I hate this war and I hate the reasons for it and I hate those who perpetrated it. But I won't hate the man that saves legions of my fellow Americans by taking out the enemy from safe distance.
This isn't about "winning", it's about not provoking the rest of the world to hate us (that *certainly* doesn't help "secure peace" in the world!), it's about not militarizing *space* (once we do it, Russia and China will follow--how would *you* feel knowing the Chinese can nuke us from space? Now imagine Chinese space nukes when Taiwan declares independence.), and it's about not being grotesque monsters who nuke whole populations of innocent people.
Hell yeah, fight to win, but let's remain a people worthy of winning, if we can.
The neocons suffer from a severe case of hubris. No one's saying "don't fight to win", they're saying, "the only winning move is not to play the game". How can we be so utterly stupid as to be the ones to *start* the game? It's one thing to be forced into it (you can't help that), but voluntarily starting it?
You fail the reading comprehension portion of the test.
They said: "caused the system to crash is unfortunate, but this did not affect operations"
You read: "a system that doesn't affect anything if it goes down"
And you fail the civics portion of the test.
The UK Government (just like the US Government) spends money on things that are not critical to operations. This is both on purpose, and the right thing to do.
1. Stallman doesn't like Java because no GPLed version exists.
Mostly true (I believe he also has a problem with the fact that each time Sun adds new features to Java, the FS version would have to add them in).
2. No GPLed version exists because the OSS community has failed to produce a fully functional version.
True.
3. The GNU Foundation has not been able to show that it can produce a *singular* project of the complexity of Java without the assistance of major corporate backers.
The "corporate backers" clause is irrelevant. The FSF (it's not called "The GNU Foundation") is fully capable of managing highly complex projects (which was your original claim).
4. GPLed Java versions don't exist for want of corporate backers. i.e. The industry feels no pressure to produce one when Sun is already so open.
Stallman's position on Java doesn't rely on corporate backers, it depends solely on how Java meets his ideals.
5. Major corporate backers are not a bad thing. However, handing over software of Java's complexity to the GNU Foundation is suicide without those backers.
No one has ever said Sun must hand over Java to the "GNU Foundation" (you mean the FSF, right?). And even if they did, history shows there will be corporate backers.
6. The fact that 'ls' and 'tar' exist in the same bundle of software does nothing to show that the GNU Foundation is ready to take on the challenge of maintaining Java.
Quit being so daft. GNU is not just "'ls' and 'tar'". It's an *entire OS*, including libraries, a kernel, etc. It's a far *larger* project than Java.
Now if you'll excuse me, I am done with laying out pearls before those here.
It's just not an "AKAImBatman" post without an insult at the end, is it?
What am I complaining about? Oh yes, that Stallman is being a hypocrit. How is that hypocritical?
How is Stallman being a hypocrite? *He's* not using Java, is he?
Your use of the "GNU subsystem" (the proper name for the bundle) is nonsense. You're talking about a bundle of disparate products, none of which even comes close to the complexity of the Java platform.
1. It's properly called "GNU", not "GNU subsystem". 2. It's not appropriate to compare the Java platform with the GNU platform? WTF?
Stallman is upset because Java is cool and he doesn't have it.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week, and it's only Monday! Stallman has never cared about "cool", he's only cared about "Free".
Actually, I was pointing out how you were making my point.
And what "point" is that, exactly? You've made none that stand up to scrutiny or relevance. Corporations contribute to FSF projects. That's not a problem *at all*, and no one (but you) has ever said it was.
Come off this nonsense people. Sun is not losing money hand over fist (they're more or less breaking even right now), and they've made it perfectly possible for others to replicate their technology. Why is the OSS community blaming their failure to do so on Sun?
You keep turning this into an attack on Sun, and it's not. It's an attack on OOo's reliance on Java, which introduces compatibility problems with Free Software.
In other words, you keep *completely* missing the point.
Sun doesn't have to make Java Open Source, but that's not the issue at hand, is it? Relying on Java is not FSF-friendly, so the FSF will try to convince that project to "stay the course", as it were. There's nothing wrong or "nonsensical" about this at all.
Otherwise he can keep his trap shut, because he has no right to complain.
He's not allowed to complain about something he doesn't like, but you are?
Funny, it seems that EMacs and GCC have a lot of help from corporate entities. And what is "gnu"? I'm not familiar with that program.
Funny, but you said, "while simultanously showing that his foundation is incapable of managing anything as complex as Java". The FSF manages emacs, gcc and GNU (GNU is not a program, it's an OS).
However, I don't trust him as far as I can kick him. He had proved to me that he will always overreact to every situation, and suggest solutions that he is incapable of executing himself.
You *can't* be serious! Stallman has been one of the most reliable people in the computer industry. You can *always* be sure which side of the argument he'll be on--even if it's not always your side.
Personally, while I hold software freedom (in the FSF sense) as a value, I don't hold it as the ultimate value. In that sense, I don't find myself, in practice, always siding with Stallman, but it's absurd to say you can't trust him.
Mr. Stallman has incited his own flamewar over absolutely nothing
Obviously false. It's the reliance on problematic (to the FSF) technology that this issue (flamewar? WTF?) is about. You *clearly* don't see that as a problem, but you can't call it "absolutely nothing". Not honestly, at least.
his foundation is incapable of managing anything as complex as Java
Prior to this "agreement", all the rest of the terms you dismiss were not certain, the OOo team could have violated them for practical reasons at any time. Now that'll be much more unlikely. The FSF is being quite rational in criticizing the inclusion of Java code into the OOo project. The OOo team has agreed to not fall into the potential traps that the FSF fears. This is, on the whole, a very good thing.
The amusing part about this is that the whole tirade against Java in OOo is nothing but a farce.
In your clearly anti-FSF biased opinion, perhaps. You're not an idealist, but a pragmatist, OK, no big deal. But you'd have to be one hell of a cynic as well, to call it a "farce".
The truth is that Sun has bent over backwards for the OSS community
Prefacing the statement with "the truth is" doesn't make it true. What has Sun done that constitutes "bending over backwards"? In the OSS community, "bending over backwards" tends to mean making your code open source.
Despite all the nonsense about "contamination", has anyone EVER had Sun sue them?
Does the name "Microsoft" ring a bell?
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
What's that got to do with Java and OOo? Or is it just an ad hominem? I don't know who you are, but it's a good bet that Stallman has done more to make my life better than you ever will. A cheap shot won't change that, either.
No one said they "stole a CD". (which would be the proper analog)
Does this then lead to the conclusion that robbing convenience stores is good for Coca-Cola? It certainly does not.
Actually, it does. If robbing convenience stores results in higher sales for Coke.
