in the industry - POSIX is a biggie, as is OpenGL. Often you'll see OpenGL compatible (like Mesa) or POSIX compatible (like Linux and even MacOS X for a while) - basically, they're saying they're API compatible, but not certified.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Gorbag]

If The Open Group is "making standards work" (TM), then who is Making Work Standard?

Well, if you're in software development, it's The Wonderful Folks at CMU misinforming management everywhere that what is primarily an art is actually an assembly line. Nevermind undecidability... or efficiency for that matter. [But repeatability, oh yes, you have repreatability. I'm always writing the same code over and over. Not.] But hey, if it supports outsourcing, who wouldn't be for it?

Re:I think its a major achievement

[david.emery]

But there are inconsistencies between the Linux common specification and the POSIX specifications. So until the technical issues get worked out (I think they concern threads and signal handling, but I'm not sure), there's no way a Linux distribution vendor could take his/her Linux product through POSIX conformance testing.

          dave

Re:I think its a major achievement

[aicrules]

specific certification whose criteria Apple has met

is the same as

paid for the right to use that designation

Re:I think its a major achievement

[AttilaSz]

At least few folks that invested in G5 XServes will be feeling really fuzzy about this :-) They were the top-notch Apple server hardware until January 2006, that's not exactly very far ago. Of course, most people can't really give a damn about whether Mac OS X is a UNIX or not, myself included, as long as we can compile and run the usual bunch of unixy ecosystem software on it.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[randomjohndoe]

I don't think it matters whether the hardware is discontinued. Certifying Leopard on PPC would have cost more than Apple cares to spend on a platform it is leaving behind. There isn't a business case for getting the certification.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[moracity]

Ummm... LINUX - Linux Is Not UniX

Re:I think its a major achievement

[fermion]

Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers

so when I install Mac OS 10.5 on my powerbook, it is not Unix?

Re:I think its a major achievement

[nightcats]

Nah, I'm not in software development--I couldn't code my way out of a wet paper bag (which is why I use MEPIS). I just read slashdot for the humor. Reading the comments is usually funny: everybody is insulting each other; I just can't figure out why or what about. But I'll let you in on a secret, based on my many years on the corpo-treadmill in QA and (now) as a BA: geeks in real life are easily the most reasonable, balanced, and generous people I've met in corporate America. In fact, I wrote about it at the blog.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Kusuriya]

Long Live the Soviet Motherland... O WAIT...

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were looking at a G5 XSERVE and needed a UNIX cert back before January 2006 (whether or not it was already close enough)... they probably wouldn't have bought it. Its sorta like buying something shortly before they drop the price on it. If you didn't think it was worth the price you paid for it, you wouldn't have bought it. I know that people will still complain and such, but ideal capitalistic societies run on perfect knowledge, and hindsight can increases knowledge many many times.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[HNS-I]

You filthy bastard, I've clicked your link and now I feel so dirty. Why do I always have to be the nice geek and never the ruthless manager.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[jellomizer]

Not SCO? I thought they owned Unix?

Re:I think its a major achievement

[PCM2]

Generally people refer to things that have their roots in the old Bell Labs UNIX as "unix" or "unix-like" (notice the lower case u's).

OK, I've been in this field a long time and I've edited a lot of copy, and I've never once seen this usage in print. Who are these "generally" people you're talking about?

Re:I think its a major achievement

[_|()|\|]

I've always treated "UNIX" as the trademark and "Unix" as the generic designation. I've never seen anyone who was aware of the distinction (let alone cared) use "unix." I think the Wikipedia article on Unix-like sums it up nicely (although I never use the term "Unix-like"), especially regarding Eric Raymond's three categories: trademark, genetic, and functional.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[tm2b]

Not only that, but now Apple is the largest (in units shipped) certified Unix(tm) vendor in the world.

That's a big deal.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Haeleth]

now Apple is the largest (in units shipped) certified Unix(tm) vendor in the world.

How can Apple be "the largest (in units shipped)" when they haven't shipped a single unit? They won't even be releasing their certified Unix product till October.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[nevali]

It isn't just money, though. You can't just pay your way into getting a UNIX03 cert--you actually have to be compliant with the definition.

Being certified Unix is a big deal in a lot of environments.

Linux is Linux; Linux itself can't be Unix: though a specific version of a specific distribution on a specific platform could be certified as such if somebody were willing to pony up the cash, and pay for the necessary tweaks to be made (glibc, for example, aims for SuS conformance, but I'd place money on there being something that didn't pass the testsuite, and that's without getting into all of the userland utilities).

Re:I think its a major achievement

[nevali]

Technically? No.

They can't (legally) describe Leopard-on-PPC as "Unix" because it's not been certified, though I suspect Apple would avoid doing that--they'll talk about how "Leopard is Unix" without going into the specifics.

This is, of course, unless they've done a special deal with the Open Group to get trademark rights without having to do certification, but IBM/HP/Sun/Fujitsu would go nutso if they did that.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you have not been writing good copy! UNIX/Unix has been the cirrect term for years when referring to a true UNIX paltform. unix or unix-like have been the term for Unix wannabes such as linux etc.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Minstrel Boy]

What? Where's SCO?!? :lao

KeS

Re:I think its a major achievement

[nightcats]

Heh, I've never had a problem with ruthless, on the rare occasions where it's joined with competence. But when you put arrogance and stupidity into one package, you've got yourself a typical middle manager, and the biggest problem in corporate America. Once in a blue moon I've met a geek fitting this description (usually a kid just out of college who thinks he can be CIO next week because of that CMU attitude you talked about), but overwhelmingly my experience with the guys writing the code is that they know their stuff, stay late, seek solutions, try to have fun, and never use email or Crackberries as weapons. And they don't act like assholes on Monday morning when we find out the app servers have hosed over the weekend (usually because they've known about it since Saturday night). And in my other tribute to geeks, I compare you guys to Harry Potter.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[tm2b]

Good point, I missed that it was Leopard and not Panther that's certified.

Apple is currently the largest vendor of Unix (non-tm), once Leopard is shipping Apple will be the largest vendor of Unix (tm).

Re:I think its a major achievement

[srmq]

No, Linux is GNU and GNU's Not Unix. By definition.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[PCM2]

Well, for starters, "cirrect" has never been correct usage. "Linux" is always capitalized, as are words at the beginnings of sentences, whether you think they're supposed to be capitalized or not. "Unix" is always capitalized. And no publication I've ever worked for would allow a trademark to appear in print in all caps unless it was an acronym. Companies regularly try to do that to call attention to their brands in print, and we don't let them get away with it. So please, if you want to criticize, know something about how the English language works in print, first.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[Gary W. Longsine]

Commands which appear at the beginning of a sentence are not capitalized, as they would then be broken. Copy editors frequently break such sentences. The less clueless amongst them tend to restructure the sentence so that the command doesn't appear at the start of the sentence.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[bandmassa]

> ...who is making work standard?
>> ...Why soviet Russia, of course!...

Typical US neocon attitude to the idea of fair work standards. I roll my eyes.

Re:I think its a major achievement

[kcarlin]

To be Unix you have to pass the test suite and any other criteria. To make a credible claim to Open Group Unixness you have to pay them to do it. To be UNIX, you have to go buy UNIX or license UNIXness from whoever is holding the rights this week that originated with AT&T back when it was all about PDP6es and 8" floppies. To be unix you must successfully execute the autoconfig (if not the whole build/install process) for something real (e.g., vi) or esoteric (e.g., emacs) with certifiable (but never certified, in the grand tradition of the rebel unix alliance) unixy roots.

*yawn*

[IsItWashable]

Must be holiday time soon...

Re:*yawn*

[IsItWashable]

How did you get modded more than the parent for that???

Good for them

[ceeam]

Now can we have POSIX specs publically available (free)?

Re:Good for them

[Gazzonyx]

I thought that you only had to pay for a printed copy of the POSIX standards? Oh well, I've heard that Windows (NT4, I think, but I may be wrong) was considered POSIX compliant before GNU/Linux; I guess it's all a money game, in the end.

Re:Good for them

[ceeam]

Well, the now retired POSIX "subsystem" on top of NT kernel did yearn some proto-POSIX certification a decade ago. I wouldn't call _that_ Windows though. And as for why I'd like it (POSIX specs) is so I can code against it and hopefully FreeBSD, Linux, MacOSX, Solaris etc would be able to run it AOK. Standards are good.

Re:Good for them

[the_arrow]

Well, the "Single UNIX Specification Version 3" is available to read on the Open Groups website, for free. Registration needed but then if you need to it's easy to download with wget. It contains all of POSIX and more if I'm not misstaken.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't Single Unix Specifications available? Try http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/nfin dex.html . I suppose you will be asked to 'register' which means entering your name and something similar to your e-mail. I once entered an existing one, and it hasn't even done this e-mail any harm. As I understand it is a standard developed by formally the same committee as POSIX, and it is even formal replacement for it.

Re:Good for them

[TheRaven64]

POSIX still costs money, but the last few revisions of POSIX have been the same as the last few revisions of the Single UNIX Specification, which is available for free from The Open Group.

Re:Good for them

[Tacvek]

Well, the now retired POSIX "subsystem" on top of NT kernel did yearn some proto-POSIX certification a decade ago. I wouldn't call _that_ Windows though. And as for why I'd like it (POSIX specs) is so I can code against it and hopefully FreeBSD, Linux, MacOSX, Solaris etc would be able to run it AOK. Standards are good. Well Interix is a POSIX subsystem for recent versions of NT based Windows. It is even part of Vista under the name "SUA" (Subsystem for Unix-based Applications). (It is a component of Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate). It may not be certified as Unix, but I'm guessing Microsoft could fix the remaining problems and get it certified if they wanted. Then it could be quite literally correct to say "Windows Vista Ultimate SP9" is UNIX. Obviously the Win32 Subsystem would not be UNIX, but still.

I know this...

[Anonymous Coward]

this is unix!

Re:I know this...

[Code Master]

It is a well kept secret that the new Finder of Leopard will have a 3D interface that is navigated by flying through an oil refinery like layout of 3D block buildings...

Linux has no hope, because this is UNIX...

Re:I know this...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a well kept secret that the new Finder of Leopard will have a 3D interface that is navigated by flying through an oil refinery like layout of 3D block buildings...

Yayyyy! A native Carbon port of FSV!

Re:I know this...

[i-am-will-from-nl]

No, that's just old: http://www.doctorgavin.com/Apple/finder.html

Re:I know this...

[VGPowerlord]

They'd just better watch out that SGI doesn't sue them. After all, SGI created the 3D File System Navigator.

I hear it was widely used during the development of Jurassic Park.

Dumb questions

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Was Tiger (10.4) certified? I don't see it listed on the Open Group website. Did Apple even try to certify Tiger? Why (not)? If not then why start now with Leopard?

Re:Dumb questions

[Delusion_]

Because it's freakin LEOPARD, man. LEOPARD!

Re:Dumb questions

[Just Some Guy]

Well, you have to start sometime, and I presume the process is not cheap. You might as well use your soon-to-be-launched version instead of the soon-to-be-stale release.

Re:Dumb questions

[Iphtashu Fitz]

You might as well use your soon-to-be-launched version instead of the soon-to-be-stale release.

So why didn't they get 10.4 certified back when they were about to release it?

Re:Dumb questions

[Just Some Guy]

So why didn't they get 10.4 certified back when they were about to release it?

The two simplest reasons are that 1) it wasn't ready yet, or 2) there wasn't a demand for it. It seems possible that some large customer needed the "certified Unix!" checkoff for purchasing authorization and this makes it compliant.

Again, you have to start sometime. Apparently Apple felt that this was that time.

Re:Dumb questions

[blake3737]

1)I dunno, it looks more like a puma to me...

2)Yeah yeah fine... but does it linux? :Ducks:

Re:Dumb questions

[gig]

They were working towards this for a few versions. Leopard is the first one submitted for certification.

Re:Dumb questions

[TheRaven64]

Was Tiger (10.4) certified? No.

I don't see it listed on the Open Group website. Did Apple even try to certify Tiger? I don't believe so. They were sued by TOG a while ago for abusing the UNIX trademark. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

Why (not)? In order to be certified as UNIX, an operating system must implement the Single UNIX Specification. There were a few problems with the implementation in Tiger. From memory, the implementation of POSIX thread cleanup routines is horribly, horribly broken (to the extent that code using them won't compile. I don't know what the monkey that wrote the code was thinking, but they should never be allowed near a compiler again), since it used macros with unbalanced braces instead of functions. There were also a couple of minor problems with realtime signal delivery. In the areas I've used, it was closer to compliance than FreeBSD or any Linux/GLIBC combination I've come across (although far behind in speed in a lot of places), but a few things from the spec that worked fine in Solaris just didn't on OS X.

If not then why start now with Leopard? Tiger seemed close to implementing the SUS spec, but it still had holes. Presumably these have been fixed with Leopard. Now, if they could just stop the VM subsystem being an order of magnitude slower than FreeBSD...

Re:Dumb questions

[david.emery]

I think the more accurate statement is that Leopard is the first one that -passed- certification.

          dave

Ownership

[Anne Thwacks]

So CSO now wons Apple? whatever next!

Thank goodness!

[Pope]

I can finally officially launch Terminal.app and not feel dirty!

(hooray for betas :)

Re:Thank goodness!

[HairyCanary]

Ummm... when I hit Ctrl-D, it DOES close the terminal. Ever thought about examining the preferences? I guess not.

Re:Thank goodness!

[fracai]

You don't open the Preferences or Settings much do you...

