Your quibble seems pointless. Yes, a passport is how you demonstrate that you're a citizen. Without a passport, there's no proof that you're a citizen. If you're not a citizen, you can't come in without a visa.
Well, really it doesn't. The act only seeks to establish federal guidelines for what kinds of ID the states can issue. The act won't establish a bureau of federal licenses or anything like that. It just sets the standards and mandates that the states follow.
It's called an "unfunded mandate," and to respond to that other poster out there someplace, no, it's no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than federal highway safety laws are.
Given that he's wrong in his very first sentence, would you take a pass at explaining why I should continue reading?
The US is not getting a national ID card. Rather, the federal government is, if this bill becomes law as expected, going to establish a set of standards that all state-issued IDs must meet.
I'm sure Schneier is a very smart guy. But seeing as how he gets the most basic fact totally wrong, why should I read the rest of what he wrote?
Your comment was appalling. "Have you ever met one?" That's how you deal with terrorism?
It's that kind of thinking that leads to collapsing buildings, my friend.
There are two extremes here. On one extreme, there's the "fingerprint everybody and monitor everything all the time" position. At the other, there's the "have you ever met one?" position. Both of these positions are bad and wrong.
A passport is required to re-enter the United States, even if the place to which you're going doesn't require you to show one.
Last May, I went to a family friend's house on a small private island off the Florida Keys for Memorial Day. (The owner went to boarding school with my Dad, became a banker, grew to be super-rich, all years before I was born.) Because the island was outside US territorial waters, I had to show my passport at airport customs to get back in, even though the entire island where we went was privately owned.
Passports are required by the United States when a US citizen crosses the border inbound, no matter where you're coming from.
This has been changed in Tiger. In versions of Mac OS X prior to version 10.4, command-line mounts wouldn't show up in the Finder unless the disk arbitration service were manually refresh by typing "disktool -r" at the command line.
We've changed the way filesystem events are propagated through the system in Tiger, so this is no longer necessary. Command-line mounts work just like Finder mounts now.
Actually what the spinning cursor icon means is that the program that has focus has events waiting to be processed by the run loop. That cursor appears automatically when an event waits for longer than a hard-coded threshold... I think it's three seconds, but I doubt myself and I don't feel like looking it up right now. It would usually happen when the process was waiting for a kernel lock for some reason, usually disk or network I/O. The incidence in Tiger should drop dramatically thanks to finer-grained kernel locking.
Admittedly this is an esoteric implementation detail. It's not really meant to communicate anything to the user other than "I'm waiting."
If you stripped out init, how come 'ps 1' shows me/sbin/init?
Because you're behind the curve. Whatever version of Mac OS X you're looking at pre-dates version 10.4.
The system boots in Unix, it runs init, it runs various rc scripts which start various services which then become the processes that present a graphical user interface.
Everything you said here is wrong. The system boots xnu, the Mac OS X kernel, and the kernel runs launchd. There are no rc scripts.
It has plenty of stuff in/etc.
There is, in fact, no/etc directory on Mac OS X. There is a/private/etc that holds files related to Unix backwards compatibility.
It uses shell scripts and Perl scripts.
So does Windows, for that matter. That criterion is obviously meaningless.
It Is a Unix-like system in every way.
Only if you get practically every fact about the system wrong, evidently.
OSX, for the most part, is a set of processes and libraries, conventions and file-system layouts, with a Unix-like kernel at the heart of it.
Mac OS X is a set of processes and libraries with a Unix compatibility environment included as one small part of it. The Unix environment -- a C-language runtime supporting the various POSIX APIs -- exists alongside the Mac OS Classic virtual machine, the Core Foundation runtime, the Carbon runtime, the Cocoa Objective-C runtime and the Java runtime. Unix compatibility is just one slice of Mac OS X.
If you leave the Unix libraries and config files and executables, and take away the OSX-specific stuff, you're left with a system that is pretty much Unix.
If you leave our implementation of Unix interfaces and take away Mac OS Classic, Core Foundation, Carbon, Cocoa and Java, you're left with Darwin, which you can download for free in source or binary form.
Get it? Darwin? Evolution? Mac OS X evolved from Unix. It is not Unix.