In other words, stealing is still wrong even if something good comes of it.
Remember that next time you find yourself facing a drunk friend on his way home from a bar. Don't steal his keys, that would be wrong!
The ends do not justify the means.
Ends are the reason we *have* means. For every means, there exists some ends which justifies it. Some means are so vile and undesirable that there are very few cases in which we consider them justified. Copying a song is pretty low on the "all things evil that must be stopped" list. Even the guy who is supposedly your boss has downloaded songs illegally.
You present a number of points, most of which I agree with, a couple I don't to varying degrees.
Colloquially speaking: I agree it's more descriptive to call OS X "UNIX-based" instead of "is a UNIX" (although, colloquially speaking, for many people, OS X *is* the UNIX they run their UNIX software on).
Apple's marketing goals: Also agreed that it fits Apple's marketing goals to do so (in my first post on this thread, I stated that Apple wants all the cachet of UNIX, without the stigma).
Evolution: Apple is busy replacing much of the truly UNIX parts of OS X. The UNIX (BSD) environment in OS X is both complete and non-trivial, so I can't really see it as being "evolved away"--at least, not yet. Someday, sure. And Apple does seem to be headed in that direction.
"Is Windows a DOS?": The DOS in Windows 95 is both complete, and non-trivial (in fact, it was common to muck with the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT in Win 95). I'd say Windows 95 was *a* DOS, but not a very good one. As a UNIX, though, OS X is a very good one.
"Hopefully we can at least agree this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.": I agree. I didn't jump on ASOTV for calling OS X "UNIX-based" or saying that it "provides UNIX", etc. It was only when he claimed OS X *isn't* UNIX. To go back to my PS2 analogy, it's like someone saying a PS2 isn't a DVD player, but that it *can* play DVD's.
If I were to guess (and I don't mean to put words into your mouth), I'd say you agree with my basic points, but don't see the UNIX in OS X as being significant enough to call OS X "a UNIX".
It's hard to "agree to disagree" when the other person doesn't even follow your point, and consistently mischaracterizes it (ASOTV kept doing this, by continually saying that OS X isn't "just a UNIX" and that my definition of UNIX is so broad that *every* OS is a UNIX--neither of which properly address my point).
Since I think you get my point, whether you agree with me or not is a judgement call on your part.
we may just have to agree to disagree
We just might have to, and I don't mind it much since you've honestly considered and addressed my fundamental points.
I was a MS/RH guy before trying out OS X, (I really thought pre-X blew) and it's damn near changed my life.
MS/Solaris/Debian here. I thought classic Mac OS was a great interface, but it took OS X to bring me back to the Mac (I previously left the Mac about the time System 7 came out).
Just out of curiosity - what OSes do you work with/prefer?
Work: Linux, Windows (2000/XP), OS X Prefer: OS X, Linux Use at home: OS X Have used at home: you name it:-)
You clearly think you're more eloquent than you appear to the rest of us.
Wrong. You just aren't reading my posts. I *CLEARLY* and unequivocally state, over and over, that I'm *not* saying that OS X is "just a UNIX".
OS X stopped being a Unix a long time ago.
When, exactly? I've asked ASOTV to answer that. He hasn't.
And the question isn't, "when did OS X stop being *just* a UNIX," because it never has been "just" a UNIX. Everyone who's been arguing with me has been turning my statement of "OS X is a UNIX" into "OS X is *just* a UNIX".
Well, that's a subtle enough misunderstanding that I can see why people would make it, but not when I've repeatedly pointed out the difference, and which of the two I'm stating.
The whole point is that evolution requires a re-evaluation of our descriptions, and naming.
Absolutely. So, what, in the re-evaluation of OS X, makes it not a UNIX? It contains a non-trivial amount of BSD, provides a complete UNIX environment, and does so in a very straightforward way.
I've never stated that OS X is "just a UNIX" or is "primarily a UNIX" or that "the most significant thing about it is its UNIX-ness". Just that it is, among many things, a UNIX. Please, in your reply, try to note that you have read and understood that.
I've acknowledged many times in this thread that OS X is so much more than just a UNIX, and that those other things far surpass UNIX. It's like calling a PS2 a "DVD player." A PS2 *is* a DVD player, but that's certainly *not* the most notable thing about a PS2, is it? When someone like ASOTV tries to claim that OS X isn't a UNIX, it's just as wrong as saying that a PS2 isn't a DVD player. If I had claimed that OS X is "just a UNIX", I'd be just as wrong as had I called a PS2 "just a DVD player". Clearly I've *never* claimed that, and I've *repeatedly* pointed that out.
Twirling on the swing? WTF is that? Is that supposed to be some kind of dig? Wow, that's creative. A few sentences earlier you moan about insults being counterproductive?
That part was in quotes between: "My response becomes something like," and "It's stupid, and doesn't address the issue." Clearly I'm using it as an example of why resorting to insults is counterproductive.
Do me a favor: Be sure you're putting your handle on your resume. A lot of us out there would like to avoid hiring a steel-cage mentality like this.
Enjoy life at SCO!
Adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. *Exactly* my point from above.
So then I insult you back, etc, right? That's the game? It's a stupid game, and one I won't play.
(note the PR-dept like avoidance of saying "half-correct")
And note the times in the exact same post where I unequivocally call him correct.
Now you say "ASoTV is half-wrong" (note the PR-dept like avoidance of saying "half-correct"). If you're ready to call him 50/50 - holy s&%t! Why do you persist?
Because in my very first post in this thread, I acknowledged the part where he's right.
Your example including a "Hybrid *Microwave*/Fridge" is by your very own description no longer simply a "Microwave."
And I've reiterated about a million times now that OS X is not "simply a UNIX".
If you can't comprehend our argument, and see that you're losing a debate about a ridiculous issue, well, I won't bother to stick around this thread hurting your feelings.
It's not feelings that makes insults counterproductive, it's the fact that it degrades the conversation. My response becomes something like, "Looks like you're projecting your own insecurity. What's the matter? Couldn't make the debate club? Oh well, go back to twirling on the swing, or whatever it is you do when you've been beaten." It's stupid, and doesn't address the issue. It *is* often easier than discussion, though. Don't take the easy route.
As for the "are you an anal fool? do you call up Toyota?" crap, I'm not calling up Apple, I'm not demanding Apple do anything.
Read this carefully: I've *never* said that OS X was *only* a UNIX. I've also *never* said Apple was wrong in calling OS X "UNIX-based". My only claim is that OS X is *a* UNIX. That's it. Apple has even called OS X a UNIX. Hell, I even point out the ways it's *not* a UNIX.
At some point in the future, imagine the Toyota Prius evolving to lose its wheels in favor of say...maglev. Are you still thinking it's just a car, because it facilitates movement in a small cabin with windows and a steering wheel?