Re:Thank goodness!

[HairyCanary]

forgot to mention... (sorry, I hit submit before it occured to me ;-))

OSX Terminal is one of the few terminal programs I've used on any OS that dynamically re-wraps existing text in a window if you resize the window. That is very handy. OSX Terminal is otherwise a fairly minimal setup, but it is reliable. I sometimes wish it had tabs, but I generally use screen in any case for session portability, so it's not super critical to me to have elaborate terminal management via the GUI.

Re:Thank goodness!

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminal:Window Settings...
Choose When the shell exits: Close the window
Click "Use Settings as Defaults"
Next gripe?
Terminal isn't fancy, but it works well enough for me.

Re:Thank goodness!

[BladeMelbourne]

Control W should close windows - consistency...
Pretend Control D is short for disconnect terminal... you will live longer...

Re:Thank goodness!

[ryanw]

Terminal.app is a abomination of a UNIX Terminal. It....well....it SUCKS! Yeah it's nice that it's there, but call me crazy....when I type Ctrl-D it should CLOSE the terminal window! Not show process is complete and THEN make you close the terminal. That's just one gripe. It's a horrible terminal. Oh come on .... I actually like the ^D + CMD+W to close the window. I like the CMD+ARROWKEYS to navigate between windows in terminal. I do think their default TERM setting is annoying, but that's easily correctable and of course I have to set the colors to black & green and set the window size bigger.

I like that when you resize the windows bigger the text will automatically resize correctly to the new width without a bunch of broken up lines.

I dunno, I've been exclusively using unix systems the last 10 years of my life. I don't really feel that any other *Term's really do much of a better job. Terminal.app can be a tad 'slow' if your command is spewing 10's of thousands of lines at a time, but that's not something I try to let happen often.

Re:Thank goodness!

[Graff]

when I type Ctrl-D it should CLOSE the terminal window! Not show process is complete and THEN make you close the terminal. Um, open a window, go to Terminal->Window Settings->Shell, set the "When the shell exits" option to "Close only if the shell exited cleanly" then hit the "Use Settings as Defaults" button

There ya go, now the window will close when the shell exits. :)

Terminal.app is not a half bad terminal program. Yeah there are more customizable ones out there and ones that have some interesting features but Terminal.app is a decent no-frills terminal program. Poke around (or use the help menu) and you'll see that it can be customized decently to fit your liking.

Re:Thank goodness!

[MightyYar]

Actually, it's not in the preferences, and it takes a while to find it unless you are farting around and stumble upon it.

Open a terminal window. Select File->Show Info (or hit Command-I). Select "Shell" from the drop-down menu at the top of the "Terminal Inspector" window. Change the setting for "When the shell exits:". Click on "Use settings as default".

Re:Thank goodness!

[gig]

Terminal speaks AppleScript, so it enables you to run shell scripts from within Applescript. Unites the GUI and command line scripting.

tell app "Terminal" do shell script "foo"

If you Save the above as an app, then "foo" will be a Mac app anyone can run.

Re:Thank goodness!

[Anonymous Coward]

Leopard terminal has tabs :) and cmd-shift-bracket traverses them, just like safari tabs

Nice, my capthca is "quieted" - a sign of things that are about to happen to me?

Re:Thank goodness!

[Adnans]

You want tabs? Try iTerm. Horrible name, but it works quite well!

-andy

Re:Thank goodness!

[GregNorc]

You can do that already with iTerm. It adds what every other terminal application has: tabs.

Re:Thank goodness!

[Vengie]

checkout iTerm. http://iterm.sourceforge.net/
enjoy. -b

Re:Thank goodness!

[namgge]

It's not even essential to involve Terminal.app

do shell script "/bin/tcsh my-command-file-path"

see: http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2002/tn2065 .html

namgge

Re:Thank goodness!

[anticypher]

In my long and varied professional life, I've met a few people so dedicated to one facet of technology they could be called foo geeks. Compiler geeks. Time geeks. Kernel geeks.

Then, on a hajj to Cupertino, I met some of the people on the Terminal.app team, first time I ever encountered terminal geeks. They knew more about the vagaries of escape codes, character sets, and still managed to make term.app one of the slickest cocoa apps around. Plus it integrates nicely with applescript/automator, so with a script and a little SSH+pre-installed keys magic I can open a bunch of terminals that log into remote systems each with a distinct look. As a security geek, it's wonderfully dangerous.

In 10.5, term.app adds tabs and a few other nice features, like better unicode non-ascii support and alternate character sets.

the AC

Re:Thank goodness!

[Ilgaz]

You want tabs? Try iTerm. Horrible name, but it works quite well!

-andy Linux guy (incorrectly) bitches about control-d actually doing logout instead of closing window (yes,lose all contents) and you guys are suggesting something that starts with lower letter "i" as Terminal. Trying to kill him?

Let me do the rest of the job: "iTerm has Growl notifications too. Those stylish looking notifications. Also it has Bonjour support along with self update over the Internet. Did I tell it is also a drag drop install?". How dare they! Someone call nerd police!

Re:Thank goodness!

[Anonymous Coward]

For your information, Plan 9 from Bell Labs' terminal also rewraps text when resizing the window.

Re:Thank goodness!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... when I hit Ctrl-D, it DOES close the terminal. Ever thought about examining the preferences? I guess not.

Nice troll, but if you were looking at the Preferences, it's not there.

This is another reason Terminal.app sucks: it's not like other terminals, and it's *really* not like other Mac apps.

To make it close windows when you ^D them:
- open "Window Settings..." (not "Preferences...")
- choose "Shell" from the popup
- click "Close the window" (or "Close only if the shell exited cleanly")
- click "Use Settings as Defaults"

You can't really blame somebody for missing this. It's not under Preferences, the window doesn't look anything like a normal preferences window, and you have to remember to 'save' the settings before you close the window or it forgets what you just told it.

Whoever wrote Terminal.app must have had a hard-on for some KDE terminal app with 17 different preference windows. I don't know why they didn't just say "hey, we've got some preferences ... let's put them all in the Preferences window and make them work like all the other apps we ship".

It's probably because they're too busy fixing the Finder...

Re:Thank goodness!

[SenorCitizen]

They knew more about the vagaries of escape codes, character sets, and still managed to make term.app one of the slickest cocoa apps around. Yes, slick. Especially how slick the character set/keymap localization is. It Just Doesn't Work(tm) unless you happen to know exactly which cryptic settings to touch, or chance upon a web page explaining it. Shipping a term.app that uses US locales by default is just stupid, especially as the rest of the OS is localized very well, much better than Windows IMO.

It passed the certification

[morgan_greywolf]

The Open Group's trademark-protected Unix certification program determines who gets to call themselves 'UNIX'. Just because an OS is derived from the original Unix sources at some point doesn't make it a 'UNIX'. You get to call it a 'UNIX' if it passes the Open Group's tests, which determine if it meets the specifications. In this case, Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard', only when running on Intel Macs, not PPC Macs or any other box was found to meet the UNIX 03 specification.

Re:It passed the certification

[Anonymous Coward]

You get to call it a 'UNIX' if it passes the Open Group's tests, which determine if it meets the specifications.

And if a certain cigarette-smoking man lets you.

Re:It passed the certification

[Rosyna]

In this case, Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard', only when running on Intel Macs, not PPC Macs or any other box was found to meet the UNIX 03 specification. And this is what confuses me. There is no 10.5 for ICBMs and 10.5 for PPC Macs. It's all one, single, unified version with one SKU. It's odd they explicitly mention ICBMs.

Re:It passed the certification

[Just Some Guy]

And this is what confuses me.

If you must have a "certified Unix!!1!" system for some reason, then you must buy a new Apple. Remember, they'd still much rather sell you a new system than a copy of OS X for an old iMac. They wouldn't have a whole lot to gain by making that certification backward-compatible.

Re:It passed the certification

[sammy baby]

Don't have time to wade through the Open Group's documentation right now, but is it possible that these certifications are issued in a similar way to government security certs - that is, a specific version of the software running on a specific version of the hardware?

Re:It passed the certification

[russotto]

Apple used to specifically claim their products were not certified for use in weapons systems (one of the disclaimers in MPW), so there may not be a 10.5 for ICBMs.

Re:It passed the certification

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It's not just testing, there is a LOT of money involved here. Maybe Apple only paid to test the Intel version, there is little reason for them to pay to test a legacy (for them) architecture, the newest PPC models are now nearing two years old now.

Re:It passed the certification

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of the groups tests for cerification if any, are totally or partially political or financial or contractual in nature ?
Why isn't OS X just linux?
Wont many Linux commands typed into oS x run fine?

Of what benefit is this to Uses?
what's new ?

Re:It passed the certification

[gig]

They submitted it on an Intel Mac because that is today's hardware. However the exact same Leopard that was tested can also run on PowerPC, there is only one Leopard. The Intel and PPC binaries are peas in the same pod. There is one installer that runs on all 21st century Macs.

Re:It passed the certification

[morgan_greywolf]

They submitted it on an Intel Mac because that is today's hardware. However the exact same Leopard that was tested can also run on PowerPC, there is only one Leopard. The Intel and PPC binaries are peas in the same pod. There is one installer that runs on all 21st century Macs.

True. But regardless, the certification only covers Leopard on Intel Macs. By comparison, AIX 5L, for example, is certified on any hardware, as well as having a separate certification only on PPC. That means that Leopard, the same Leopard or not, on Power PC is not 'UNIX'.

Re:It passed the certification

[gnasher719]

'' And this is what confuses me. There is no 10.5 for ICBMs ... ''

And I hope there will never be. Ok, probably better than WfW (Windows for Warships).

Re:It passed the certification

[0racle]

Um, no. The certification from the Open Group covers the OS on a specific hardware platform. http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm lists AIX 5L twice for Unix '03, 5.2 on Power with specific patches and 5.3 on Power.

Re:It passed the certification

[jimicus]

But if there is, I'm sure the ICBM will be easy to use and the resulting explosion very pretty.

Re:It passed the certification

[awehttam]

I think that's "iCBM". Part of iLife.

Re:It passed the certification

[Ash-Fox]

The Intel and PPC binaries are peas in the same pod.

Technically universal binaries are a x86 and a PPC binary embedded into one file. While they maybe compiled from the same source, that doesn't mean they will have behavior differences due to flaws in the code.

Re:It passed the certification

[Guy Harris]

How many of the groups tests for cerification if any, are totally or partially political or financial or contractual in nature ?

Few, if any, as far as I know; the tests are a large pile of code you run on your system, and you pass or fail. There's a licensing fee for the UNIX trademark, and you presumably end up signing a contract to license the trademark.

Why isn't OS X just linux?

Because Linux didn't exist at the time NeXT was founded, OS X is a NEXTSTEP descendant, and it presumably wasn't considered worth the effort to construct OS X and all the frameworks in it atop Linux.

Wont many Linux commands typed into oS x run fine?

Yes, and many Linux commands typed into Solaris will run fine, and many Linux commands typed into AIX will run fine, and many Linux commands typed into {Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}BSD will run fine, and so on. In some cases, that's because the Linux command in question was designed so that {Solaris,AIX,etc.} commands typed into Linux would run fine.

Of what benefit is this to Uses?

It depends on the user. If the user is somebody who has code that expects Single UNIX Standard behavior (e.g., that all the thread-cancellation stuff works), it means their code should work on OS X. If the user is somebody who wants to use an application with that code, it means there might be a better chance that said application will be ported to OS X (although, if the app is a GUI app, it'll either run only with the X server and won't look particularly native, or would have to be ported, or would have to be written with a cross-platform toolkit such as Qt).

what's new ?

UNIX certification.

Re:It passed the certification

[chernevik]

So I guess that explains why Jobs is so adamantly opposed to The Button.

Re:It passed the certification

[commodoresloat]

I think that's "iCBM". Part of iLife. You're thinking of iDeath.

Re:It passed the certification

[Ohreally_factor]

I don't really know which OS will be used to fight WW III, but WW IV will be fought with DOS.

Re:It passed the certification

[awehttam]

It's all part of the iCycle of life...

Hrrrrm.

[Funkcikle]

The certificate mentions Intel-based Apple hardware but not PPC...wonder why that is. Is PPC Leopard actually AmigaOS in disguise or something?

Re:Hrrrrm.

[simong]

It looks like Leopard will be Universal so either Apple or Opengroup have gone for certification on the current, Intel platform.

Re:Hrrrrm.

[TheRaven64]

Apple aren't selling PowerPC systems anymore. Getting UNIX certification costs money on a per-architecture basis. Getting Leopard certified on PowerPC would cost money, and not enable them to sell any more systems.

Re:Hrrrrm.

[nurb432]

Perhaps they want to stick with spending the $ and time getting certified on what they are actually selling?

Re:Hrrrrm.

[JimDaGeek]

Well, as pointed out, Apple doesn't sell PPC-based Macs any more. Maybe Intel also tossed in some spare change to get it on Intel only?

Saints preserve us

[pzs]

Does this mean that turtle neck wearing goatie bearded design weenies will start calling themselves Unix geeks?

Peter

Re:Saints preserve us

[stuntpope]

Only if pony-tailed, sandal-wearing bearded fat guys with rainbow suspenders start calling themselves sensitive artists.

Re:Saints preserve us

[Anonymous Coward]

as opposed to dragon-shirt wearing neckbeard weenies that are the current crop of Unix geeks?

Re:Saints preserve us

[CaffeineAddict2001]

You just described Jerry Garcia...

Re:Saints preserve us

[iknownuttin]

You just described Jerry Garcia...