How much of OSX is implemented in the kernel and how much is implemented in shared libraries?
That question has no meaning. None of Mac OS X is "implemented in the kernel." The kernel is just a program.
How many non-Unix non-Mach (i.e. OSX-specific) system calls are there?
Countless thousands. There are seventy-three high-level frameworks in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, including such monsters as Core Foundation, AppKit, Foundation, Core Audio, Core Data, IOKit, QTKit, Core Services, Quartz and Directory Service. Each of these frameworks contains hundreds or thousands of function calls or Objective-C selectors.
How much of the system runs directly under Mach instead of running as a Unix process?
Again, a meaningless question. Just because Mac OS X adopted the Unix process model doesn't mean anything at all on a Mac is a "Unix process." That's like saying anybody who speaks French is French.
I don't understand why you have such a thing about insisting that what is running on a Mac running OSX isn't "Unix-like", when it clearly is.
I never said Mac OS X doesn't resemble Unix. I have said repeatedly -- so many times now that I've lost count -- that Mac OS X has a complete Unix compatibility environment. It is evolved from Unix, derived from Unix, based in no small part on Unix. But Mac OS X is not Unix. It's far, far more than just that.
Linux is NOT a "file-by-file" clone of Unix.
Of course it is. Programs like init, rc, cron, inetd and of course all the shells and utilities are file-by-file copies of Unix, duplicating all the good stuff but also methodically and deliberately duplicating all the bad stuff too.
If I boot Linux on a root file system that has...
Sorry, but I totally glazed over here. What you described is so close to my idea of navel-gazing hobbyist hell that I just couldn't handle reading it. I skipped to th
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.
And frankly anybody who could make the statement, "Actually, we *are* apes" with a straight face is living in a world so far removed from our own that communication is neither possible nor desirable.
Because Unix sucks. Seriously, Unix is just terrible in a lot of big, important ways. We've ripped out some of the more awful parts of Unix --the user interface, the device-driver model, the baffling mish-mash of overlapping services, the complete lack of things that in the 21st century are fundamental necessities --and replaced them with new innovations.
Saying "Mac OS X is Unix" is tantamount to saying that Mac OS X has all of the advantages and massive liabilities of Unix.
Mac OS X is not Unix. Mac OS X is more advanced than Unix. It has more features and capabilities than Unix. And our opinion is that it's a heck of a lot better than Unix.
If you have an alternative explanation for the clear ice lines in spectrographic data on studies of almost every body in the outer solar system and in the universe as a whole, by all means, please state it.
We can start with "there's no such thing as an ice line." What you're referring to is the water absorption line, which indicates nothing more than the presence of water molecules. A million tons of ice, or just molecular water in the outer fringes of the atmospheres in question? Nobody knows. Nobody has any way of knowing.
All of our knowlege of reality is based on "the best evidence available"
No. Our hypotheses about reality are based on evidence. They don't become knowledge until they're tested. An implication drawn from an untested observation isn't knowledge. It's rumor.
Not to mention that the material behaves like ice
Just what material are you referring to here? We're talking about spectrographic analyses. All we have is light.
Sorry, but feature requests consisting solely of the phrase "It's annoying" tend to get rejected pretty quick. And the developers tend to laugh really hard as they reject them.
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.
About 90% of your post implies (or outright asserts) that that's my claim. It's not.
"Mac OS X is Unix" is your claim, is it not?
OS X *is* a Mac OS Classic (when a full Classic system is included).
Sigh. Of course it is not. Now you're just being ridiculous.
You could list a billion ways in which OS X is *not* UNIX, but that won't make the ways that it *is* UNIX vanish.
Actually I'm pretty cure that the myriad ways in which Mac OS X is not Unix all lead to a fairly solid conclusion: Mac OS X is not Unix. It is based on Unix. It evolved from Unix. It is, in many ways, compatible with Unix. It is not Unix.
Human beings evolved from apes. Human beings share a lot of the same core biological features as apes. Human beings are not apes.
It would be just fantastically awesome if you'd stop trying to say otherwise. Because seriously, this is getting tiresome.
I think the point you're missing is that just because something is different doesn't mean it's hard. It can be different and better. We think iTunes is different and better.