Aside from the fact that the little segments of a train *are* cars, I wouldn't call it a car (in the automobile sense), because it *isn't*. OS X contains a complete UNIX, and does so in a non-trivial way. Your example is both trivial and incomplete.
And no, I wouldn't call up Toyota to correct them. I would point out to people that it's really a car (if it is)--but only to people who I'd think care, and don't you think a site that is "News for Transportation Nuts" would be such a site?
The metaphor is an excellent and beautiful one, because it takes an idea that is held up as perfect and cherished and points out a simple, obvious flaw in it.
Although Democracy can be tyrannical towards the minority, how is that *worse* than any other form of government where a *minority* can tyrannize the majority?
It's certainly valid to point out that tyranny can occur under Democracy--it helps warn us to be ever vigilant, and to be self-critical. But that quote is *never* used to merely warn us of the flaws of Democracy, but instead to decry Democracy altogether. Look at the post I was replying to.
Compare two tyrannies. One is a Democracy in which the people voted it in, and the other is a ruling few imposing the tyranny on the people. At least with the Democracy, the people deserve what they got. Also, consider how much more difficult it is to self-impose a tyranny.
That's not to say it's impossible, just that the democratic process better protects the interests of the people than a non-democratic process. And the primary use of that quote is to convince people to give up their political power to the few.
Teh fact that the majority of humanity is composed of wolves rather than sheep is one of the founding principles of the country
People are often quite selfish, but that's not enough to make them wolves. The wolves have both the desire and the means to devour their fellow man (metaphorically speaking, of course).
The entire bill of rights is pretty much devoted to protecting the individual from the tyrrany of perfectly legitimate majority opinion
Right. Those things help prevent the majority from becoming wolves. It's imperfect, but it's better than any of the alternatives. This move over the last century from being "for the people" to "for the powerful" illustrates that while the majority can be tyrannical, it's far easier for the powerful minority to form a tyranny.
which tends to destroy things and otherwise inhibit progress.
Are you talking theory or practice? I'm unfamiliar with adequate evidence that democracies self-implode in practice, but a lot of theory that states this.
Used to be that/. was filled with thoughtful intelligent, and intellectual folks. What the fuck happened?
Was that meant as irony?
You are both absolutely wrong, We're a Constitutional Republic. Never have we been a "democracy" or "democratic". We're a REPUBLIC
Sorry, but we're a Constitutional, Democratic Republic. We democratically elect our representatives, and the whole thing is based on a constitution.
You're right that we're not a Democracy, but you're wrong that the government isn't "democratic". You're also right that we're a Republic. That's why those words are in their specific order.
The tendency for those that omit "Democratic" in our government is that they don't like the idea of a government "of, by, and for the people". To hold the people's self-interests in such disdain is absolutely revolting.
Sooo- it's completely inconcievable to you that a majority might at some time unjustly suppress or abuse a minority using the force of law? Is that what you're saying?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
The metaphor doesn't go "Democracy is *sometimes*..."
It's not meant to imply that there is an absolute guarantee that there will be a tyranny of majority...just that it could (and has) happened and that perhaps democracy in and of itself is not how freedom for all is achieved.
No, it's meant to make us think "Democracy is bad" and that we should just let the elite few rule the many. That's why it's both backwards, and disgusting.
Your post contained three insults, a bunch of irrelevant examples and only two claims:
1. "ASoT is clearly right." 2. "A view that every piece of software or music can or should be categorized into mass generalizations is naeive, simplistic, and doesn't foster creative growth in any field or society."
1. is half-wrong, 2. does not reflect my claim (and it's wrong).
ASOTV is right that OS X "provides a UNIX". He's wrong in that OS X is not a UNIX.
The distinction "provides a" and "is a" is completely arbitrary in the case of UNIX vs OS X. ASOTV has a thing against UNIX. If he's really an Apple employee, this stems from Jobs' hatred of inelegance. Being a UNIX doesn't exclude the OS from being other things as well. The UNIX in OS X isn't an after-market mod, it's not just a "sample", and it's not just taking the idea of UNIX, and applying it to something else (your three examples).
Drop the insults, it doesn't help the discussion. Also, it would help if you'd respond to the statements I make, not the one's you think I've made. I've clarified my position more than enough times that there's no excuse for getting them wrong.
Have you seen those backpacks that have a padded compartment for carrying a notebook? It's a backpack *and* it's a notebook bag. Have you seen those hybrid microwave/fridges? Is it a microwave? Is it a fridge? Yes, and yes.
Is OS X a UNIX? Just like the above items, it's many things, and *one* of those things is also, "a UNIX". If you prefer to call it "a UNIX clone" for either legal reasons, or that you don't consider Darwin a UNIX (I do, because of its BSD heritage), then that's a different issue, and one I don't care enough about to really argue (both sides are reasonable opinions).
Hello? Our government is not a democracy, it is a constitutionally limited republic.
You've got it 2/3 correct: it's a "Constitutional, Democratic Republic."
democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner
That's a disgusting and backwards metaphor. "The People" aren't the aggressive wolves seeking to devour the poor innocent sheep, The People *are* the sheep. The wolves are the rich and powerful, and have been ever since the beginning of civilization. The US Government was founded on the idea that the government derives its power from, and should provide benefit to, The People.
If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.
"being UNIX" means "something that has a descendent of the GNU or BSD or SYSV system interface and libraries", then Darwin could be called UNIX, but so could Windows+Cygwin.:-)
I'm basing "being a UNIX" on the BSD heritage (which is a direct descendant of the original UNIX project at AT&T). My very first post in this thread acknowledges the fact that for Apple to use the UNIX trademark, they would have to pay the Open Group (not SCO--SCO only claims ownership of the copyright on the AT&T UNIX source code, not the trademark).
If it weren't for the BSD heritage, I'd call OS X a UNIX clone (among other things--I repeat this only because people keep reading this as saying, "it's *merely* a UNIX"). Linux and GNU are both UNIX clones. If you'd rather call OS X a UNIX clone, I won't argue the point too terribly much, because from a legal point of view, that's what it is, even if from a technological standpoint it's a legitimate UNIX.
If MS were to incorporate a complete and valid UNIX into Windows, and were to do it in a non-trivial fashion (the way Apple has with OS X), I would call Windows a UNIX as well (again, for clarity, that means it's *also* a UNIX, not ).
This is *exactly* like saying your modern refrigerator is also a freezer, is also an ice-maker, and is also a water filter. These are complete and non-trivial functions that are in addition to the normal (and primary) refrigeration function of a refrigerator.