I didn't know he was a Unix guy! What did he do, hack kernel code while on the road?
It would explain some the songs. Heh, folks thought they were about drugs but they were about internals. KC Jones watch your speed must have been about race conditions.

Re:Saints preserve us

[CaffeineAddict2001]

See my xterm? It's Eggshell. With romalian type.

Re:Saints preserve us

[aichpvee]

They've been bragging about how they "run UNIX" at home for years already, so it's probably already started somewhere.

Re:Saints preserve us

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us not forget the potential for plaid-shirt wearing pot-bellied steak-eating rednecks to call themse...oh wait - I just recalled that there's still no potential for them to understand a computer more complicated than the odometer in their dual-axle F350. My bad.

Re:Saints preserve us

[gig]

That's the beauty of San Francisco, Steve Jobs and Jerry Garcia are both local heroes. Cupertino and Berkeley are both local towns. Now the Mac is Unix. Peace love understanding.

Re:Saints preserve us

[nuzak]

> Cupertino and Berkeley are both local towns.

Cupertino is only "local" if you live in San Jose. It's nearly an hours drive away if there's no traffic (read: 2am on a Sunday). And the Dead were from SF, Berkeley had nothing to do with it.

No Linux?

[quanticle]

Oddly enough, I don't see any Linux vendors on that list. Does this mean that OSX is more Unixy than Linux?

Re:No Linux?

[Swampash]

Does this mean that OSX is more Unixy than Linux?

As of 10.5, OS X is UNIX. Linux is "UNIX-like".

Re:No Linux?

[danbert8]

You mean Linux doesn't stand for "Linux Is Not Unix"?

Re:No Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "Linux Is Not Unix, Xavier", as uttered by RMS in the confusing GPLv2-vs.-X-Men crossover

Re:No Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is a UNIX clone, not a UNIX derivative. Pretty much have to be a SysV to get this (which even the BSD's can't get).

Re:No Linux?

[morgan_greywolf]

Oddly enough, I don't see any Linux vendors on that list. Does this mean that OSX is more Unixy than Linux?

The certification process is expensive. Very expensive. A Linux distro could, in fact, be certified, but no one has been interested in spending that much money to get one certified. It would take a lot of money, and what's it worth, really?

It would take a lot of money.....? Hey, yo! Mark Shuttleworth! You're a billionaire, right? You want Ubuntu to be UNIX-certified, right?

Re:No Linux?

[Corporate Troll]

No, GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix". Linux is just Linus first name "unixified".

Re:No Linux?

[comradeeroid]

That'd be Linux Is Not UniX thank you very much. Capitalization is very important. Only the totally Non-N00b know that.

Re:No Linux?

[PenguSven]

Pretty much have to be a SysV to get this (which even the BSD's can't get). so it has to be SysV based, because BSD's can't get Unix certification, apart from OSX, which is BSD based. did you actually read anything more than "officially unix"???

Re:No Linux?

[drew]

I believe the certification also applies to the hardware the OS is running on. Somebody had posted a list of the certified Unices (?) above, and every one of them was of the form of "*IX version xyz on Some Manufacturer's Specific Hardware". So even somebody with a lot of money to burn would have to choose a standard hardware platform, and even then they would have to spend the money all over again every time that they released a new version, which may be workable for, say, Red Hat's almost 2 year release cycles, but not for a project like Ubuntu.

Re:No Linux?

[bazald]

I wish I had modpoints right now. I need to log in more often. Sorry.

Re:No Linux?

[nevali]

No; one of the BSDs or Linux distributions (on a specific hardware platform) could be certified.

It's probably easier if you've got SysV roots, but not essential.

Mac OS X's userland borrowed heavily from BSD--I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there's no SysV in there at all.

Re:No Linux?

[Ohreally_factor]

Fun Fact: The plural of Linus is not Linuses. It's Linuxen.

Re:No Linux?

[WilliamSChips]

UNix Isn't uniX.

Jurassic Park

[BladeMelbourne]

So I guess it will be the OS in the next Jurassic Park movie? This is Unix, or this is Sparta. I know this!

Money is taken away from the idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Open your eyes. Unix as we know and love it is dead. OpenGroup can sell you a Unix certificate, but that it just a word - a piece of paper. They are just taking money away from the idiots. I could also sell you a property on moon and give you a piece of paper for that so that you could go out and brag about it. It's really the same thing. It has no real meaning these days - ask RMS if you don't believe me. This days "Unix" is not the old school "Unix" we all learned and loved and even if it was then so what? Would OSX have been less usable if it never got that Unix certificate??? What REAL VALUE does this bring to OSX users? Care to explain it to me, because I must be stupid, I've only used Unix since 1978! All this stupid theater is only there to fool you nerds to believe Apple has something really unique to offer to you. It's just a clever Apple marketing trick to fool nerds! It has no real value to any one of you! I'm 100% sure about that!

Re:Money is taken away from the idiots

[mevets]

Go on in the store. They are nice people. Don't resent them.

Re:Money is taken away from the idiots

[ThosLives]

It's not about the 'name' it's about what the certificate represents: Compliance with a specified set of tests.

That's actually very valuable and it isn't just the name, because it means that if you have an application that relies on the functionality proven by those tests, then you're good.

That's the whole point of standards and standardizing bodies. You want a gallon to be a gallon (US or UK, just be consistent!), a kilogram to be a kilogram, a UNIX to be a UNIX. Testing isn't free, so instead of relying on volunteers to do testing it looks like IBM, Apple, Sun, HP, and Fujitsu paid some guys calling themselves the Open Group to do some verification and certify that some standards are met. I don't see a lot of controversy there.

Re:Money is taken away from the idiots

[Marty_Krapturd]

It's not about the 'name' it's about what the certificate represents: Compliance with a specified set of tests.
That's actually very valuable and it isn't just the name, because it means that if you have an application that relies on the functionality proven by those tests, then you're good.

That's why every MCSE out there is worth their weight in gold!

Re:Money is taken away from the idiots

[Mattintosh]

No, that's why every MCSE is worth their weight in MCSE tests. Not all standards and tests are worth a lot, but they are all worth something. Sometimes that something is just way too close to zero to be of any practicality.

Whos on First

[djdavetrouble]

So CSO now wons Apple? whatever next! (huh??)

No, Next folded and Jobs came over to Apple. Pixar on third.

Re:Whos on First

[Nossie]

Did Next have UNIX certification?

Next always seemed like a good OS, back in the day :-|

GNU incompatability

[GrEp]

Will Leopard fully support GNU binutils? More specifically will add2line work?

Re:GNU incompatability

[KH]

Did you forget that GNU is Not Unix?

Re:GNU incompatability

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not, as GNU stands for Gnu's NOT Unix. And Leopard just did get branded as a Unix...

Re:GNU incompatability

[seebs]

What do you think "GNU's Not UNIX" is supposed to communicate?

Re:GNU incompatability

[jonwil]

Maybe if Apple wasnt using a fork of an ancient version of GNU as (one that predates libbfd IIRC)...

Re:GNU incompatability

[HairyCanary]

Oh how I wish I had mod points to give.

Re:GNU incompatability

[AnObfuscator]

But don't you wish it were?

Official Unixes: OSX, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, and... GNU's Not Unix.

You see, it's funny because it *says* that it's not Unix, but it really *would* be unix. ha ha ha! I kill me.

Re:GNU incompatability

[Ash-Fox]

What do you think "GNU's Not UNIX" is supposed to communicate?

What do you think "X is Not UNIX" is supposed to communicate?

But it doesn't really do hard links?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard people saying that HFS+ can't really handle hard links properly pre Leopard. So does this mean that it's going to be fixed in Leopard or what?

Re:But it doesn't really do hard links?

[Rosyna]

I've heard people saying that HFS+ can't really handle hard links properly pre Leopard. Citation needed. Where did you here that? (And don't link to some crazy nutjob idiot cracker that likes to rant about stuff he doesn't understand).

Do hard links work on HFS+? Yes. So what's it matter how they are implemented?

Re:But it doesn't really do hard links?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you here that?

Here.

Re:But it doesn't really do hard links?

[walter_f]

I'm afraid Apple did not even fix the "networked drive" problems in Leopard (being more focused on the iPhone).

Mac OS X users looking forward to another two years or so of merrily spinning beachballs, I presume.

Re:But it doesn't really do hard links?

[akac]

From everything I've seen in Leopard and from what I've read from others (so I know its not just me), this was fixed.

Correct answers

[morgan_greywolf]

Was Tiger (10.4) certified?

No.

Did Apple even try to certify Tiger?

No.

Why (not)? If not then why start now with Leopard?

Well, if you want certification, you gotta start sometime. I seem to remember the Open Group getting into a little tussle with Apple over Apple's use of the UNIX trademark in its advertisements. The Open Group owns the name UNIX, so you don't get it to call it UNIX unless the Open Group says so. I think this may be part of the arrangement they entered into....

Anyway, the process is expensive. So expensive that none of the *BSDs are certified, no Linux, of course, is certified (yes, a Linux distro could be), etc.

The members of the UNIX club are few: IBM, HP, Sun, NEC, The SCO Group, and a few others.

Re:Correct answers

[Citizen of Earth]

I seem to remember the Open Group getting into a little tussle with Apple over Apple's use of the UNIX trademark in its advertisements.

Do you get in trouble if you say that your product'S NOT UNIX®?

Re:Correct answers

[Quila]

The SCO Group only has UnixWare registered for the UNIX 95 specs. I believe it was actually version 2 registered by Caldera, and SCO registered version 7 a few years back. That should show you there hasn't been substantial change between the versions -- SCO is still working off a 17 year-old standard.

Re:Correct answers

[Anonymous Coward]

2007-1995=12
2007-1995!=17

Re:Correct answers

[Quila]

Bad math. 12 = still several generations for most system software.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[mevets]

Go on, go in the store. They are nice people, and will be happy to play with you....

Now we know what Apple will announce next Tuesday

[sjonke]

wump in the box

If it meant anything

[mjgraham]

If UNIX meant more than real world UNIX Compatibility, there's now an easily usable, affordable real UNIX on the market - is the jist of the news. For the few organisations that demand real UNIX this could be in Apple's favour. Yes, the hardware may be crappy, but admin costs would be lower. Or not. Either way the Pointy-haired bosses of the world will be all over it, so many admins will have no choice.

Re:If it meant anything

[joeyblades]

Hardware crappy?

Compared to what?

Re:If it meant anything

[$1uck]

There wasn't before?
Solaris is definitely affordable (more so than OSX), I don't think its difficult to use definitely not for anyone looking to use unix.
Either way the Pointy-haired bosses of the world will be all over it, so many admins will have no choice

Really what makes you think that? Pointy-haired bosses don't get excited over apple. They get excited over windows. I don't see how a "unix-designation" is going to change that.

Re:If it meant anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to other vendors.

Re:If it meant anything

[joeyblades]

Well, without you being more specific...

In terms of cost, features and reliability the Mac Pro is less crappy than, say, a Sun Ultra 20 with a comparable configuration (I know you can really strip down an Ultra 20 for very low cost).

If you're comparing to something like a Blade, then I agree, but point out that an extra $12,000 goes a long way towards helping the Blade be less crappy...

and in other news...

[Potent]

And in other news, the Pope is officially Catholic.

Re:and in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean: Bear is Catholic

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[pzs]

That's preposterous. How do you explain the large number of hard-core computing people who are converting to Mac because they like the balance between usability and Unix?

I regard the drones who buy a Dell machine with Vista as a good deal more trance-like than somebody "thinking different".

Peter

Re:Imagine...

[smittyoneeach]

In Czarist Russia, *Nix-olas clusters you!

So what? It's not even a good PR move.

[Derleth]

And a resounding cry of "So what?" goes up from the huddled geek masses.

This is purely down to Apple having enough money to get the Open Group to administer the relevant tests. Everyone who understands this stuff knows NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and even Linux are more Unix than Mac OS X will ever be in terms of both philosophy and technical details, but nobody connected to any of those projects has both the money and the incentive to get a specific version of those certified so they remain officially "Unix-like" in every context where you have to worry about Rabid Attack Lawyers.

Presumably, Apple has some reason for doing this. I don't pretend to understand what. It isn't the kind of thing that would appeal to their core demographic (iPod kids and Photoshop hacks) and they know Mac OS X doesn't have the technical chops to compete in real-world server farms where being SUS-compliant means being able to run lots of pre-existing software.

I'm probably wrong. Apple isn't known for being stupid. This just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move.

[Corporate Troll]

Presumably, Apple has some reason for doing this. I don't pretend to understand what. It isn't the kind of thing that would appeal to their core demographic (iPod kids and Photoshop hacks)

I'm sure you know about XServe, don't you? That's where this stuff matters... So they might not be as good as "real" Big Iron, but now they can say they are at the same level as Big Iron. At least according to that certification. This is not for iPod wielding photoshop artists, this is so that IT managers can choose Apple hardware and convince Point Hair Bosses....

Apple has a broader target demographic than you might think... They expanded it the day they released OS X.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an opportunity to sell to people who have to check off the "UNIX" box on the sheet before they can even look at a product.

Is it worth whatever price they paid? I have no idea, this is not a PR move (why would the public even care) or a move calculated to impress the geek masses.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move.

[setagllib]

Scenario: You're a CIO doing a deployment of UNIX applications, and you want to be absolutely sure you deploy a UNIX. You now have four major vendors to choose from. Apple being one of those vendors gives it access to that niche market. It may not be such a big deal, but it'll probably pay for itself very quickly.