You're free to disagree, but it's dumb to criticize iTunes solely on the basis that it's different.
Exactly...but the vast majority of Mac users never see or use it. The vast majority of Mac applications do not make library calls into it. The vast majority of Mac services are not implemented through it.
Yes, we do indeed provide a rich Unix backwards-compatibility environment. But concluding therefore that Mac OS X is merely Unix is not justified by the facts.
True, but it's not yet a whole new species.
Unix software can be trivially ported to the Mac, but Mac software cannot be ported back to Unix at all without massive rewrites. I'd say that satisfies the metaphorical constraints of calling Mac OS X a "whole new species."
In your opinion, which version of NeXTstep or OS X did that changeover take place?
You're committing the same error in reasoning again by assuming that Mac OS X is a direct descendent of NEXTSTEP. It isn't. It's only about 15% NEXTSTEP. I think I wrote elsewhere that Mac OS X was equal parts NEXTSTEP and Mac OS, but that was really an oversimplification.
There are six complete environments in Mac OS X. There's the Unix environment which you continue to harp on. There's the Mac OS Classic environment which exists as a sort of virtual machine. There's the Carbon environment which is an evolution of Mac OS Classic. There's the Cocoa environment which is an evolution of NEXTSTEP. There's the Core Foundation environment which underlies them both and provides a more low-level environment than either. And finally there's the Java runtime environment.
It's no more accurate to say that Mac OS X is Unix than it is to say that it's NEXTSTEP or that it's Mac OS Classic or that it's pure Java. It incorporates all of these things.
OS X still sits atop, astride and astraddle UNIX.
Except there's basically no Unix left but for some low-level design patterns like the process and signal models, libSystem and assorted compatibility libraries and the command-line and X11 environments. The kernel is not Unix. The device-driver system is IOKit, which is not even tangentially related to Unix. System startup has been completely gutted and replaced with launchd, which is not Unix. The local directory services have been gutted and replaced with NetInfo/Open Directory, which are not Unix. The whole family of resolvers has been gutted and replaced by lookupd and that's not Unix.
The list goes on and on.
OS X directly depends non-trivially on some of OS X's UNIX parts (the kernel, fsck, networking, some filesystem features, etc).
But none of those things are actually Unix! We have our own kernel, what you call "fsck" resembles the Unix utility in name only, we have our own networking stack (which implements Bonjour, which is not part of Unix), we have our own filesystem...and so on and so on.
Seriously, you're looking at elements of Mac OS X' heritage and claiming that Mac OS X is the thing from which it evolved. That's leading you to all sorts of incorrect conclusions.
I think the point you're missing here is that Apple is more about doing things well than conforming to a standard.
When doing something well means conforming to a standard -- like adopting standard key commands for copy and paste, or putting the Quit menu item in the same place every time --then it's good to conform to standards.
But when the standard itself sucks, break it.
A foolish consistency, Emerson once said, is the hobgoblin of little minds. It's good to be consistent, as long as you're not being foolishly consistent.
(By the way, you repeatedly misspelled "fuck." We're grown-ups here. You can say what you mean.)
Avie wouldn't have nearly the patience required to deal with the kind of stuff I get when I post on here. He would have started just spewing profanity nonstop a long time ago.
Consider what happens when viruses attack biological organisms.
No, because all human beings have approximately equivalent immune systems. All human beings are approximately equal when it comes to their response to disease.
All computers are not equal when it comes to their response to malicious programs.
It'd be like comparing the response of a human being to Epstein-Barr to the response of, say, a car.
Giant title in front of the movie "Starship Troopers": "Based on the novel by Robert Heinlein."
Every word has meaning, you know. I'd ask you to put as much energy into deciphering the "Based on" as you have on the "Unix."
In any case, if I make an earring out of gold, it might be called an earring, but it's also still gold.
But we didn't make Mac OS X out of Unix. We made it out of equal parts Mac OS and NEXTSTEP, and NEXTSTEP was made up of about 30% Unix. So to steal your analogy, it's like we made a car and then put a little gold trim around the face of the clock. The car is not made out of gold.
if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck.