ASOTV is showing you lots of ways that one can misunderstand that statement
ASOTV can point out a million ways in which OS X is not a UNIX--for example (he's pointed out), OS X is a Java system, it's a NEXTSTEP system, it's a Mac OS Classic system, etc., but none of that makes the UNIX in OS X go away. ASOTV is just trying to give OS X all the cachet of UNIX (by saying "provides a UNIX", without the stigma associated with *being* a UNIX.
*Part* of Darwin is derived from several BSDs, most prominently FreeBSD, but also in part NetBSD, OpenBSD and even BSD/Lite.
Right. I've tried to make it clear that I'm not saying OS X is *just* UNIX, or that Darwin is *just* BSD. I have *never* made such claims.
Note that much of Darwin has nothing to do with BSD. Including most kernel components.
Right. Same as above.
>"The UNIX is there, and it's non-trivial."
I agree.
What has me baffled are the posts pointing out that UNIX isn't all there is to OS X. I've never claimed that at all.
You know that song that goes: "I'm a bitch, I'm a lover, I'm a child, I'm a mother, I'm a sinner, I'm a saint," etc.? That's the way in which I'm saying OS X is a UNIX. It's just one of the many things it is. Everyone seems to find it relevant to point out that Meredith Brooks isn't a bitch, she's all these other things instead, when she's really all those other things also.
You are so dumb that you can't even grasp the difference between an is-a and a contains-a relationship. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You and ASOTV are the ones making the mistake in relationship. Is your refrigerator also a freezer? Is your VCR also a TV tuner?
OS X non-trivially contains a complete UNIX. You state this yourself.
Darwin is no more the "foundation" of Mac OS X than Mac OS 9 was or than NextStep was or than Java is.
That's nonsense. The OS X boot process begins with Darwin. It does not begin with Java or OS 9.
Darwin is just a piece, and not even that important a piece considering that Darwin alone is utterly useless.
Darwin alone is not "utterly useless". It's just a UNIX, and like most any UNIX, it can be a web server, file server, you can run X11 on it, etc.
I agree fully that Darwin isn't all that huge a feature of OS X when taken in context of OS X as a whole, but that's not my point.
My point is that OS X is quite a number of things, and one of those things is "a UNIX". Not "is only a UNIX" or "is primarily a UNIX" or "the best feature of it is that it's a UNIX" or any of the numerous things you and ASOTV have been decrying.
You should stop with the "stupid/so dumb/ashamed of yourself" crap. It doesn't help make your point, and primarily serves to degrade the conversation.
The BSD personality, which feels a lot like a typical UNIX, is entirely optional.
I'm not just saying, "Oh look! There's grep and ls and cp, it's UNIX!" I'm saying that OS X's Darwin is derived from BSD (and thus, it's valid to call Darwin a UNIX), and that that is a fundamental part of OS X.
The "UNIX part" did not cease to exist, it was just never the pivotal aspect.
Right! But that's not my claim (although I have stated that parts of the UNIX in OS X are critical). Apple could remove and/or re-implement all of the user side of BSD in OS X. No big deal. I'm not saying OS X is simply a UNIX, or only a UNIX, or anything else. Since the UNIX part, as you say, "did not cease to exist", that it's included makes OS X, among all the other things it is, a UNIX.
Apple is careful not to call OS X "UNIX", because they would run afoul of the Open Group. They also don't want to be seen as "just another UNIX" (and thus people might bring to mind daunting images of Linux, and ignore all the other, more impressive, aspects of OS X). They have run full ads calling OS X "UNIX" ("Sends other UNIX boxes to/dev/null.", with a quote, "The keys to OS X are that it's UNIX inside and Mac outside.").
I don't know why I wasted my time. You, like at least a few others evidently, have adopted a definition of "Unix" that's so broad as to be absolutely meaningless.
I've *tried* to engage in a reasonable discussion, and to actually argue the point that OS X *is* a UNIX, but you really haven't shown much honest effort to understand my position. Instead, you just misrepresent it so you can knock it down with hyperbolic rhetoric.
What the hell, one more try: Apple took Mach + BSD to create Darwin (OS X's underbelly, and modeled after the UNIX core of NeXTstep). Darwin, as it started out, was a legitimate UNIX[*]. Is it no longer a UNIX? Is it no longer the foundation of OS X?
That's an honest query, and, if you could, try to answer without the insults. Also, just answer *that* question. You keep bringing up all sorts of things that OS X is that's above and beyond UNIX. That's *great*, but not relevant.
My claim is that since Darwin is UNIX, and OS X includes, non-trivially, a complete Darwin, it's a UNIX as well. That doesn't mean it's not much, much more. You want to say that OS X isn't primarily a UNIX? Sure, no problem here. You want to say that the user-side UNIX is just a feature, and not even the main feature, of OS X? Again, I agree fully.
[*] I call it a UNIX, and not a UNIX clone (like Linux) because it's based on BSD, which is a legitimate UNIX (not trademark, but lineage from the original AT&T UNIX project).
>What do you call something that provides a complete UNIX environment? A UNIX!
No, that's what you call something that provides only a Unix environment.
Being a UNIX is not an exclusive thing. Solaris is a UNIX, and *it* has a complete Java implementation. It also had a complete NEXTSTEP implementation. It was *still* UNIX, as well as a NEXTSTEP and a Java system.
Solaris does not "provide only a UNIX environment", yet it's still a UNIX.
OK, so the many personalities and hereditary lines of OS X are so much more diverse and advanced than the addition of NEXTSTEP or Java (or X11 or GNOME) to Solaris, but the number of cool and completely non-UNIX technologies on OS X does not make the UNIX part go away.
You keep reading, "OS X is a UNIX" as "OS X is nothing more than a UNIX". The two statements are not equal. Can you spot the difference?
It evolved from Unix. It is, in many ways, compatible with Unix. It is not Unix.
At what point did OS X stop being a UNIX? Was it while it was NeXTstep? Was it during the transition from NEXTSTEP to OS X? Was it between one of the 6 public versions of OS X? Clearly, if OS X is *not* a UNIX, you can point out when exactly it went from UNIX to Not UNIX, in the hereditary line from NeXTstep to Mac OS X Tiger.
You bring up the other hereditary lines of OS X (Mac OS, Java, etc) but they are irrelevant--at some point, the UNIX part of OS X must have ceased to be part of the line from NeXTstep -> Tiger. So, when was that? Just point it out. If it's a sound claim, it'll completely disprove my position.
Human beings evolved from apes. Human beings share a lot of the same core biological features as apes. Human beings are not apes.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate this war and I hate the reasons for it and I hate those who perpetrated it. But I won't hate the man that saves legions of my fellow Americans by taking out the enemy from safe distance.