And from all I've heard, it's not a bad OS at all, so having yet another real UNIX is creating even more resistance to Windows in the server space. Real standards go a long way. It would be nice to get a Linux distribution compliant and certified. Does Debian have a chance, money aside? I for one welcome our certified overlords.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move.

[skingers6894]

"NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and even Linux are more Unix than Mac OS X will ever be in terms of both philosophy and technical details"

Philosophy and technical details? Do tell. You obviously given it more though than this pfffft "Open Group" mob....

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move.

[russotto]

A nerd without Karma is like a pretty girl without breasts.

Easily solved with an affordably priced surgical procedure?

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move.

[Ohreally_factor]

OK, that actually makes some sense. I was thinking, "A nerd without Karma is like Taylor Hanson? What?"

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Professor_UNIX]

I look at all the people coming out of the Apple store when I walk around town during lunch & those people REALLY DON'T CARE, that's for sure, they look like they're in a trance coming out of that store...

Well, if they're anything like me they're probably just contemplating whether or not they can pay off their credit card bill next month after buying a MacBook Pro and AppleCare coverage. "Hmm, if I only make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the family I might be able to pay for half of the MacBook Pro this month and half next month... Oh shit, I should really just take it back... oh man, but I'd have to pay a $250 restocking fee... shit. I'm just going to go home and play with it and maybe I'll feel better about my purchase even though my 15" Powerbook was working perfectly fine and was only 2 years old."

At least, that was what was going through my head when my eyes were glossed over and I was trudging to the car with my shiny 15" MacBook Pro in my hand. But hey, can I really call myself an American if I don't have several thousand dollars worth of credit card debt spent on totally expendable consumer electronic devices? I don't think so!

Well...

[Dogtanian]

Beyond being a brand/certification, what does Unix actually mean these days, really?

My guess is very little (as the summary acknowledges, to be fair). Though I can't say it was pointless for Apple to get the certification, if only because it's a selling point to ageing senior managers who vaguely remember when "Unix" actually meant something (and think it still does). Since the Apple and Mac names aren't particularly associated with the Enterprise/Server market, the Unix brand gives them a "serious" selling point.

Sure, they could have pointed out the "BSD" underpinnings, and any real expert would know what they meant. But for the management types, "Unix" is probably still the name to go for.

Linux meanwhile *is* spiritually just as much "Unix" as any of the "official" licensees... but it has enough brand recognition in its own right anyway.

Re:Well...

[samkass]

I think it was probably more important for Apple to get the Mac certified than it is for Linux or *BSD. People already think of Linux and *BSD as UNIX, even though they're not. A lot of people think of the Mac as a "toy" or a system for the artists and graphic designers, and not something that's got real underpinnings on an enterprise platform.

Now that MacOS X is certified UNIX, it might change some people's perception of the OS.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Otter Escaping North]

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to buy an Apple and not have the Apple-chip installed into your brain. I'm living proof. I have a Mac mini which I bought as a family computer for a number of reasons; I wanted a good, usable OS, I couldn't get good CUPS/SANE support for my printer/scanner on Linux, and I wanted the iLife suite to make videos of the pups. The form factor is beautiful, and it's quiet - working within Mrs. Otter's ban on loud, whirring machines in the family room. It wasn't an impulse purchase by any stretch of the imagination (I weighed the decision for about a year). So I've got a Mac - and if that Mac goes, I'd replace it with another because I want those features.

That being said, I run a Slackware server, I have an Ubuntu desktop in my study. I run Kubuntu at work (a non-supported OS). I've even got a Windows machine, thought it stays powered down for months at a time except when I want to check something. I'm planning on a laptop purchase...a Dell with Ubuntu if they can get it together in Canada.

I can get the same specs as a souped up powerbook for about a grand less at Dell. Grandpa Otter's MacBook started flaking out recently, and I'd service the thing if it wasn't Fort Knox to get in. I know what Apple's strengths are, and I know what their weaknesses are, and I've not bought into a cult because they build stuff that does what I want. iLife is a good suite, but iMovie can be kinda unstable. Front Row is cool, but the interface is a bit sparse, and can be unwieldy if you have a lot of media (I do). The price of their computers is very high, and they tend to lag behind in terms of hardware specs. You can't really customize (you can only upgrade), and nothing ever goes on sale. The design of the machines are beautiful. An extra $150 to have it black??? The fact that they try and keep you out of them is very frustrating to a hobbyist like me. OSX is a good OS that's easy to use. I can't believe it's taking them until Leopard to get multiple friggin' desktops. Everything "just works" on a Mac...yeah, except the new headset I bought because the audio-in jack won't work with an unpowered microphone.

See? Apple computer, no Apple chip in the head. It is possible.

You should think differently.

OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[boxlight]

I spent 10 years as a Windows user, and often watched UNIX savvy coworkers dance magically around terminal windows and vi. While I always thought the character driven interfaces were decidedly 1980, I also always felt it would make me a better rounded tech guy if I learned more about that world.

When I bought a Mac (because I wanted something better than Windows), I thought a nice side effect was I would have to learn more about UNIX. I bought a copy of "Learning UNIX for Mac OS X Tiger" and read through most of it. And I'm now very comfortable using the command line for simple things like FTPing, changing file permissions, and modifying simple text files (although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me).

But you know what? I really don't ever need to "know" that Mac OS X is UNIX. More so than any LINUX or Solaris box I've ever used, the UNIXness of Mac OS X is very nicely hidden -- actually, not "hidden", it's just that since Mac OS X has such a nice UI, and such great apps, I never really need to care about the UNIX underpinnings.

It's quite nice to be able to have your nice UNIX cake, and be able to eat your nice GUI cake too.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[dbzero]

First rule of unix, never tell anyone you use pico. Second rule of unix, NEVER TELL ANYONE YOU USE PICO! ...

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Otter Escaping North]

(although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me)

So first - I agree with what the other fella said. You don't go around admitting things like that. If you really want to dis vi - start using emacs, and proclaim it to the world (wear a helmet).

Speaking as a vi user; it's not black magic. It is a little dark arts, though yes.

For black magic, you want to start doing your text editing with awk.

To really cross over to the other side, do everything in perl.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[value_added]

When I bought a Mac (because I wanted something better than Windows), I thought a nice side effect was I would have to learn more about UNIX. I bought a copy of "Learning UNIX for Mac OS X Tiger" and read through most of it. And I'm now very comfortable using the command line for simple things like FTPing, changing file permissions, and modifying simple text files (although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me).

Nice to read.

Funny how buying a simple book, or investing a bit of time learning something can yield benefits. ;-)

Don't give up on vi, though. I remember when I first started learning it, I spent a solid week or two thinking "This is completely nuts." Now, I don't use anything else.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[RLiegh]

Particularly since Nano has a better license and more features.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[tgd]

You realize you just gave some obese Unix admin sitting in a dark corner of a frigid data center a heart attack, right?

Nice going.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Bonobo_Unknown]

Whenever I use VI I always sing along to "black magic woman" by Carlos Santana...

That's a lot of Santana...

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[tiocsti]

vi...bah.

you kids and your fancy screen oriented editors. Back in the day we had ed, and were glad to have it!

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Graff]

Nano has a better license and more features. Pico under the default Mac OS X install is a symlink to the installed nano so when you run /usr/bin/pico you are actually running /usr/bin/nano.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[jmyers]

Hey when I start using vi the standard editor in DOS was edlin. people used "copy con" because it was easier. vi and Unix in general were a godsend in those days. Now 25 years later I still use vi (VIM) even though 90% of my work is in windows. vi was not and is not even remotely hard to learn. You just use it for a couple of days and then you will start to feel the power and speed of a real text editor.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[at_slashdot]

"First rule of unix, never tell anyone you use pico. Second rule of unix, NEVER TELL ANYONE YOU USE PICO! ..."

I use nano.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[cyfer2000]

I told everybody complaining vi... I am so sorry.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

The nicest thing about pico/nano is using cmd-w to write out the file.
and then second later cursing the muscle memory, and realizing that it is in fact ctrl-w, not cmd-w...

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Nexx]

It was either that or the years of sedentary lifestyle coupled with unhealthy diet choices. Yeah, I'd go with your Nano theory too :)

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

> First rule of unix, never tell anyone you use pico. Second rule of unix, NEVER TELL ANYONE YOU USE PICO! ...

Doubly so in some Spanish-speaking countries where pico is slang for dick.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

"black magic woman" by Carlos Santana...

ITYM either "Peter Green" (of Fleetwood Mac) if you're talking about who wrote the song, or "Santana", the band, if you're talking about that specific cover of the Fleetwood Mac original. Saying "Black Magic Woman by Carlos Santana" makes no sense.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Dogtanian]

Saying "Black Magic Woman by Carlos Santana" makes no sense. Neither does a song about a song about a woman who likes mass-produced chocolate assortments. He was going to call it "Milk Tray Woman" at first, but Cadbury's wouldn't pay him enough, and "Quality Street Woman" was banned because it sounded like it was about a prostitute.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Mister Whirly]

...and yet everyone knows (yourself included) which song he was referring to. The song was originally released as a single, and was only on a compilation album of early Fleetwood Mac stuff. Hell, most people don't even know about Peter Green, or that Fleetwood Mac even existed pre-70s before Rumours came out...

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Mattintosh]

Unfortunately for most unix newbies starting out with MacOS X, pico gained a following with the OSX early-adopters and most tutorials tell you to use it.

Those of us who learn more find out why/how to use vi (which is actually vim on OSX). Plus, it's half the number of letters to type for the command, so it must be better.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[a.d.trick]

the UNIXness of Mac OS X is very nicely hidden -- actually, not "hidden", it's just that since Mac OS X has such a nice UI, and such great apps, I never really need to care about the UNIX underpinnings.

Nice try, I won't say anything about the GUI and it's monolithic apps as that can be quite subjective, but the low profile of OSXs text UI is due, in part, to their suckage. This might not be visible to someone who only plays with chmod, pico, and ftp (btw, ftp is bad(tm), use ssh instead).

For those who use the terminal more often, Linux offers some distinct advantages

• bash instead of tcsh as the default shell.
• Standard directory names like /home and such.
• Standard text-based package managers like apt-get. My mac friends spend way too much compiling and have all their applications in the weirdest places.
• Often things like page up/down and home/end don't work in the OSX versions of programs.

• This stuff doesn't have to happen at the expense of the GUI either. My impression has been that Terminal.app is more of an accident than an accepted member of the operating system.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

Is pico related to the "six" editor?

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[PenGun]

Yes it was a great band once. Get yourself Kiln House to see the band before it went to hell.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[PenGun]

I know I'm lazy but the midnight commander does it all for me.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Zaurus]

• bash instead of tcsh as the default shell.
• Standard directory names like /home and such.

• This stuff doesn't have to happen at the expense of the GUI either. My impression has been that Terminal.app is more of an accident than an accepted member of the operating system.

bash is the default shell as of Tiger. Your impressions seemed to be based off of Panther.

OS X also has standard directory locations. The unix stuff even sits in standard unix directories (peek into /etc or /bin, for example). Mac-specific stuff is simply stored in a different (non-unix) set of directories than you're used to.

I spend much of my day, every day, in Terminal.app. Works great for me. Love the fact that you can resize the window and long lines reflow themselves. What, exactly, do you not like about the Terminal other than its lack of tabs pre-Leopard?

I'll have to agree with you on Page-up/down, home, and end buttons. They simply work differently on the Mac. I don't use any command-line programs that expects to see those buttons, so it doesn't bother me much. The equivalent of home and end while editing text is command-left and command-right, by the way.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Fweeky]

bash instead of tcsh as the default shell. tcsh's perfectly fine for most interactive use, though a bit of configuration helps. If you don't like it, it's a simple chsh away; even less work than FreeBSD (where it isn't part of base).

I would question the use of bash as /bin/sh, which is one Linuxism in OS X I don't appreciate. WTF is wrong with ash?

Standard directory names like /home and such. You know, when you jump on trivial issues like this, especially when you list them first, people are going to assume you haven't actually got any real arguments.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[nautical9]

bash instead of tcsh as the default shell.

bash has been default since at least Tiger, and I believe Jaguar as well, not that it matters. Choice of a default shell is hardly an advantage, just a difference. I happily used tcsh as my default (interactive) shell for many years, on SunOS and Solaris.

Standard directory names like /home and such.

OS X has standard directories too, just longer ones for their own (and it still has /bin /etc for unix-only apps). Again, not an advantage, just a difference.

Standard text-based package managers like apt-get. My mac friends spend way too much compiling and have all their applications in the weirdest places.

OS X doesn't come with a unix-like package manager out of the box, but Fink or Darwin Ports suffice for installing any of the few thousand available ports with a single command.

Often things like page up/down and home/end don't work in the OSX versions of programs.

Again, just a difference. Having spent years in the windows/linux camp, I agree it's an annoying change and seems unnecessary, but within a couple days you're used to it.

This stuff doesn't have to happen at the expense of the GUI either. My impression has been that Terminal.app is more of an accident than an accepted member of the operating system.

Speaking as someone who spends most of his day jumping between Vim.app and Terminal.app, I respectfully disagree. It seems plain at first glance, especially compared to most linux terminals, but I'd argue it's just better designed to hide features you rarely need. The single largest omission it's missing is tabs, which are coming in Leopard. But as an avid screen user, I don't really miss them.

I have an Ubuntu linux box, a WinXP box, and PowerBook on my desk. It's the Mac that is the most enjoyable one to use, by far (the others are for added screen real estate and testing).