But that's just the thing, you see. Mac OS X doesn't just walk like a duck. It's got a set of duck-compatibility features, but it also flies around in spaceships thwarting Marvin the Martian and gets into arguments about whether or not it's wabbit season.
The resemblance between Mac OS X and Unix is exactly like the resemblance between Daffy and that frozen Long Island Pekin in your freezer: superficial.
Slashdot Mirror
Your quibble seems pointless. Yes, a passport is how you demonstrate that you're a citizen. Without a passport, there's no proof that you're a citizen. If you're not a citizen, you can't come in without a visa.
I fail to see your point here.
Well, really it doesn't. The act only seeks to establish federal guidelines for what kinds of ID the states can issue. The act won't establish a bureau of federal licenses or anything like that. It just sets the standards and mandates that the states follow.
It's called an "unfunded mandate," and to respond to that other poster out there someplace, no, it's no more a violation of the 10th Amendment than federal highway safety laws are.
Given that he's wrong in his very first sentence, would you take a pass at explaining why I should continue reading?
The US is not getting a national ID card. Rather, the federal government is, if this bill becomes law as expected, going to establish a set of standards that all state-issued IDs must meet.
I'm sure Schneier is a very smart guy. But seeing as how he gets the most basic fact totally wrong, why should I read the rest of what he wrote?
Your comment was appalling. "Have you ever met one?" That's how you deal with terrorism?
It's that kind of thinking that leads to collapsing buildings, my friend.
There are two extremes here. On one extreme, there's the "fingerprint everybody and monitor everything all the time" position. At the other, there's the "have you ever met one?" position. Both of these positions are bad and wrong.
A passport is required to re-enter the United States, even if the place to which you're going doesn't require you to show one.
Last May, I went to a family friend's house on a small private island off the Florida Keys for Memorial Day. (The owner went to boarding school with my Dad, became a banker, grew to be super-rich, all years before I was born.) Because the island was outside US territorial waters, I had to show my passport at airport customs to get back in, even though the entire island where we went was privately owned.
Passports are required by the United States when a US citizen crosses the border inbound, no matter where you're coming from.
The Greek poet? I don't get the joke.
This has been changed in Tiger. In versions of Mac OS X prior to version 10.4, command-line mounts wouldn't show up in the Finder unless the disk arbitration service were manually refresh by typing "disktool -r" at the command line.
We've changed the way filesystem events are propagated through the system in Tiger, so this is no longer necessary. Command-line mounts work just like Finder mounts now.
Actually what the spinning cursor icon means is that the program that has focus has events waiting to be processed by the run loop. That cursor appears automatically when an event waits for longer than a hard-coded threshold ... I think it's three seconds, but I doubt myself and I don't feel like looking it up right now. It would usually happen when the process was waiting for a kernel lock for some reason, usually disk or network I/O. The incidence in Tiger should drop dramatically thanks to finer-grained kernel locking.
Admittedly this is an esoteric implementation detail. It's not really meant to communicate anything to the user other than "I'm waiting."
If you stripped out init, how come 'ps 1' shows me /sbin/init?
/etc.
/etc directory on Mac OS X. There is a /private/etc that holds files related to Unix backwards compatibility.
...
Because you're behind the curve. Whatever version of Mac OS X you're looking at pre-dates version 10.4.
The system boots in Unix, it runs init, it runs various rc scripts which start various services which then become the processes that present a graphical user interface.
Everything you said here is wrong. The system boots xnu, the Mac OS X kernel, and the kernel runs launchd. There are no rc scripts.
It has plenty of stuff in
There is, in fact, no
It uses shell scripts and Perl scripts.
So does Windows, for that matter. That criterion is obviously meaningless.
It Is a Unix-like system in every way.
Only if you get practically every fact about the system wrong, evidently.
OSX, for the most part, is a set of processes and libraries, conventions and file-system layouts, with a Unix-like kernel at the heart of it.
Mac OS X is a set of processes and libraries with a Unix compatibility environment included as one small part of it. The Unix environment -- a C-language runtime supporting the various POSIX APIs -- exists alongside the Mac OS Classic virtual machine, the Core Foundation runtime, the Carbon runtime, the Cocoa Objective-C runtime and the Java runtime. Unix compatibility is just one slice of Mac OS X.