This isn't about "winning", it's about not provoking the rest of the world to hate us (that *certainly* doesn't help "secure peace" in the world!), it's about not militarizing *space* (once we do it, Russia and China will follow--how would *you* feel knowing the Chinese can nuke us from space? Now imagine Chinese space nukes when Taiwan declares independence.), and it's about not being grotesque monsters who nuke whole populations of innocent people.
Hell yeah, fight to win, but let's remain a people worthy of winning, if we can.
The neocons suffer from a severe case of hubris. No one's saying "don't fight to win", they're saying, "the only winning move is not to play the game". How can we be so utterly stupid as to be the ones to *start* the game? It's one thing to be forced into it (you can't help that), but voluntarily starting it?
You fail the reading comprehension portion of the test.
They said: "caused the system to crash is unfortunate, but this did not affect operations"
You read: "a system that doesn't affect anything if it goes down"
And you fail the civics portion of the test.
The UK Government (just like the US Government) spends money on things that are not critical to operations. This is both on purpose, and the right thing to do.
1. Stallman doesn't like Java because no GPLed version exists.
Mostly true (I believe he also has a problem with the fact that each time Sun adds new features to Java, the FS version would have to add them in).
2. No GPLed version exists because the OSS community has failed to produce a fully functional version.
True.
3. The GNU Foundation has not been able to show that it can produce a *singular* project of the complexity of Java without the assistance of major corporate backers.
The "corporate backers" clause is irrelevant. The FSF (it's not called "The GNU Foundation") is fully capable of managing highly complex projects (which was your original claim).
4. GPLed Java versions don't exist for want of corporate backers. i.e. The industry feels no pressure to produce one when Sun is already so open.
Stallman's position on Java doesn't rely on corporate backers, it depends solely on how Java meets his ideals.
5. Major corporate backers are not a bad thing. However, handing over software of Java's complexity to the GNU Foundation is suicide without those backers.
No one has ever said Sun must hand over Java to the "GNU Foundation" (you mean the FSF, right?). And even if they did, history shows there will be corporate backers.
6. The fact that 'ls' and 'tar' exist in the same bundle of software does nothing to show that the GNU Foundation is ready to take on the challenge of maintaining Java.
Quit being so daft. GNU is not just "'ls' and 'tar'". It's an *entire OS*, including libraries, a kernel, etc. It's a far *larger* project than Java.
Now if you'll excuse me, I am done with laying out pearls before those here.
It's just not an "AKAImBatman" post without an insult at the end, is it?
What am I complaining about? Oh yes, that Stallman is being a hypocrit. How is that hypocritical?
How is Stallman being a hypocrite? *He's* not using Java, is he?
Your use of the "GNU subsystem" (the proper name for the bundle) is nonsense. You're talking about a bundle of disparate products, none of which even comes close to the complexity of the Java platform.
1. It's properly called "GNU", not "GNU subsystem".
2. It's not appropriate to compare the Java platform with the GNU platform? WTF?
Stallman is upset because Java is cool and he doesn't have it.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week, and it's only Monday! Stallman has never cared about "cool", he's only cared about "Free".
Actually, I was pointing out how you were making my point.
And what "point" is that, exactly? You've made none that stand up to scrutiny or relevance. Corporations contribute to FSF projects. That's not a problem *at all*, and no one (but you) has ever said it was.
Come off this nonsense people. Sun is not losing money hand over fist (they're more or less breaking even right now), and they've made it perfectly possible for others to replicate their technology. Why is the OSS community blaming their failure to do so on Sun?
You keep turning this into an attack on Sun, and it's not. It's an attack on OOo's reliance on Java, which introduces compatibility problems with Free Software.
In other words, you keep *completely* missing the point.
Sun doesn't have to make Java Open Source, but that's not the issue at hand, is it? Relying on Java is not FSF-friendly, so the FSF will try to convince that project to "stay the course", as it were. There's nothing wrong or "nonsensical" about this at all.
Otherwise he can keep his trap shut, because he has no right to complain.
He's not allowed to complain about something he doesn't like, but you are?
Funny, it seems that EMacs and GCC have a lot of help from corporate entities. And what is "gnu"? I'm not familiar with that program.
Funny, but you said, "while simultanously showing that his foundation is incapable of managing anything as complex as Java". The FSF manages emacs, gcc and GNU (GNU is not a program, it's an OS).
However, I don't trust him as far as I can kick him. He had proved to me that he will always overreact to every situation, and suggest solutions that he is incapable of executing himself.
You *can't* be serious! Stallman has been one of the most reliable people in the computer industry. You can *always* be sure which side of the argument he'll be on--even if it's not always your side.
Personally, while I hold software freedom (in the FSF sense) as a value, I don't hold it as the ultimate value. In that sense, I don't find myself, in practice, always siding with Stallman, but it's absurd to say you can't trust him.
Mr. Stallman has incited his own flamewar over absolutely nothing
Obviously false. It's the reliance on problematic (to the FSF) technology that this issue (flamewar? WTF?) is about. You *clearly* don't see that as a problem, but you can't call it "absolutely nothing". Not honestly, at least.
his foundation is incapable of managing anything as complex as Java
emacs, gcc, gnu...
This is the only concession I see being made.
Prior to this "agreement", all the rest of the terms you dismiss were not certain, the OOo team could have violated them for practical reasons at any time. Now that'll be much more unlikely. The FSF is being quite rational in criticizing the inclusion of Java code into the OOo project. The OOo team has agreed to not fall into the potential traps that the FSF fears. This is, on the whole, a very good thing.
The amusing part about this is that the whole tirade against Java in OOo is nothing but a farce.
In your clearly anti-FSF biased opinion, perhaps. You're not an idealist, but a pragmatist, OK, no big deal. But you'd have to be one hell of a cynic as well, to call it a "farce".
The truth is that Sun has bent over backwards for the OSS community
Prefacing the statement with "the truth is" doesn't make it true. What has Sun done that constitutes "bending over backwards"? In the OSS community, "bending over backwards" tends to mean making your code open source.
Despite all the nonsense about "contamination", has anyone EVER had Sun sue them?
Does the name "Microsoft" ring a bell?
BTW, Mr. Stallman. How's Hurd coming along?
What's that got to do with Java and OOo? Or is it just an ad hominem? I don't know who you are, but it's a good bet that Stallman has done more to make my life better than you ever will. A cheap shot won't change that, either.
I rob a convenience store
No one said they "stole a CD". (which would be the proper analog)
Does this then lead to the conclusion that robbing convenience stores is good for Coca-Cola? It certainly does not.
Actually, it does. If robbing convenience stores results in higher sales for Coke.
In other words, stealing is still wrong even if something good comes of it.