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[CapnGrunge]

Pffft, I couldn't care less about pico, as long as there's an editor that responds to Ctrl-K-something.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[doon]

The single largest omission it's missing is tabs, which are coming in Leopard. But as an avid screen user, I don't really miss them

I tend to use iterm instead of terminal.app. Between tabs and bookmarks it tends to work pretty well.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Bonobo_Unknown]

correction:

black magic woman" as played by Carlos Santana...

Please forgive my irreverence.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[ladadadada]

pico was what I first used on the Mac command line as well back when it really was pico and not a symlink to nano. I had been using Solaris for some time back then but I used a graphical editor in Solaris. The command line was just for shunting files around and compiling and running programs.

I first dipped my toes in the vi water when I was playing around with Linux for the first time and it didn't come with pico installed. I forget whether it had nano that I didn't know about or if it just didn't have nano. Either way, I followed the vi instructions which were difficult and complicated, finished editing my file and promptly forgot all about vi and how to do anything with it.

These days, I'm a Solaris Sysadmin and I use vi a thousand times a day. I've aliased vi to vim and set up my .vimrc file with the settings I like such as syntax highlighting. I know many of the shortcuts so I can do things more efficiently than using "x" 8 times to delete a word then "i" to type a new one. I can use "cw" which will change to the end of the word and just start typing the new one. I know how to do search and replace using regular expressions, across the whole file or just a subset of the file. If I'm writing code I can fold a function down so that it appears to be just the declaration which allows me to see the function above and below on the same screen. I know how to block-comment and uncomment code with a single command.

A new developer recently asked the sysadmins if we could install pico for him and we said "Yes... but you'd be doing yourself a favour if you learned vi instead." I pointed him at a vi tutorial and I gave him a printout of the vi reference that I have stashed away somewhere.

Once you know how to use vi and I mean USE vi, not just emulate pico within vi, then you'll find every other editor sorely lacking.

One thing I love about Unix (and this is true about Linux as well) is that any program is just a few keystrokes away rather than having to navigate through submenu after submenu to find the program you want.

The best feature, however, is that you can effortlessly chain the output of one program into the input of another. The number of times I grep through a log file, pipe the output to cut, then to sort, then to uniq each day makes that functionality indespensible.
I was trying to create a list of all the URLs that one of our web pages contained the other day using TextPad (a Windows text editor) and I eventually succeeded but it took me several minutes of searching and replacing using regular expressions. I achieved the same task in under thirty seconds using curl piped to grep piped to sed. The best thing was that with the curl-grep-sed combination, all I had to do was change the URL of the page I was dealing with at the start of the command and the whole process would work instantly for the next page as well. The TextPad method would have taken another five minutes for every page I worked on.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[Vitriol Angst]

OK, I use PICO too -- because VI scares the heck out of me because you can hit a key and start doing a command to the OS -- and like, since I'm only editing some properties in PICO anyway, I don't need to learn all the arcane escape commands in VI.

My Kung Fu sucks.

We need a support group for UNIX dabblers who use PICO. I know I should feel ashamed but I don't. I suppose the first part of dealing with a problem is recognizing you have one -- but I'm not even THERE yet.

I also think Paris Hilton is attractive, if only that dating her would probably shut her up because I'd keep saying; "Hey, a sock in your mouth -- that's hot!" There, I said it.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX

[LakeSolon]

Hey I'd never noticed cmd-left and cmd-right before. I picked up the habit of using ctrl-a and ctrl-e with FreeBSD (before OSX became my Unix of choice), did it by accident once on the Mac one day and was pleasantly surprised to find it worked.

For those not on a mac to follow along: cmd-left and ctrl-a go to the beginning of the current line, while cmd-right and ctrl-e go to the end.

GNU

[AlanCramer]

Damn, GNU is still Not UNIX.....you win this round yet again mac fanboys!

Re:GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, "we" did, and you lose; but this time on so many more levels on the personality plane besides just being a dull, biased, platform zealot with a religious agenda.

Re:GNU

[lilomar]

Which explains why Linux will never be Unix.

Math:
GNU/Linux = !Unix/Linux
so, (hypothetically) if Linux = Unix, then GNU/Linux = !Unix/Unix
We can't let Unix be 0, because then there would be no Unix, and we can't have that.
So, let Unix = !0.
now, !Unix/Unix = !(!0)/!0
this simplifies to 0/!0
since 0 over any non-0 is 0
we get GNU/Linux = 0. Now, GNU/Linux is not 0 for the same reason Unix isn't 0. (it's just to awesome to not exist) So, therefore, Linux != Unix. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Re:GNU

[Ekarderif]

I think the most ironic thing is that the OS X kernel is named XNU (XNU is Not Unix).

Re:GNU

[advocate_one]

well it would just become GNU's now UNIX... duh... :)

Re:GNU

[Svet-Am]

would Stallman's head exploding REALLY be a bad thing?

Re:GNU

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Think of the mess! There'd be beard EVERYWHERE!

Re:GNU

[jellomizer]

But that would biodegrade. Much more benefictual then RMS himself.

Re:GNU

[Capitis]

Stallman's head would probably explode

And that would be a bad thing?

Re:GNU

[iainl]

I think the term you're looking for is "go supernova". Nothing that big would just explode.

Re:GNU

[CamD]

"Oh, my God. Beard everywhere. There's beard everywhere! Damnit! There's beard on the windows! Oh, my God! My house is full of beard! He got beard everywhere! Look what he did! He got beard all over the walls! There's beard EVERYWHERE!"

Ask RMS?

[Dystopian Rebel]

It has no real meaning these days - ask RMS if you don't believe me. Whatever the point you're making, I think would rather believe you than listen to RMS.

Re:Ask RMS?

[Ohreally_factor]

If you hold emacs up to your ear, you can hear the ocean.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Anonymous Coward]

I saved up the money instead of putting it on credit. Thats another American (USA) way!

Is it worth it?

[alexhmit01]

Depends on the accounts you are aiming for. If you want to compete for government contracts that specify Unix, than yes, it is worth it. However, the amount of the revenue for the Linux software is kind of trivial. All the Unix vendors have traditionally sold the Unix workstations... hardware and software. It's high margin business, because the barriers to entry are high.

Microsoft has a POSIX subsystem... it's never really been useful, but for bidding on projects where one of the requirements is POSIX compatibility, it served it's purpose. Microsoft couldn't sell NT as a Unix system, but it could compete if the specifications were more vague and called for POSIX compatibility, because NT had it.

Is Ubuntu going to fight for those accounts? Is it worth it without the hardware bundle? The most likely scenario would be if a company like Dell wanted to compete in the workstation market, where they could create a Dell Linux, get it certified Unix on their workstations, and sell into the Workstation market. My guess is that none of the PC Makers want to alienate Microsoft by creating a Linux-based Workstation, and none of the Linux vendors want to get into the hardware business.

I never understood why Penguin Computing or any of the other Linux-hardware guys tried this approach... but selling into specified contracts doesn't mean throwing up a website, it means a sales force focused on that channel, and I don't know if they had the capital to set up the team to get it to market.

Alex

Perhaps this lets the gov't buy Macs?

[Lepton68]

Doesn't this mean places like US gov't agencies can finally buy Macs, because they are only allowed to buy Windows or Unix? Something like that? If true, this makes the certification very valuable, Macs were shut out from official gov't purchases for a long while.

It's supposed to 'just work', right?

[FatSean]

I mean, I can configure crappy old Windows to my liking too....I thought Macs just 'did the right thing'.

GP's default terminal behavior sounds like the wrong thing.

Re:It's supposed to 'just work', right?

[Graff]

I mean, I can configure crappy old Windows to my liking too....I thought Macs just 'did the right thing'.

GP's default terminal behavior sounds like the wrong thing. It's not necessarily the wrong thing. The way you close a window in a Mac OS application, by default, is Command-W. Closing a window is a different logical operation than exiting a shell. For example, if the shell has a problem during the process of exiting then you want the window to still be around to report the problem and be able to recover.

That being said, Apple did allow for your own personal preference and if you want to roll up the functionality of closing a window into that of exiting a shell they let you set it up that way. It's a good compromise in my opinion.

Oblig.

[xerent_sweden]

In soviet russia, computer systems certify you!

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Anonymous Coward]

See? Apple computer, no Apple chip in the head. It is possible.

You should think differently.

You're right, but still, watch out, as you're only 2 letters away from getting the Apple chip. FWIW, you'll know you've got it once you start to think different.

Question

[thatskinnyguy]

Could you imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these? I mean, doesn't OpenMosix run on BSD? What's good for the goose...

Re:Question

[Frumious Wombat]

I know you're trying to be funny, but Apple publishes a guide for doing precisely that, without replacing OSX. If you're creative, you can always skip XGrid and use SGE (GridEngine) instead.

So, quit imagining, and just run!

Re:Question

[thatskinnyguy]

I was actually saying it to be insightful. I just put two and two together. I didn't know that there was a document already published on the matter. I'm not a Mac user. I just follow the technology.

Re:Question

[Frumious Wombat]

Sorry, I've become so attuned to the "imagine a beowulf cluster of ..." meme around here, being modded funny, I presumed you were just keeping it alive. My bad. You can (allegedly) still buy the preconfigured 8-node version in the sound-proof case, but the web-page claims it's G5s, so someone needs some updating.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[kebes]

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to buy an Apple and not have the Apple-chip installed into your brain. I'm living proof.

I'm proof too. I have a Macbook Pro, and it's a fantastic machine. However overall I prefer Linux and use Kubuntu on my desktop machine. Macs are great, but they are far from perfect.

I think, though, that there are lots of happy Mac users who are not "Mac zealots." As usual, though, the "zealots" (for lack of a better word) are inherently more vocal, and so there is a bias towards their viewpoints being represented. Thus a myth of "Mac zealotry" is formed, but it is based on a vocal minority. I would argue that the majority of Mac users have a reasonable, balanced view of Macs (though, presumably if they are using Mac they think it has some overall advantages).

It's the same thing with Linux, of course. There is this stereotype of Linux users being rabid zealots and evangelists. Although some Linux users fit that mold, I would argue it's actually a small percentage of the millions of Linux users out there. But, again, the more extreme users tend to be more vocal, and inherently gather more attention.

Frankly I get very tired of the constant over-generalizations about "Linux users" and "Mac users" and other types of "fanbois," because such statements completely ignore the selection effect inherent to only listening to the vocal users, rather than seeking out the opinion of the more moderate users as well.

ARGGG

[qweqwe321]

Well, OSX isn't Unix either. Because its kernel is XNU, "X is Not Unix." But now OSX IS Unix. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE!

Re:ARGGG

[neutralstone]

Well, look at it this way: XNU is the kernel. Leopard (which the Open Group now says is "UNIX") is the entire operating system, of which XNU is one part. So XNU by itself really is not UNIX. Analogously, you are not your circulatory system.

wasnt MSFT NT Posix-certified?

[peter303]

All that meant was it emulated the Posix APIs and passed a test. Didnt have to be efficent or clever. Posix certifiation was required for some goverment agencies at one time, so MSFT hacked together an emulator almost no one actually used.

Re:wasnt MSFT NT Posix-certified?

[Creepy]

to nitpick, MS didn't cobble it together, they bought the company Interix and acquired it as part of the purchase. Prior to 1999 I believe they were licensing it from Interix.

Emulate isn't the right word, either, since the code is native and implemented in an API over the NT kernel. To say this is emulation is like saying WINE is Windows emulation.

I find the tools more useful than the rest of it. I'll take grep over Windows search any day.

Re:wasnt MSFT NT Posix-certified?

[demon]

No, actually there was a POSIX subsystem prior to the Interix acquisition. It wasn't very good, and was rarely used, but it was there since NT 3.1. The given reason (government contracts requiring POSIX compliance) makes sense, given the quality of it. Interix offers the POSIX API layer, but also a good breadth of UNIX tools - the old POSIX layer was just an API shim on top of the NT internals allowing code written to the POSIX APIs to run on NT.

Re:wasnt MSFT NT Posix-certified?

[Creepy]

I thought about mentioning that, as I worked on a government project for Windows NT 3.51 that required POSIX but didn't use it (love that guv work), but I was under the impression that MS was never fully compliant until the purchase of Interix (either that or the compliance test changed - I'm pretty sure it requires a standard set of tools now, something Interix had and Windows did not).

The Stamp of Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

What is truly astounding is that there's a group of extortionists out there who own the name UNIX, and yet the stamp of approval means nothing.

Are systems branded UNIX binary compatible? No
Are systems branded UNIX object compatible? No
Are systems branded UNIX source compatible? No
Filesystems? Display Mechanisms? Libraries? Nope, no, zilch.
Compliers? Linkers? Make? Bzzt. Bzzzzzt. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.
APIs? Kernel Internals? Are you serious?

WTF does "UNIX" mean? No two systems officially certified as "UNIX" have anything at all to do with one another. As near as I can tell, it comes down to support of one set of APIs and nothing more. If a batch of generic source code with no real-world relevance can compile with some set of switches specific to your machine, and you pony up the bucks, you get the seal. It is of no use to me as an end user, integrator, or developer. Once I pick one OS I'm stuck, and moving is as hard as going to any other OS.

On the other hand, there are dozens of Linux distros that are all binary-compatible with one another, differing only to the extent that I have real choice among user interfaces and administration options.

Having said all that I'm a die-hard Solaris bigot :-) Have a nice day.

Re:The Stamp of Stupidity

[Marty_Krapturd]

WTF does "UNIX" mean? No two systems officially certified as "UNIX" have anything at all to do with one another.

