Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard
walterbyrd writes "Linux magazine has up a decent article comparing Gutsy Gibbon to Leopard. 'The stereotype for each OS is well known: Mac OS X is elegant, easy-to-use, and intuitive, while Ubuntu is stable, secure, and getting better all the time. Both have come a long way in a short time, and both make excellent desktops. So we have two great desktop operating systems out at roughly the same time. Let's see how they stack up against each other.'"
both UNIX- based
OS X Leopard *is* certified Unix (r). Ubuntu (and Linux) is not based on original AT&T Unix code nor is it certified Unix. It is a unix-like kernel.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Er... it comes from NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP is the Mach microkernel overlain onto BSD. Surely you realise that BSD constitutes UNIX? You may want to do some more research on that particular topic.
Admittedly, though, no, Linux is a clone of a clone of UNIX, and shame on them for it.
"Leopard is an Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product, conforming to the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specifications for the C API, Shell Utilities, and Threads. Since Leopard can compile and run all your existing UNIX code, you can deploy it in environments that demand full conformance -- complete with hooks to maintain compatibility with existing software."
You're partly right ... linux is "UNIX-like", OS X is UNIX certified.
Moreover, not only is Mac OS X Leopard UNIX based, it IS UNIX. Its got the certification and everything.
For linux, technically speaking, you are right, it isn't derived from any code that can be called 'Unix' and carries none of the certifications, and probably wouldn't pass the certifications as is. Pratically speaking, the linux kernel+GNU userspace is clearly Unix inspired and architected such that a Unix user is certainly familiar with the situation. GNU particularly makes clear the distinction (GNU's not Unix after all). Unix-inspired may be a more precise term.
OSX is to an extent the exact opposite. Technically speaking, it derives from BSD code (actual Unix code). Technically speaking, it implements the appropriate APIs and can run a program that runs on Unix. I want to say even before X11, Apple legitimately got the Unix moniker to describe their platform, but I recall there being confusing around this point. The addition of X11 out of the box makes it more complete, and less of a technicality. However, the fact of the matter is the extensive use of a non-X based graphical architecture and the almost universal situation is that NeXT derived APIs are used and required, and the underlying pieces that are true to a Unix heritage are nearly moot. A user accustomed to Unix will find OSX fundamentally different.
Technically speaking, OSX has a valid claim to being Unix, but could be accused of not necessarily being true to the 'spirit' of Unix. Linux is absolutely not a Unix, but on the other hand, people can certainly fairly claim Linux to being true to the spirit of Unix.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
About 20-25 years ago, there were massive debates about what was and was not "Unix". The means chosen to settle this (since it wasn't quite clear who to invite to the duel :-) was to develop a set of standards that would capture 'Unix' -to ensure application portability-. To avoid the trademark wars of that generation, the name chosen was POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface based on uniX) After much work, a bunch of standards were produced, including one covering the API, another covering common shell and utilities, RT unix, PThreads, etc, etc. (In this era of success for the Open Source movement, it's worth nothing that the concentration back then was on source code portability. It's hard for me to imagine the growth of the OSS movement without having this standard source code API to build much of that work on...)
The other thing that came out of this effort is a means to verify conformance. Note that word, "conformance". This is the term used in the standard, and if you want to talk about whether some operating system meets the standard, it's the word you should use, too. When you hear someone say 'compliant', you should ask them if they mean "conformance, as defined in the standard, or just some term made up by the marketing staff to confuse the buyer/user." An informed technical person will know the difference.
Conformance is rigorously defined in the standards, but I can informally summarize it this way:
-- Conforming Application uses only facilities within the standard.
-- A Conforming Implementation implements the whole standard (no subsets, unless allowed by the standard!).
From the POSIX effort and X/Open merged activities, there's a "Single Unix Specification", which is a proper superset of the POSIX standards and includes facilities not formally standardized by ISO. The Open Group (http://www.opengroup.org) both maintains the SUS and conducts a certification program against the specification.
It is good to see Apple go through this and pass (apparently Apple tried earlier and hit a roadblock/inconsistency.)
So when someone -now- says "Unix" they should mean a conforming implementation of the Open Group's Single Unix Standard. That includes POSIX conformance. And it should mean that the vendor has the certificate to prove it.
Now what about Linux? Last I heard, there were still inconsistencies between Linux and the SUS, so LINUX won't pass the POSIX part of SUS, and therefore isn't legally "Unix", nor is it a POSIX Conforming Implementation. My understanding these differences aren't trivial, but are in corners that the average user won't bump into. But the differences in the API specifications does have a significant impact on the implementation (kernel), and that's why the Linux community has stuck to its incompatibility with the POSIX standard.
dave (worked on POSIX standards from 88-94, primarily the Ada binding...)
Mac runs on Mac hardware. Hardly what I would call a fair test to what Linux has to stand up against.
Although Macs have switched to Intel processors I bet OS X wouldn't be as easy to install on all the PC configurations that Ubuntu has to deal with which I think is a point that most people miss out on.
Even if you were comparing Gutsy to Windows, even XP doesn't have driver support for my old web cam and TV tuner card which is really out of date. Gutsy does it out of the box because the support for the third party hardware is kept there, which keeps me from having to buy new hardware just to get back what I already had after an upgrade.