Remember that next time you find yourself facing a drunk friend on his way home from a bar. Don't steal his keys, that would be wrong!
The ends do not justify the means.
Ends are the reason we *have* means. For every means, there exists some ends which justifies it. Some means are so vile and undesirable that there are very few cases in which we consider them justified. Copying a song is pretty low on the "all things evil that must be stopped" list. Even the guy who is supposedly your boss has downloaded songs illegally.
You present a number of points, most of which I agree with, a couple I don't to varying degrees.
:-)
Colloquially speaking: I agree it's more descriptive to call OS X "UNIX-based" instead of "is a UNIX" (although, colloquially speaking, for many people, OS X *is* the UNIX they run their UNIX software on).
Apple's marketing goals: Also agreed that it fits Apple's marketing goals to do so (in my first post on this thread, I stated that Apple wants all the cachet of UNIX, without the stigma).
Evolution: Apple is busy replacing much of the truly UNIX parts of OS X. The UNIX (BSD) environment in OS X is both complete and non-trivial, so I can't really see it as being "evolved away"--at least, not yet. Someday, sure. And Apple does seem to be headed in that direction.
"Is Windows a DOS?": The DOS in Windows 95 is both complete, and non-trivial (in fact, it was common to muck with the CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT in Win 95). I'd say Windows 95 was *a* DOS, but not a very good one. As a UNIX, though, OS X is a very good one.
"Hopefully we can at least agree this is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.": I agree. I didn't jump on ASOTV for calling OS X "UNIX-based" or saying that it "provides UNIX", etc. It was only when he claimed OS X *isn't* UNIX. To go back to my PS2 analogy, it's like someone saying a PS2 isn't a DVD player, but that it *can* play DVD's.
If I were to guess (and I don't mean to put words into your mouth), I'd say you agree with my basic points, but don't see the UNIX in OS X as being significant enough to call OS X "a UNIX".
It's hard to "agree to disagree" when the other person doesn't even follow your point, and consistently mischaracterizes it (ASOTV kept doing this, by continually saying that OS X isn't "just a UNIX" and that my definition of UNIX is so broad that *every* OS is a UNIX--neither of which properly address my point).
Since I think you get my point, whether you agree with me or not is a judgement call on your part.
we may just have to agree to disagree
We just might have to, and I don't mind it much since you've honestly considered and addressed my fundamental points.
I was a MS/RH guy before trying out OS X, (I really thought pre-X blew) and it's damn near changed my life.
MS/Solaris/Debian here. I thought classic Mac OS was a great interface, but it took OS X to bring me back to the Mac (I previously left the Mac about the time System 7 came out).
Just out of curiosity - what OSes do you work with/prefer?
Work: Linux, Windows (2000/XP), OS X
Prefer: OS X, Linux
Use at home: OS X
Have used at home: you name it
You clearly think you're more eloquent than you appear to the rest of us.
Wrong. You just aren't reading my posts. I *CLEARLY* and unequivocally state, over and over, that I'm *not* saying that OS X is "just a UNIX".
OS X stopped being a Unix a long time ago.
When, exactly? I've asked ASOTV to answer that. He hasn't.
And the question isn't, "when did OS X stop being *just* a UNIX," because it never has been "just" a UNIX. Everyone who's been arguing with me has been turning my statement of "OS X is a UNIX" into "OS X is *just* a UNIX".
Well, that's a subtle enough misunderstanding that I can see why people would make it, but not when I've repeatedly pointed out the difference, and which of the two I'm stating.
The whole point is that evolution requires a re-evaluation of our descriptions, and naming.
Absolutely. So, what, in the re-evaluation of OS X, makes it not a UNIX? It contains a non-trivial amount of BSD, provides a complete UNIX environment, and does so in a very straightforward way.
I've never stated that OS X is "just a UNIX" or is "primarily a UNIX" or that "the most significant thing about it is its UNIX-ness". Just that it is, among many things, a UNIX. Please, in your reply, try to note that you have read and understood that.
I've acknowledged many times in this thread that OS X is so much more than just a UNIX, and that those other things far surpass UNIX. It's like calling a PS2 a "DVD player." A PS2 *is* a DVD player, but that's certainly *not* the most notable thing about a PS2, is it? When someone like ASOTV tries to claim that OS X isn't a UNIX, it's just as wrong as saying that a PS2 isn't a DVD player. If I had claimed that OS X is "just a UNIX", I'd be just as wrong as had I called a PS2 "just a DVD player". Clearly I've *never* claimed that, and I've *repeatedly* pointed that out.
Twirling on the swing? WTF is that? Is that supposed to be some kind of dig? Wow, that's creative. A few sentences earlier you moan about insults being counterproductive?
That part was in quotes between: "My response becomes something like," and "It's stupid, and doesn't address the issue." Clearly I'm using it as an example of why resorting to insults is counterproductive.
Do me a favor: Be sure you're putting your handle on your resume. A lot of us out there would like to avoid hiring a steel-cage mentality like this.
Enjoy life at SCO!
Adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. *Exactly* my point from above.
So then I insult you back, etc, right? That's the game? It's a stupid game, and one I won't play.
(note the PR-dept like avoidance of saying "half-correct")
/Fridge" is by your very own description no longer simply a "Microwave."
And note the times in the exact same post where I unequivocally call him correct.
Now you say "ASoTV is half-wrong" (note the PR-dept like avoidance of saying "half-correct"). If you're ready to call him 50/50 - holy s&%t! Why do you persist?
Because in my very first post in this thread, I acknowledged the part where he's right.
Your example including a "Hybrid *Microwave*
And I've reiterated about a million times now that OS X is not "simply a UNIX".
If you can't comprehend our argument, and see that you're losing a debate about a ridiculous issue, well, I won't bother to stick around this thread hurting your feelings.
It's not feelings that makes insults counterproductive, it's the fact that it degrades the conversation. My response becomes something like, "Looks like you're projecting your own insecurity. What's the matter? Couldn't make the debate club? Oh well, go back to twirling on the swing, or whatever it is you do when you've been beaten." It's stupid, and doesn't address the issue. It *is* often easier than discussion, though. Don't take the easy route.
As for the "are you an anal fool? do you call up Toyota?" crap, I'm not calling up Apple, I'm not demanding Apple do anything.
Read this carefully: I've *never* said that OS X was *only* a UNIX. I've also *never* said Apple was wrong in calling OS X "UNIX-based". My only claim is that OS X is *a* UNIX. That's it. Apple has even called OS X a UNIX. Hell, I even point out the ways it's *not* a UNIX.
At some point in the future, imagine the Toyota Prius evolving to lose its wheels in favor of say...maglev. Are you still thinking it's just a car, because it facilitates movement in a small cabin with windows and a steering wheel?