Yes they do. Their respective vendors paid out some serious cash to a certifying organization. They have THAT in common at least.

Re:The Stamp of Stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to know Apple throws away tons of money like this. Yeah, now I want an Apple.

Re:The Stamp of Stupidity

[david.emery]

Comment's subject line is self-referential, I believe.

Open Group testing is expensive, but I hardly count it as 'extortion'. What's the impact if you don't get their certification? You can't call yourself "Unix". BFD. OpenGroup does require you to pay to implement truth in advertising. (On the other hand, if you think OpenGroup Unix conformance testing is expensive, go check out medical device/drug costs, or even the cost to a University for accreditation...)

Back to the questions raised by the previous post:
> Is Linux on PowerPC (e.g. YellowDog) binary compatible with Linux on x86? I don't think so.....

The goal for the POSIX standards was -source code- compatability. A "strictly conforming application" compiled and executing on one conforming POSIX system is guaranteed to work the same way as the same application on all other conforming POSIX systems (functionally, performance is another matter, of course.) So the answer to "Are systems branded UNIX source compatible?" should be YES, for strictly conforming applications in source code.

What a certificate of conformance means from The Open Group is that the API has been rather thoroughly tested to ensure that it does properly implement the standard. If you get that conformance, then OpenGroup grants you the license to the name Unix(tm). I'm much less thrilled about the Unix branding, than I am about the investment to open standards and standards conformance checking.

I believe that the Unix brand includes more than just the API tests, it also includes shell and utilities. So you can move a shellscript (in sh) from one system to another, and if that shellscript uses only the standard utilities (and their standardized options), and/or compiled conforming applications, it'll do the same thing on POSIX systems ranging from MacOS X to Solaris to HP/UX to AIX. For some of us who have ported software across multiple vendor platforms over the last 10-20 years, that IS A Big Deal.

I've used the term "strictly conforming application" a couple of times. If you're interested in the formal definition (and this term is formally defined in the POSIX standards), you should go read how the standard defines this. Informally, a "strictly conforming application" uses only APIs defined in the standard and depends only on behaviors in the standard (e.g. doesn't depend on some funny return value from a function call.) Or, to be even less formal, strictly conforming applications "color within the lines". A "strictly conforming implementation" is also defined by the standard, and that's what OS X Leopard was tested against. Informally, a strictly conforming application implements the whole standard, including all error return situations, etc. You can NOT implement less than the full standard and be "conforming".

Important Marketing Hype warning: The term 'compliance' has no meaning with respect to POSIX. Normally when a marketing guy says "Our Frobizz 2000 and its BlotzWare OS are POSIX compliant." that usually means "We've implemented some arbitrary subset of the POSIX standards. We are too lazy to implement the whole standard, and if you happen to use some function call that we don't implement, you're shit-outta-luck."

          dave

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[coren2000]

Thats so 1950s.

How expensive is it?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Anyway, the process is expensive. So expensive that none of the *BSDs are certified, no Linux, of course, is certified (yes, a Linux distro could be), etc. I keep hearing that but I have never actually seen any concrete figures, just various claims ranging from $40.000 or so and up to $500.000 total cost to get certification. I'm assuming that doesn't include the annual license fee for using the brand. So just out of curiosity does anybody have an idea of exactly how expensive getting a Unix 03 certification really is? If the previously cited figures are true the cost of a Unix 03 Cert is peanuts for a company like Apple. If this is really all about getting the Open group to stop complaining about Apple using 'Unix' in it's advertising, as somebody suggested, Apple is probably getting off fairly cheaply plus the certification can only be a plus for the server version of OS.X.

Re:How expensive is it?

[Nossie]

imagine whats his name from Ubuntu got that UNIX certified? I'm not saying that's the best distro, but it certainly has the finances to get the certificate... would be rather amusing though I think.

Re:How expensive is it?

[YourMotherCalled]

...ranging from $40.000 or so and up to $500.000... $40 to $500 (with an extra digit of precision on the cents thrown in for good measure) doesn't seem too bad. Those companies should be able to afford that easily!

Re:How expensive is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

while on the subject of standards, see

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v 5r3/index.jsp?topic=/nls/rbagslccollatecategory.ht m

specifically 'mon_thousands_sep'

and possibly, elect to take a vacation outside of north america.

just my 0,02 cents ..

Re:How expensive is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a second, you just made me a little bit embarrassed to be an American. Nice going asshat.

Re:How expensive is it?

[petermgreen]

just because you use . as a thousand seperator in your native language doesn't mean you should be doing it when writing english.

Re:How expensive is it?

[BSDimwit]

Seeing how the cost was being discussed in US Dollars on a US Based discussion site, I don't think it unreasonable to assume that one should follow the US convention of writing monetary values for clarity's sake. Granted, it was pretty trollish to slam someone for an easily made typo, but that is pretty standard fare here at /.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Lumpy]

I am one of the ashamed MAC users. I dont dare put the apple sticker on my car.

you see I bought a used dual core G5. I know, I know, how DARE I buy used, but worse, it's not even Intel based.

The other mac users in my neighborhood look at me with disgust. I run 10.4, use a forbidden G5 processor and do not want to upgrade to the Intel mac platform. I am shunned, looked down upon and they even throw their half eaten croissants with caviar on them at me and spew insults like "OBSOLETE LOVER!" or "GET AN INTEL YOU SLOB!" as I walk past their homes.

I feel your pain brother. I feel your pain.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, a way that the current generation knows nothing about. The average American household carries about $8k in credit card debt. I know single people who make salaries WELL above the poverty limit but constantly complain about needing a higher salary to pay off bills. Living within their means is just not a thought that enters their heads. Growing up in a generation of plenty has completely destroyed peoples' ability to delay their gratification of a purchase until they can afford it.

Why this is significant (but not earth-shattering)

[david.emery]

1. For at least some contracting contexts, a POSIX conformance certificate is necessary to bid.

And it's part of the argument that there are viable -standards-based- alternatives to Windows. As a long-time open systems advocate (and someone who worked on POSIX standard), I think this is A Very Good Thing for the industry as a whole, and I'd hope Linux advocates would also see this as progress. Note that Linux does have some known inconsistencies with the POSIX standard, so this is something OS X did that Linux has not achieved.

2. I know (private communications) that there were problems between Apple and Open Group on this for a long time. Some of these were technical problems, areas where apparently Apple didn't conform to the standard. Now those problems have been fixed.

The Linux community needs to work with Open Group and IEEE and ISO to get Linux into conformance (and I think changes to the POSIX standards could well be appropriate here. Presumably we've learned some things over the last 15 years in specifying and implementing the Unix interface.)

3. Open Group testing does have some value, it has been known to find bugs in vendor implementations.

So the fact that OS X provides a complete Unix implementation is hardly earth-shattering. But at least it's a commitment by Apple to pay for the certification, and a recognition that Apple has jumped through both technical and managerial/business hoops.

Now Apple needs to work through the FIPS/Common Criteria certifications for IA.

          dave

xnu = X is Now Unix

[gig]

It used to mean the other thing.

Re:xnu = X is Now Unix

[JimR]

Or Leopard Is Now UniX... errr, hang on...

Does this mean that SCOX owns MacOS-X?

[walterbyrd]

Scox has publically proclaimed *many* times that scox *owns* the UNIX operating system. In an article published by BYTE, titled: "SCO Owns Your Computer" scox hinted that scox owned MacOS. Now, I guess there can be no doubt.

Scox sent letter to 1500 USA business, demanding $699 for for every CPU that is running Linux - because Linux is derived from UNIX, which scox claims to *own* and Linux distributers never paid scox for the right to distribute the OS - except for Sunw.

So now, I suppose, scox will demand the same amount from all MacOS users.

BTW: scox also claims to own C++.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Anonymous Coward]

Die communist scum!

It's not Unix...

[wandazulu]

...for me until I submit my job on a VT-102 sitting in the drafty basement of a computer lab and then come back later after a dinner of Chinese food to get my green-n-white bar printouts from my cubby.

Hooray for 10.5 being Unix-certified...now some of us can live in both the past and the future at the *very* *same* *time*!!

Re:It's not Unix...

[Megane]

...for me until I submit my job on a VT-102 sitting in the drafty basement of a computer lab and then come back later after a dinner of Chinese food to get my green-n-white bar printouts from my cubby.

Easily done. All you need is a Keyspan USB serial/parallel adapter, a VT-102, a MacBook, a dot matrix printer, a few cables... and of course a drafty basement. A Xyplex or Cisco 2511 is optional.

GNU

[pedestrian crossing]

It's right there in the name. GNU's Not Unix.

Stallman's head would probably explode if they certified a GNU/Linux system as Unix!

hmmm....

Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Savage-Rabbit]

Linux isn't UNIX for cost reasons. UNIX is a copyrighted compatibility certification. It costs a lot of money to get that moniker, and it really doesn't mean anything in these days of Linux and BSD.

Linux is Linux, it doesn't NEED to be UNIX. A Unix certification is a bit more than a moniker. It means that the level of software portability between Unix 03 compliant systems is guaranteed to be very high. That may not be important to you but to companies/corporations seeking to reduce costs and development times and to achieve the maximum level of reliability and portability in their business critical software a Unix 03 certification has meaning. Also keep in mind that although no linux or BSD flavor other than OS X has gone for actual certification apparently many Linux distributions for example still make sure they are more or less Unix compliant and they do it using Open Group test suites. So even if no Linux distro has officially applied for certification it looks to me as if they are keeping their options open.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[ajs]

A Unix certification is a bit more than a moniker. It means that the level of software portability between Unix 03 compliant systems is guaranteed to be very high. That may not be important to you but to companies/corporations seeking to reduce costs and development times and to achieve the maximum level of reliability and portability in their business critical software a Unix 03 certification has meaning. All this means is that, within the plethora of Unix variants, there's high portability.

The same is true within the plethora of Windows variants and Linux variants. This does not add value to any of those OSes beyond what one would already expect. BSD *is* a Unix derivative (and, at this point, Unix is also a BSD derivative, ever since System 5 rolled in BSD 4 features), so it makes perfect sense for a BSD-based system (MacOS/X) to aspire to compliance with other OSes of its ilk.

You seem to be making an assumption, however, that portability across "species" of OS lineage has some value. I'm really not sure that it does beyond the basic level of API standards compliance that any modern POSIX system (be it Unix, Linux or even Windows) maintains. Modern OSes are just too different, and an effort to create universal portability will ultimately result in very poor utilization of at least n-1 of the OSes out there (c.f. Java). It won't be too long, I think, before we're ready for a new round of standardization around core OS features to layer on top of POSIX, as there's certainly now a new high-water-mark for "stuff you expect to work the same everywhere," but much of the OS still falls well above that mark and remains a moving target as OSes continue to evolve.

Also keep in mind that although no Linux or BSD flavor other than OS X has gone for actual certification apparently many Linux distributions for example still make sure they are more or less Unix compliant and they do it using Open Group test suites. So even if no Linux distro has officially applied for certification it looks to me as if they are keeping their options open. Linux developers like to make sure that their software is compatible with as many applicable standards as is reasonable. I don't think anyone wants a Linux variant that's shoe-horned into meeting the full breadth of Unix certification, though. If you really needed Unix, you'd just get Unix, not Linux.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that the Open Group Unix specifications go a lot further than POSIX? In effect, they are the next layer of standardization on top of POSIX and X11. Of couse, their user interface specification is the old and crusty CDE, so there is a lot of room for improvement.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LuSiDe]

A Unix certification is a bit more than a moniker. It means that the level of software portability between Unix 03 compliant systems is guaranteed to be very high. That may not be important to you but to companies/corporations seeking to reduce costs and development times and to achieve the maximum level of reliability and portability in their business critical software a Unix 03 certification has meaning.

Yet carbon and cocoa are not portable at all.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[ericrost]

I'd just like to start this by saying "hah".

Ok, now that that's out of the way, make a cost argument in a large deployment that somehow favors OS X over Linux on commodity cluster hardware even given some development time with folks that are used to using Unix.

Didn't think so. (hint: this is why we are seeing the death of HP-UX in larger server apps, and the business isn't going to OS X)

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Hes Nikke]

Yet carbon and cocoa are not portable at all. carbon is in the process of being depreciated, and cocoa is quite portable. this makes your statement null.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, look at all those cocoa apps that are just a recompile away.

> this makes your statement null.

This means your reply message is also null.

(ho ho, I got to use some objective-C humor)

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LuSiDe]

carbon is in the process of being depreciated, and cocoa is quite portable. this makes your statement null.

Your suggestions are not practicle. With portable, we mean we can switch to some different UNIX system to avoid a vendor lock-in. You know? Apple? Vendor lock-in? Okay, now that you have that straight in your head also realize GnuStep will not aid in that at all in evading the vendor lock-in at least not right now. In theory one could use that and translate some system calls and you're a long way much like FreeBSD does Linux emulation. However almost all those GNOME and KDE apps are a mere recompile away and otherwise they're runnable with Linux libraries. With MacOSX software that is not possible either. Else we would be able to run Photoshop OSX port on Linux.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

Of couse, their user interface specification is the old and crusty CDE, so there is a lot of room for improvement.

CDE isn't pretty to look at, but I use it regularly and I really can't see much wrong with it - it's quite pleasant to use and doesn't get in the way.

(I greatly prefer CDE over Gnome, which I also use every day and can only tolerate because I've customised it heavily and use an alternative window manager instead of the truly dreadful Metacity. Both are preferable over the restrictive single-desktop environments that Windows and OS X still insist on limiting users to, though I gather the next OS X will pretend that Steve Jobs invented multiple desktops last year.)