If you leave the Unix libraries and config files and executables, and take away the OSX-specific stuff, you're left with a system that is pretty much Unix.
If you leave our implementation of Unix interfaces and take away Mac OS Classic, Core Foundation, Carbon, Cocoa and Java, you're left with Darwin, which you can download for free in source or binary form.
Get it? Darwin? Evolution? Mac OS X evolved from Unix. It is not Unix.
How much of OSX is implemented in the kernel and how much is implemented in shared libraries?
That question has no meaning. None of Mac OS X is "implemented in the kernel." The kernel is just a program.
How many non-Unix non-Mach (i.e. OSX-specific) system calls are there?
Countless thousands. There are seventy-three high-level frameworks in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, including such monsters as Core Foundation, AppKit, Foundation, Core Audio, Core Data, IOKit, QTKit, Core Services, Quartz and Directory Service. Each of these frameworks contains hundreds or thousands of function calls or Objective-C selectors.
How much of the system runs directly under Mach instead of running as a Unix process?
Again, a meaningless question. Just because Mac OS X adopted the Unix process model doesn't mean anything at all on a Mac is a "Unix process." That's like saying anybody who speaks French is French.
I don't understand why you have such a thing about insisting that what is running on a Mac running OSX isn't "Unix-like", when it clearly is.
I never said Mac OS X doesn't resemble Unix. I have said repeatedly -- so many times now that I've lost count -- that Mac OS X has a complete Unix compatibility environment. It is evolved from Unix, derived from Unix, based in no small part on Unix. But Mac OS X is not Unix. It's far, far more than just that.
Linux is NOT a "file-by-file" clone of Unix.
Of course it is. Programs like init, rc, cron, inetd and of course all the shells and utilities are file-by-file copies of Unix, duplicating all the good stuff but also methodically and deliberately duplicating all the bad stuff too.
If I boot Linux on a root file system that has
Sorry, but I totally glazed over here. What you described is so close to my idea of navel-gazing hobbyist hell that I just couldn't handle reading it. I skipped to th
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.
And frankly anybody who could make the statement, "Actually, we *are* apes" with a straight face is living in a world so far removed from our own that communication is neither possible nor desirable.
Short version: You are completely off your nut.
I'm not sure why you would say it's "not Unix".
Because Unix sucks. Seriously, Unix is just terrible in a lot of big, important ways. We've ripped out some of the more awful parts of Unix --the user interface, the device-driver model, the baffling mish-mash of overlapping services, the complete lack of things that in the 21st century are fundamental necessities --and replaced them with new innovations.
Saying "Mac OS X is Unix" is tantamount to saying that Mac OS X has all of the advantages and massive liabilities of Unix.
Mac OS X is not Unix. Mac OS X is more advanced than Unix. It has more features and capabilities than Unix. And our opinion is that it's a heck of a lot better than Unix.
If you have an alternative explanation for the clear ice lines in spectrographic data on studies of almost every body in the outer solar system and in the universe as a whole, by all means, please state it.
We can start with "there's no such thing as an ice line." What you're referring to is the water absorption line, which indicates nothing more than the presence of water molecules. A million tons of ice, or just molecular water in the outer fringes of the atmospheres in question? Nobody knows. Nobody has any way of knowing.
All of our knowlege of reality is based on "the best evidence available"
No. Our hypotheses about reality are based on evidence. They don't become knowledge until they're tested. An implication drawn from an untested observation isn't knowledge. It's rumor.
Not to mention that the material behaves like ice
Just what material are you referring to here? We're talking about spectrographic analyses. All we have is light.
You should settle down and marry this guy. You two would get along swimmingly.
I'm criticising it because it's annoying.
Sorry, but feature requests consisting solely of the phrase "It's annoying" tend to get rejected pretty quick. And the developers tend to laugh really hard as they reject them.
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.
About 90% of your post implies (or outright asserts) that that's my claim. It's not.
"Mac OS X is Unix" is your claim, is it not?
OS X *is* a Mac OS Classic (when a full Classic system is included).
Sigh. Of course it is not. Now you're just being ridiculous.
You could list a billion ways in which OS X is *not* UNIX, but that won't make the ways that it *is* UNIX vanish.