Aside from the fact that the little segments of a train *are* cars, I wouldn't call it a car (in the automobile sense), because it *isn't*. OS X contains a complete UNIX, and does so in a non-trivial way. Your example is both trivial and incomplete.
And no, I wouldn't call up Toyota to correct them. I would point out to people that it's really a car (if it is)--but only to people who I'd think care, and don't you think a site that is "News for Transportation Nuts" would be such a site?
The metaphor is an excellent and beautiful one, because it takes an idea that is held up as perfect and cherished and points out a simple, obvious flaw in it.
Although Democracy can be tyrannical towards the minority, how is that *worse* than any other form of government where a *minority* can tyrannize the majority?
It's certainly valid to point out that tyranny can occur under Democracy--it helps warn us to be ever vigilant, and to be self-critical. But that quote is *never* used to merely warn us of the flaws of Democracy, but instead to decry Democracy altogether. Look at the post I was replying to.
Compare two tyrannies. One is a Democracy in which the people voted it in, and the other is a ruling few imposing the tyranny on the people. At least with the Democracy, the people deserve what they got. Also, consider how much more difficult it is to self-impose a tyranny.
That's not to say it's impossible, just that the democratic process better protects the interests of the people than a non-democratic process. And the primary use of that quote is to convince people to give up their political power to the few.
Teh fact that the majority of humanity is composed of wolves rather than sheep is one of the founding principles of the country
People are often quite selfish, but that's not enough to make them wolves. The wolves have both the desire and the means to devour their fellow man (metaphorically speaking, of course).
The entire bill of rights is pretty much devoted to protecting the individual from the tyrrany of perfectly legitimate majority opinion
Right. Those things help prevent the majority from becoming wolves. It's imperfect, but it's better than any of the alternatives. This move over the last century from being "for the people" to "for the powerful" illustrates that while the majority can be tyrannical, it's far easier for the powerful minority to form a tyranny.
which tends to destroy things and otherwise inhibit progress.
Are you talking theory or practice? I'm unfamiliar with adequate evidence that democracies self-implode in practice, but a lot of theory that states this.
Used to be that /. was filled with thoughtful intelligent, and intellectual folks.
What the fuck happened?
Was that meant as irony?
You are both absolutely wrong,
We're a Constitutional Republic.
Never have we been a "democracy" or "democratic".
We're a REPUBLIC
Sorry, but we're a Constitutional, Democratic Republic. We democratically elect our representatives, and the whole thing is based on a constitution.
You're right that we're not a Democracy, but you're wrong that the government isn't "democratic". You're also right that we're a Republic. That's why those words are in their specific order.
The tendency for those that omit "Democratic" in our government is that they don't like the idea of a government "of, by, and for the people". To hold the people's self-interests in such disdain is absolutely revolting.
Sooo- it's completely inconcievable to you that a majority might at some time unjustly suppress or abuse a minority using the force of law? Is that what you're saying?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
The metaphor doesn't go "Democracy is *sometimes*..."
It's not meant to imply that there is an absolute guarantee that there will be a tyranny of majority...just that it could (and has) happened and that perhaps democracy in and of itself is not how freedom for all is achieved.
No, it's meant to make us think "Democracy is bad" and that we should just let the elite few rule the many. That's why it's both backwards, and disgusting.
Your post contained three insults, a bunch of irrelevant examples and only two claims:
1. "ASoT is clearly right."
2. "A view that every piece of software or music can or should be categorized into mass generalizations is naeive, simplistic, and doesn't foster creative growth in any field or society."
1. is half-wrong, 2. does not reflect my claim (and it's wrong).
ASOTV is right that OS X "provides a UNIX". He's wrong in that OS X is not a UNIX.
The distinction "provides a" and "is a" is completely arbitrary in the case of UNIX vs OS X. ASOTV has a thing against UNIX. If he's really an Apple employee, this stems from Jobs' hatred of inelegance. Being a UNIX doesn't exclude the OS from being other things as well. The UNIX in OS X isn't an after-market mod, it's not just a "sample", and it's not just taking the idea of UNIX, and applying it to something else (your three examples).
Drop the insults, it doesn't help the discussion. Also, it would help if you'd respond to the statements I make, not the one's you think I've made. I've clarified my position more than enough times that there's no excuse for getting them wrong.
Have you seen those backpacks that have a padded compartment for carrying a notebook? It's a backpack *and* it's a notebook bag. Have you seen those hybrid microwave/fridges? Is it a microwave? Is it a fridge? Yes, and yes.
Is OS X a UNIX? Just like the above items, it's many things, and *one* of those things is also, "a UNIX". If you prefer to call it "a UNIX clone" for either legal reasons, or that you don't consider Darwin a UNIX (I do, because of its BSD heritage), then that's a different issue, and one I don't care enough about to really argue (both sides are reasonable opinions).
Hello? Our government is not a democracy, it is a constitutionally limited republic.
You've got it 2/3 correct: it's a "Constitutional, Democratic Republic."
democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner
That's a disgusting and backwards metaphor. "The People" aren't the aggressive wolves seeking to devour the poor innocent sheep, The People *are* the sheep. The wolves are the rich and powerful, and have been ever since the beginning of civilization. The US Government was founded on the idea that the government derives its power from, and should provide benefit to, The People.
If you want a better metaphor, Democracy is 90 sheep and 10 wolves deciding what's for dinner.
"being UNIX" means "something that has a descendent of the GNU or BSD or SYSV system interface and libraries", then Darwin could be called UNIX, but so could Windows+Cygwin. :-)
I'm basing "being a UNIX" on the BSD heritage (which is a direct descendant of the original UNIX project at AT&T). My very first post in this thread acknowledges the fact that for Apple to use the UNIX trademark, they would have to pay the Open Group (not SCO--SCO only claims ownership of the copyright on the AT&T UNIX source code, not the trademark).
If it weren't for the BSD heritage, I'd call OS X a UNIX clone (among other things--I repeat this only because people keep reading this as saying, "it's *merely* a UNIX"). Linux and GNU are both UNIX clones. If you'd rather call OS X a UNIX clone, I won't argue the point too terribly much, because from a legal point of view, that's what it is, even if from a technological standpoint it's a legitimate UNIX.
If MS were to incorporate a complete and valid UNIX into Windows, and were to do it in a non-trivial fashion (the way Apple has with OS X), I would call Windows a UNIX as well (again, for clarity, that means it's *also* a UNIX, not ).
This is *exactly* like saying your modern refrigerator is also a freezer, is also an ice-maker, and is also a water filter. These are complete and non-trivial functions that are in addition to the normal (and primary) refrigeration function of a refrigerator.