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Hes Nikke]

carbon is in the process of being depreciated, and cocoa is quite portable. this makes your statement null.

Your suggestions are not practicle. With portable, we mean we can switch to some different UNIX system to avoid a vendor lock-in. You know? Apple? Vendor lock-in? Okay, now that you have that straight in your head also realize GnuStep will not aid in that at all in evading the vendor lock-in at least not right now. the little bit of reading i've done on GnuStep is that it will absolutly aid in evading vendor lock-in, as long as your mac apps avoid those pesky (and depreciated!) carbon API's - better yet, write to GNUStep and port to cocoa, it's probably faster :P

In theory one could use that and translate some system calls and you're a long way much like FreeBSD does Linux emulation. in practive GnuStep and Cocoa are siblings. they both decend from the OPENstep specification, which initself relies on POSIX system calls.

However almost all those GNOME and KDE apps are a mere recompile away and otherwise they're runnable with Linux libraries. With MacOSX software that is not possible either. i have to compile the same KDE and GNOME apps to make them work on my mac, just like you can compile a pure cocoa app with GNUStep on linux.

Else we would be able to run Photoshop OSX port on Linux. photoshop is carbon, and we've established that carbon is a)not protable, and b)depreciated. what's your point?

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

All this means is that, within the plethora of Unix variants, there's high portability.

All this means...?? It never ceases to amaze me how something so valuable can be made to sound so trivial and unimportant.

The same is true within the plethora of Windows variants and Linux variants. This does not add value to any of those OSes beyond what one would already expect. BSD *is* a Unix derivative (and, at this point, Unix is also a BSD derivative, ever since System 5 rolled in BSD 4 features), so it makes perfect sense for a BSD-based system (MacOS/X) to aspire to compliance with other OSes of its ilk.

You seem to be making an assumption, however, that portability across "species" of OS lineage has some value. I'm really not sure that it does beyond the basic level of API standards compliance that any modern POSIX system (be it Unix, Linux or even Windows) maintains. Modern OSes are just too different, and an effort to create universal portability will ultimately result in very poor utilization of at least n-1 of the OSes out there (c.f. Java). It won't be too long, I think, before we're ready for a new round of standardization around core OS features to layer on top of POSIX, as there's certainly now a new high-water-mark for "stuff you expect to work the same everywhere," but much of the OS still falls well above that mark and remains a moving target as OSes continue to evolve.

IMHO portability adds value to Unix certified OSes for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes one OS vendor will drop the ball and not keep his OS up to date or change development priorities in a way that don't suit you and when that happens you will quickly learn the value of being able to switch from, say, Sun Solaris to AIX with minimal effort. If wee assume each Unix is a different 'species' then Windows and Unix would be different 'genera'. Migrating between species is one thing. Migrating between genera i.e. from Windows to Unix is a whole other proposition. That's what the Wine, and to some extent the Mono project are all about. One of the biggest annoyances of standardizing on Windows is that if Microsoft's development priorities do not emphasize features that you need or they are simply not bothering to fix bugs that are presenting you with major problems you can't simply move to another Windows compatible OS. I know of people who found them selves in that situation and who would have given a lot to be able to migrate to some other OS that met their need better with minimal work. Of course if you have bought into the Microsoft Cool Aid in a big way and given no thought to portability your only option is basically to migrate to a Linux or Unix flavor and that's not easy even if for people who did make a conscious effort to maximize portability. I have ported applications from one Unix certified OS to another, I have also ported applications from Unix certified OSes to Linux and the latter proposition can involve considerably more work. Mind you some Linux distributions are better than others since they make a conscious effort to be mostly Unix compliant even if they aren't certified.

Linux developers like to make sure that their software is compatible with as many applicable standards as is reasonable. I don't think anyone wants a Linux variant that's shoe-horned into meeting the full breadth of Unix certification, though. If you really needed Unix, you'd just get Unix, not Linux.

Optimally all of the Unix and Unix-like OSes like Linux should comply with a single global standard giving one the ability to migrate from a low to medium end OS like Linux to a high end OS like many of the Unix certified ones are with almost zero effort. Linux has pretty much killed off Unix on work stations an low end servers and with these Unix versions went a good deal of protablility. Typically I'd employ something like AIX or Sun Solaris on a mission critical system where I need 99.99999% uptime and downtime costs me more than top-of-the-line hardware and a high quality OS.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

"WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL."
Couldn't you simplify it to; "WE DO NEED BLOG CONTROL." ?

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[nevali]

Er, whut?

Carbon and Cocoa aren't covered by the certification. They're extensions (just as every conformant OS has: you won't find a great many Solaris APIs and userland tools in the specification, for example) which you can choose to ignore if you want to produce software that's guaranteed to compile and run across compliant systems.

SuS specifies APIs, behaviours and tools. If you care about portability, you'll be sticking to the standard APIs. If you don't care, the fact that Leopard's certified Unix03 isn't going to matter to you.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, now that that's out of the way, make a cost argument in a large deployment that somehow favors OS X over Linux on commodity cluster hardware even given some development time with folks that are used to using Unix.

Didn't think so. (hint: this is why we are seeing the death of HP-UX in larger server apps, and the business isn't going to OS X) Geee... When did I make an argument to favor OS X over Linux? I simply contradicted your very authoritatively presented and very naive assertion that a Unix certification is a waste of money. HP-UX is alive and well even if it may be declining and Linux has a long way to go before it kills off the other big Unixes such as AIX and Solaris.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[ericrost]

Well, we're currently moving off of all of those platforms. As are many people I talk to at other companies.

Sun came out hat in hand and moved toward GPL because Solaris took such a beating in the academic (read there historical target market) community at the hands of Linux.

Linux hasn't bothered with a Unix cert, because the various distro's feel they're more competitive not wasting the money, and instead showing what the OS can do in your application by letting you deploy it (mostly for free if you have the knowhow).

As to why I mentioned OS X vs Linux is covered in the little title at the top of your browser.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[ajs]

Are you aware that the Open Group Unix specifications go a lot further than POSIX? Yes, which is why I made the distinction between merely being POSIX compliant and being Unix certified. The two have radically different scopes.

That said, my bit at the end about the day having dawned where POSIX might need a next pass was aimed at a very post-Unix world where the layer above POSIX that's reasonably standard across Unix-like OSes at this point involves things like networking tools, graphics and other things that were never part of POSIX.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

in practive GnuStep and Cocoa are siblings. they both decend from the OPENstep specification, which initself relies on POSIX system calls.

OpenStep doesn't require POSIX. NeXT also had an OpenStep or windows.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we're currently moving off of all of those platforms. As are many people I talk to at other companies. That depends entriely upon what segment of the market you are talking about. I have seen mission critical applications (painfully) migrated to Linux and then moved back to AIX or Solaris because of stability problems. I won't deny that Linux is gaining ground at the expense of AIX, Solaris, etc.. especially in the low and medium end markets but I rather doubt it will kill them off entirely any time soon.

Linux hasn't bothered with a Unix cert, because the various distro's feel they're more competitive not wasting the money, and instead showing what the OS can do in your application by letting you deploy it (mostly for free if you have the knowhow). One more time... some of the customers for Open Group Unix compatibility test-suites are major Linux distributions. Which begs the question: Why would they do that if they see no value in a Unix certification or have no ambition to be compliant?

As to why I mentioned OS X vs Linux is covered in the little title at the top of your browser. It still had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said in my OP.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[ericrost]

"One more time... some of the customers for Open Group Unix compatibility test-suites are major Linux distributions. Which begs the question: Why would they do that if they see no value in a Unix certification or have no ambition to be compliant?"

Using the test suites is a great way to test for compliance without paying the money for the copyrighted names. Noone said that compatibility was a bad thing. Paying for the name Unix, however, is rather worthless.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LKM]

If you want portability between Unix systems, write Unix apps. Your complaint is similar to complaining that Linux apps are not portable because Mono runs on Linux.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LKM]

carbon is in the process of being depreciated

I hope somebody told Adobe and Microsoft.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LuSiDe]

My point is that a UNIX certification doesn't say much about the portability at a whole IOW not the dreamworld where everyone writes portable UNIX applications (that does not exist) but the practical world where MacOSX applications are often not portable. This reality check questions what the certification is worth. I admit I do not know the full answer, but regarding MacOSX GUI applications (which many run) there is a clear vendor lock-in. Perhaps you would understand it better if you were actually forced to dive in the sea with SGI 10+ years ago.

The compare is also wrong. Mono is opensource, ported to other platforms, and also portable. If you decide to switch away from Linux to Solaris, Mono would ensure you're able to use the same .NET applications on Solaris as you were running on Linux. Although you might not be able to run all .NET applications because the Mono is not a complete .NET implementation yet.

Why, you think, Java is popular? One of the reasons is the one outlined above. The fact (Sun's) Java is open sourced also allows any other OS to port Java to their OS further increasing the practical situation of portability.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows NT has POSIX.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LKM]

I admit I do not know the full answer, but regarding MacOSX GUI applications (which many run) there is a clear vendor lock-in.

Of course there is. Apple specifically killed Yellow Box to ensure that Mac apps stay on the Mac. However, this hardly matters for the discussion of Mac OS X becoming an "official" Linux.

My point is that you can use proprietary or tainted libraries on every operating system, no matter how open it is. If Mono isn't proprietary enough for you, maybe Qt floats your boat. Or something else.

Why, you think, Java is popular? One of the reasons is the one outlined above. The fact (Sun's) Java is open sourced also allows any other OS to port Java to their OS further increasing the practical situation of portability.

Java only became open source when Sun got scared because .NET started to cut into their market share.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[ajs]

The same is true within the plethora of Windows variants and Linux variants. This does not add value to any of those OSes beyond what one would already expect. BSD *is* a Unix derivative (and, at this point, Unix is also a BSD derivative, ever since System 5 rolled in BSD 4 features), so it makes perfect sense for a BSD-based system (MacOS/X) to aspire to compliance with other OSes of its ilk.

You seem to be making an assumption, however, that portability across "species" of OS lineage has some value. I'm really not sure that it does beyond the basic level of API standards compliance that any modern POSIX system (be it Unix, Linux or even Windows) maintains. Modern OSes are just too different, and an effort to create universal portability will ultimately result in very poor utilization of at least n-1 of the OSes out there (c.f. Java). It won't be too long, I think, before we're ready for a new round of standardization around core OS features to layer on top of POSIX, as there's certainly now a new high-water-mark for "stuff you expect to work the same everywhere," but much of the OS still falls well above that mark and remains a moving target as OSes continue to evolve. IMHO portability adds value to Unix certified OSes for all sorts of reasons. Within the Unix family, sure. Linux has many Unixisms, but it's a fundamentally different OS with a different audience (some overlap, of course), and a fundamentally different set of objectives. I see no value in a Linux system trying to be Unix, and more than there would be value in a Unix system seeking a Linux-related certification.

I have ported applications from one Unix certified OS to another, I have also ported applications from Unix certified OSes to Linux and the latter proposition can involve considerably more work. Of course it does! Just as porting to Windows or VMS would. You're porting to a different OS family. You should expect that to be hard work. However, the differences between the approaches of each OS yields a wealth of advantages. An OS flavor evolves to best support the audience for that OS flavor. Unix has an audience which overlaps with Linux, but is not the same, and that brings it a unique set of priorities.

Optimally all of the Unix and Unix-like OSes like Linux should comply with a single global standard giving one the ability to migrate from a low to medium end OS like Linux to a high end OS like many of the Unix certified ones are with almost zero effort. And, of course, here you show your biases. By classifying Linux as a "low to medium end OS," you clearly demonstrate that you entered the conversation with a deeply held notion that Linux is not a peer in the OS marketplace. This is demonstrably false, as the number of high-performance, high-uptime requirement environments maintained by IBM's Global Services could tell you in a heartbeat. I'll give you a hint: AIX isn't in the top spot.

I work in an environment where 100 Linux boxes is considered a "small resource" and annual allowances for downtime are measured in heartbeats. Linux is not the ideal choice for every mission critical environment (again, each OS has its domain), but in many it's the only rational choice.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LuSiDe]

However, this hardly matters for the discussion of Mac OS X becoming an "official" Linux.

An official UNIX; not Linux. It does matter because UNIX has GUI too. The main one of MacOSX isn't compatible with the rest. I claim the UNIX certification doesn't cover this and hence it doesn't say everything (far from that).

If Mono isn't proprietary enough for you, maybe Qt floats your boat.

QT is GPLed and can be ported easily. The GPLed QT port is an official port and is 100% on par with the proprietary QT port. QT is ported to many platforms. The situation is different than with GNUstep & Cocoa. Those are far from 100% compatible and not ported to many platforms.

Java only became open source when Sun got scared because .NET started to cut into their market share.

Your point? What matters is that it is highly portable, open API, and there have always been testkits to see how compatible your JVM is. Apple doesn't provide such.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LKM]

However, this hardly matters for the discussion of Mac OS X becoming an "official" Linux.

An official UNIX; not Linux.

D'oh.

It does matter because UNIX has GUI too.

You mean X11?

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LuSiDe]

D'oh.

You wrote an official Linux; not me.

It does matter because UNIX has GUI too.

Yup. For example. A good example since X11 is a widespread, portable platform.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LKM]

D'oh.

You wrote an official Linux; not me.

Thanks, I realized that. I kinda said "D'oh" at myself.

It does matter because UNIX has GUI too.

