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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Good for them

[ceeam]

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

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

[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.

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...

[i-am-will-from-nl]

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

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!

[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]

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!

[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

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

[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

[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

[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:Dumb questions

[Delusion_]

Because it's freakin LEOPARD, man. LEOPARD!

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.

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?

[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?

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

[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.

Whos on First

[djdavetrouble]

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

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

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?

[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.

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:GNU incompatability

[KH]

Did you forget that GNU is Not Unix?

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: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: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: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

[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

[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

[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).

GNU

[AlanCramer]

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

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

[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: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.

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: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....

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.

Oblig.

[xerent_sweden]

In soviet russia, computer systems certify you!

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

[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: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: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?

[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: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: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.

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

Re:Dumb questions

[david.emery]

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

          dave

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....

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.

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

[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.

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...

[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

That's not a text-editor...

[Space cowboy]

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

Nothing else comes close. Or wants to.

Simon

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.