ASOTV is showing you lots of ways that one can misunderstand that statement
ASOTV can point out a million ways in which OS X is not a UNIX--for example (he's pointed out), OS X is a Java system, it's a NEXTSTEP system, it's a Mac OS Classic system, etc., but none of that makes the UNIX in OS X go away. ASOTV is just trying to give OS X all the cachet of UNIX (by saying "provides a UNIX", without the stigma associated with *being* a UNIX.
*Part* of Darwin is derived from several BSDs, most prominently FreeBSD, but also in part NetBSD, OpenBSD and even BSD/Lite.
Right. I've tried to make it clear that I'm not saying OS X is *just* UNIX, or that Darwin is *just* BSD. I have *never* made such claims.
Note that much of Darwin has nothing to do with BSD. Including most kernel components.
Right. Same as above.
>"The UNIX is there, and it's non-trivial."
I agree.
What has me baffled are the posts pointing out that UNIX isn't all there is to OS X. I've never claimed that at all.
You know that song that goes: "I'm a bitch, I'm a lover, I'm a child, I'm a mother, I'm a sinner, I'm a saint," etc.? That's the way in which I'm saying OS X is a UNIX. It's just one of the many things it is. Everyone seems to find it relevant to point out that Meredith Brooks isn't a bitch, she's all these other things instead, when she's really all those other things also.
You are so dumb that you can't even grasp the difference between an is-a and a contains-a relationship. You should be ashamed of yourself.
You and ASOTV are the ones making the mistake in relationship. Is your refrigerator also a freezer? Is your VCR also a TV tuner?
OS X non-trivially contains a complete UNIX. You state this yourself.
Darwin is no more the "foundation" of Mac OS X than Mac OS 9 was or than NextStep was or than Java is.
That's nonsense. The OS X boot process begins with Darwin. It does not begin with Java or OS 9.
Darwin is just a piece, and not even that important a piece considering that Darwin alone is utterly useless.
Darwin alone is not "utterly useless". It's just a UNIX, and like most any UNIX, it can be a web server, file server, you can run X11 on it, etc.
I agree fully that Darwin isn't all that huge a feature of OS X when taken in context of OS X as a whole, but that's not my point.
My point is that OS X is quite a number of things, and one of those things is "a UNIX". Not "is only a UNIX" or "is primarily a UNIX" or "the best feature of it is that it's a UNIX" or any of the numerous things you and ASOTV have been decrying.
You should stop with the "stupid/so dumb/ashamed of yourself" crap. It doesn't help make your point, and primarily serves to degrade the conversation.
The BSD personality, which feels a lot like a typical UNIX, is entirely optional.
/dev/null.", with a quote, "The keys to OS X are that it's UNIX inside and Mac outside.").
I'm not just saying, "Oh look! There's grep and ls and cp, it's UNIX!" I'm saying that OS X's Darwin is derived from BSD (and thus, it's valid to call Darwin a UNIX), and that that is a fundamental part of OS X.
The "UNIX part" did not cease to exist, it was just never the pivotal aspect.
Right! But that's not my claim (although I have stated that parts of the UNIX in OS X are critical). Apple could remove and/or re-implement all of the user side of BSD in OS X. No big deal. I'm not saying OS X is simply a UNIX, or only a UNIX, or anything else. Since the UNIX part, as you say, "did not cease to exist", that it's included makes OS X, among all the other things it is, a UNIX.
Apple is careful not to call OS X "UNIX", because they would run afoul of the Open Group. They also don't want to be seen as "just another UNIX" (and thus people might bring to mind daunting images of Linux, and ignore all the other, more impressive, aspects of OS X). They have run full ads calling OS X "UNIX" ("Sends other UNIX boxes to
The UNIX is there, and it's non-trivial.
I don't know why I wasted my time. You, like at least a few others evidently, have adopted a definition of "Unix" that's so broad as to be absolutely meaningless.
I've *tried* to engage in a reasonable discussion, and to actually argue the point that OS X *is* a UNIX, but you really haven't shown much honest effort to understand my position. Instead, you just misrepresent it so you can knock it down with hyperbolic rhetoric.
What the hell, one more try: Apple took Mach + BSD to create Darwin (OS X's underbelly, and modeled after the UNIX core of NeXTstep). Darwin, as it started out, was a legitimate UNIX[*]. Is it no longer a UNIX? Is it no longer the foundation of OS X?
That's an honest query, and, if you could, try to answer without the insults. Also, just answer *that* question. You keep bringing up all sorts of things that OS X is that's above and beyond UNIX. That's *great*, but not relevant.
My claim is that since Darwin is UNIX, and OS X includes, non-trivially, a complete Darwin, it's a UNIX as well. That doesn't mean it's not much, much more. You want to say that OS X isn't primarily a UNIX? Sure, no problem here. You want to say that the user-side UNIX is just a feature, and not even the main feature, of OS X? Again, I agree fully.
[*] I call it a UNIX, and not a UNIX clone (like Linux) because it's based on BSD, which is a legitimate UNIX (not trademark, but lineage from the original AT&T UNIX project).
>What do you call something that provides a complete UNIX environment? A UNIX!
No, that's what you call something that provides only a Unix environment.
Being a UNIX is not an exclusive thing. Solaris is a UNIX, and *it* has a complete Java implementation. It also had a complete NEXTSTEP implementation. It was *still* UNIX, as well as a NEXTSTEP and a Java system.
Solaris does not "provide only a UNIX environment", yet it's still a UNIX.
OK, so the many personalities and hereditary lines of OS X are so much more diverse and advanced than the addition of NEXTSTEP or Java (or X11 or GNOME) to Solaris, but the number of cool and completely non-UNIX technologies on OS X does not make the UNIX part go away.
You keep reading, "OS X is a UNIX" as "OS X is nothing more than a UNIX". The two statements are not equal. Can you spot the difference?
It evolved from Unix. It is, in many ways, compatible with Unix. It is not Unix.
At what point did OS X stop being a UNIX? Was it while it was NeXTstep? Was it during the transition from NEXTSTEP to OS X? Was it between one of the 6 public versions of OS X? Clearly, if OS X is *not* a UNIX, you can point out when exactly it went from UNIX to Not UNIX, in the hereditary line from NeXTstep to Mac OS X Tiger.
You bring up the other hereditary lines of OS X (Mac OS, Java, etc) but they are irrelevant--at some point, the UNIX part of OS X must have ceased to be part of the line from NeXTstep -> Tiger. So, when was that? Just point it out. If it's a sound claim, it'll completely disprove my position.
Human beings evolved from apes. Human beings share a lot of the same core biological features as apes. Human beings are not apes.
Actually, we *are* apes.