Yup. For example. A good example since X11 is a widespread, portable platform.

And Mac OS X runs X11 apps just fine.

Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification

[LuSiDe]

Thanks, I realized that. I kinda said "D'oh" at myself.

I considered. Then again, I don't see people often vaguely talking to themselves.

And Mac OS X runs X11 apps just fine.

Yes, but that is not the issue. The issue at hand related to Cocoa is not MacOSX's incompatibility; its the other Unices (and clones) lack of compatibility. However the issue exists due to the closed nature of Apple & Co.

Print out this VI cheat sheat

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go friend:

http://www.kcomputing.com/vi.html

Print it out and tape it up by the monitor. :wq!

Re:Print out this VI cheat sheat

[Haeleth]

This tutorial is also very helpful for prospective new vi users.

Re:Print out this VI cheat sheat

[Anonymous Coward]

hilarious; although in defense of vi, at least it's not ex

Thanks for the precision...

[da5idnetlimit.com]

But for everyone else out there, remember : Every time you call a glossy Mac a Unix Server, a geek somewhere dies.
Or he is kept in isolation in a high security prison with a pristine, never installed Dual 4 Cores Xeon 32 Go RAM 10 Gb Ethernet card with a Ginormous(TM) 34" LCD screen Quad Nvidia 8800 GTX SLI and only a WinME cd with no Internet access and VGA drivers.
Well, to keep things short he suffers. A lot.

Re:Thanks for the precision...

[Nossie]

I'm not sure I understand your comment.. but hell yeah I'd love 32 Go RAM

Re:Thanks for the precision...

[bhtooefr]

If he were a real geek, he'd write a POSIX-compliant OS, drivers, everything in assembler. And he'd APPRECIATE the isolation. Then, he'd do a cantenna case mod, and get Internet, too. :P

Re:Thanks for the precision...

[cbreaker]

I prefer Stop RAM (STRAM.)

Re:Thanks for the precision...

[Anonymous Coward]

Macs are glossy?

They look metalic these days.

Re:Thanks for the precision...

[Shag]

...only a WinME cd with no Internet access... Well, the geek may suffer, but at least without Internet access, his copy of WinME won't get infected with everything out there and add to the suffering of others.

So is Windows (Really)

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Mac community doesn't realize, is that Windows NT, XP, and Vista are POSIX certified Unix compliant via the http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb49650 6.aspx Services for Unix. They needed this as a "check box" item for Gub'ment sales.

So being "officially" Unix doesn't mean much.

Of course the Macintosh user community has nothing to do with the Truth; it's simply about advancing the homosexual agenda, and worshiping Steve Jobs.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[sosume]

> Everything "just works" on a Mac...yeah, except the new headset I bought because
> the audio-in jack won't work with an unpowered microphone.

Heh! being both a Windows zealot and owner of a mac mini (and having had many
macs since the late eighties), I see the mic port flaw as the biggest annoyance
on the mini. It prevents me in using it as a dedicated skype machine :P ftl!
In practice it has reduced my mini to a dumb terminal which i only use for
browsing while doing real work (tm) on my windows box next to it.

Pico is great

[wiredog]

For small files. fstab and the like.

Re:Pico is great

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

Unless, of course, your fstab entries have a lot of options. Then pico's handling of long lines can be annoying, outweighing (in my mind) any benefits of using a simple lightweight text editor.

That's not a text-editor...

[Space cowboy]

*real* masters of the dark arts use 'ed'.

Nothing else comes close. Or wants to.

Simon

Re:That's not a text-editor...

[greed]

0a
ed(1) gets a bad rap, it's not really all that hard to use.
In some situations, it can be very useful to have a script
generate ed(1) commands to modify a file in place, without
having to scarf the whole file into the scrpt and write it
back out.
.
1,$s/scrpt/script/g
$a
It sure beats trying to use vi on a terminal with broken
termcap so you get something called "OPEN MODE".
.
w reply.txt
q

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[loudawg]

I totally resonate with you there. Although, I ordered online, and it took me about 45 minutes, support from a couple friends, and two hands (one to force the other) to finally click the submit button on the form for my 17" MacBook Pro with AppleCare. And then of course shortly after that Apple comes out with their updated models (higher res screens, nvidia video cards, etc), which felt like the twist of a knife. Immediately the thoughts ran through my head: "I wonder if I can exchange it? Maybe I can just return it and buy the newer model. Worst case, I'll just eBay it for a few hundred less, take the hit, and buy the new one." Apple promptly shot down my first two ideas....only a 14 day return policy, and no exchanges. It was a heartbreaking situation for a geek. After JUST spending a few grand on the best laptop, my shiny MBP is now just a washed up, wrinkly old hag. Well I finally got over myself after using it more and learned to appreciate the beauty of this fine piece of machinery. You can only have the best for such a short period of time anyway in this market.

This is proof

[maroberts]

That a Leopard can change its spots!

Now if only OS X were Linux.

[Qwavel]

If only they had decided to build OS X on top of Linux instead of BSD. The benefits for both would have been considerable - imagine the drivers!

SCO target?

[brain1]

Does that now make Apple a SCO litigation target??

Re:SCO target?

[largesnike]

probably, and Microsoft will claim that there are at least 150 of their patents in OS X...

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Anonymous Coward]

the audio-in jack won't work with an unpowered microphone.

Patently false. I use a number of 'unpowered' microphones on my MacBook with no issues.

Perhaps you should visit the Sound pane of the System Preferences and try increasing the input gain.

300...

[CptNerd]

Average Techie: "This is MacOS!"

Open Group: "This! Is! UNIIIIIIX!" (kicks A.T. down well)

Pico

[PCM2]

First rule of unix, never tell anyone you use pico. Second rule of unix, NEVER TELL ANYONE YOU USE PICO! ...

The trick is to write a set of macros that implement Pico in EMACS. Then you're safe.

Re:Pico

[damn_registrars]

Yes, but it emacs can run vi ...
Then we should be able to right emacs macros that run pico inside of vi running in emacs. That would have to make everyone happy, right?

Re:Pico

[discogravy]

ln -s /usr/bin/pico /usr/bin/vi

and now no one need know your secret shame.

Strange, the linked page says just "Intel-based":

[walter_f]

Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers Environment

So Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on PPC-based Macintosh computers
Environment is still _not_ Unix (or should it read "UNIX")?

Did some lazybones at Apple just not want to fill in some more forms to get OS X 10.5 for PPC certified also?
Or did some scrooges at Apple just not want to spend some more money to get OS X 10.5 for PPC certified also?

Or might there be a completely different reason?

POSIX does not imply UNIX!

[walterbyrd]

"POSIX does not imply UNIX! It is an attempt to generalize the traditional UNIX API to match a variety of operating system designs. So, while POSIX implies a hierarchical file system, you might well be able to manage a reasonably conformant implementation on a system with no real top-level hierarchy."

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa -spec13/index.html

Re:POSIX does not imply UNIX!

[cbhacking]

You're correct about Unix(tm) being much more specific than POSIX specification (and AFAIK, MS has never tried to get the subsystem certified, although hey do use Unix in its name). However, you may be mistaken about the filesystem; within the POSIX subsystem, the filesystem is laid out just like any UNIX or Linux FS, including the standard folders. Drive letters are mounted at /dev/fs/, so the home folder for a Windows user with the username foo would be /dev/fs/C/Users/foo/ (note that it is also case-sensitive). The subsystem itself is installed in a SUA folder in the Windows directory, so for most setups /dev/fs/C/Windows/SUA/ is equivalent to / within the subsystem. Yes, this can cause loop issues while traversing the filesystem.

My biggest bripe is that while hard links work correctly in both Win32 and the subsystem, Vista's symlinks are not the same as UNIX symlinks so the POSIX subsystem's links can't be used in the Win32 environment.

:-P

[Quiet_Desperation]

I know everyone out there was really worried about this one. Welcome to the August news vacuum!

Well... *I* was.

(Slumps shoulders and kicks pebble)

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[fbartho]

and getting a USB phone/headset wouldn't help?

deprecated, not depreciated

[twistedcubic]

Is this a Slashdotism? I only see this mistake here.

Open Group can keep that cert..

[damacus]

'cause my linux box doesn't care.

Sayeth teh Stallman.... GNU's Not UNIX... bITCH!

Don't forget Windows is fully POSIX complaint

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't say I know everything on the subject, I'm not aware if Microsoft goes around claiming UNIX certification anywhere, but they do support it. For 2000, XP Pro, and 2003, by adding Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX 3.5 (freely available at: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyID=896c9688-601b-44f1-81a4-02878ff11778&Displa yLang=en).

Apparently Windows Vista Ultimate, and Enterprise Edition's have SFU built-in, renamed as Subsystem for UNIX-based applications.

Here's a few more links on the subject just to get acquainted with SFU:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/interopmigratio n/bb380242.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_Ser vices_for_UNIX

I installed 3.5 on XP MCE 2005 and was able to compile and run several programs from it, including a few of my favorite IRC programs that I usually run in my FreeBSD shell (a few bots, and IRCds). I liked it a lot, but didn't really mess with it outside of trying that. From what I can tell is that it can be set up to sync and share usernames and passwords with the existing Win32/Windows system if you want, and run it inside native shells provide with the package.

Hope this information is educational to people, as I know not many know about it.

Leopard

[Anonymous Coward]

So if leopard is eunuch, does that mean leopard no more make babies?

Re:Why this is significant (but not earth-shatteri

[hawaiian717]

Now Apple needs to work through the FIPS/Common Criteria certifications for IA. They've done it once before, so it might happen again. Mac OS X 10.3.6 was certified EAL3 in January 2005. The report is on commoncriteriaportal.org if you desire to read it.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[thedbp]

you consider a MacBook fort knox??!?! its one of the most easy to service notebooks from any company in history. i mean, have you ever tried? known anyone who has? or did you just assume, because its a Mac, that its hard to work on?

now, a 12" PowerBook is another story. THAT was Fort Knox.

But if you can't service a MacBook, your geek card is hereby revoked.

Re:Why this is significant (but not earth-shatteri

[david.emery]

But the "entry barrier" for most of the projects I've worked on is EAL4. It is A Very Good thing Apple has invested in EAL3, but that's not quite enough to make the people who accredit the systems I've worked on happy.

Thanks for the pointer.

        dave

Never happen.

[argent]

Linux didn't even exist when NeXTSTeP was developed, and the GPL would pretty much make Apple's business model impossible even if it had been around back then.

You mean stupid people can't write portable code?

[argent]

Once I pick one OS I'm stuck, and moving is as hard as going to any other OS.

A little while back I took a program I wrote on Version 7 UNIX, on a 16-bit PDP-11, 25 years ago. I unpacked it on a 64-bit Alpha running Tru64, and it compiled and ran. Copied it to a 32-bit Sparc, big-endian, compiled, and it ran. Works fine on OSX and FreeBSD and Linux as well.

That was 25 years after I wrote it, and almost 20 years years since I'd last touched it... submitting it to a Usenet archive and forgetting about it for a couple of decades. Portable software isn't all that tough.

Not saying that the UNIX label is useful, mind, but the UNIX *design* works pretty damn well.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[laffer1]

I know this was meant to be funny, but it's actually somewhat true. My boss saw my iBook last fall when I was coding from a distance. He said "Oh you have a MacBook." I was like.. no it's a G4 iBook. He actually said "Oh, one of those old things. You should really get a MacBook. The new Macs are so much better and you could hold your head high." I could tell he wasn't joking. I just looked at him and said "Give me a raise so I can afford this Mac beauty. In fact, how about enough for a MacBook Pro." Instead, I got shit and had to buy a refurbished IBM Thinkpad T30. It's much faster than my iBook and I've had great luck with it using MidnightBSD. My boss is quite annoyed with me though. I feel like I did as a Mac user. All my coworkers use Macs and I'm the lowly PC guy. It's like deja vu.

?? You mean not all terminals rewrap on resizing?

[KWTm]

OSX Terminal is one of the few terminal programs I've used on any OS that dynamically re-wraps existing text in a window if you resize the window. That is very handy.

You mean some terminal programs *don't* rewrap existing text dynamically? Geez, I must have been spoiled by Konsole (KDE). I'm sure the GNOME terminal equivalent also rewraps --right, guys?

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Anonymous Coward]

the audio-in jack won't work with an unpowered microphone.

Patently false. I use a number of 'unpowered' microphones on my MacBook with no issues.

Perhaps you should open the Sound pane of the System Preferences and try increasing the input gain.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[Ohreally_factor]

When I've pulled the trigger on a shiny new Apple, I just assumed that I also triggered the release of the new improved model that will leave whatever I am buying in the dust. This also confirms that I am the center of the universe, which takes some of the sting off.

However, I usually discovered that whatever I had purchased was reasonably serviceable for years(!), so I adopted the strategy of buying six month old Apple refurbs when new products were released (assuming I needed to buy anything). They're still covered fully by Applecare and I expect to be able to run whatever the current OS is for 7 or 8 years, if I keep it that long. Currently I have a last generation 12" G4 PB and a circa 2000 G4 Tower, both running Tiger. G4 Tower has been upgraded, but I stopped putting money into it because I never really use it much anymore.

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more

[The One and Only]

I've even got a Windows machine, thought it stays powered down for months at a time except when I want to check something

The worst part of that is having to download 50 billion patches each time you have to check something, eh? I'm in a similar situation.

What August news vacuum?

[jseale]

I knew that OSX Leopard was Unix all the time. Good Grief!

The $64k question

[koryn]

Has the OS X 10.5 kernel been renamed to xiu?