Actually I'm pretty cure that the myriad ways in which Mac OS X is not Unix all lead to a fairly solid conclusion: Mac OS X is not Unix. It is based on Unix. It evolved from Unix. It is, in many ways, compatible with Unix. It is not Unix.
Human beings evolved from apes. Human beings share a lot of the same core biological features as apes. Human beings are not apes.
It would be just fantastically awesome if you'd stop trying to say otherwise. Because seriously, this is getting tiresome.
I think the point you're missing is that just because something is different doesn't mean it's hard. It can be different and better. We think iTunes is different and better.
You're free to disagree, but it's dumb to criticize iTunes solely on the basis that it's different.
Should I have put the word "approximately" in all caps and bold-faced?
I swear, I have never seen a group of people more eager to hop on the tiniest irrelevancies and argue them like they're the end of the world.
So, it provides a complete UNIX environment
...but the vast majority of Mac users never see or use it. The vast majority of Mac applications do not make library calls into it. The vast majority of Mac services are not implemented through it.
...and so on and so on.
Exactly
Yes, we do indeed provide a rich Unix backwards-compatibility environment. But concluding therefore that Mac OS X is merely Unix is not justified by the facts.
True, but it's not yet a whole new species.
Unix software can be trivially ported to the Mac, but Mac software cannot be ported back to Unix at all without massive rewrites. I'd say that satisfies the metaphorical constraints of calling Mac OS X a "whole new species."
In your opinion, which version of NeXTstep or OS X did that changeover take place?
You're committing the same error in reasoning again by assuming that Mac OS X is a direct descendent of NEXTSTEP. It isn't. It's only about 15% NEXTSTEP. I think I wrote elsewhere that Mac OS X was equal parts NEXTSTEP and Mac OS, but that was really an oversimplification.
There are six complete environments in Mac OS X. There's the Unix environment which you continue to harp on. There's the Mac OS Classic environment which exists as a sort of virtual machine. There's the Carbon environment which is an evolution of Mac OS Classic. There's the Cocoa environment which is an evolution of NEXTSTEP. There's the Core Foundation environment which underlies them both and provides a more low-level environment than either. And finally there's the Java runtime environment.
It's no more accurate to say that Mac OS X is Unix than it is to say that it's NEXTSTEP or that it's Mac OS Classic or that it's pure Java. It incorporates all of these things.
OS X still sits atop, astride and astraddle UNIX.
Except there's basically no Unix left but for some low-level design patterns like the process and signal models, libSystem and assorted compatibility libraries and the command-line and X11 environments. The kernel is not Unix. The device-driver system is IOKit, which is not even tangentially related to Unix. System startup has been completely gutted and replaced with launchd, which is not Unix. The local directory services have been gutted and replaced with NetInfo/Open Directory, which are not Unix. The whole family of resolvers has been gutted and replaced by lookupd and that's not Unix.
The list goes on and on.
OS X directly depends non-trivially on some of OS X's UNIX parts (the kernel, fsck, networking, some filesystem features, etc).
But none of those things are actually Unix! We have our own kernel, what you call "fsck" resembles the Unix utility in name only, we have our own networking stack (which implements Bonjour, which is not part of Unix), we have our own filesystem
Seriously, you're looking at elements of Mac OS X' heritage and claiming that Mac OS X is the thing from which it evolved. That's leading you to all sorts of incorrect conclusions.
To be just the tiniest smidge more clear: "Zeroconf" is a specification. Bonjour (née Rendezvous) is an implementation.
Man, even I found this hilarious. Good job. :-D
I think the point you're missing here is that Apple is more about doing things well than conforming to a standard.
When doing something well means conforming to a standard -- like adopting standard key commands for copy and paste, or putting the Quit menu item in the same place every time --then it's good to conform to standards.
But when the standard itself sucks, break it.
A foolish consistency, Emerson once said, is the hobgoblin of little minds. It's good to be consistent, as long as you're not being foolishly consistent.
(By the way, you repeatedly misspelled "fuck." We're grown-ups here. You can say what you mean.)
Avie wouldn't have nearly the patience required to deal with the kind of stuff I get when I post on here. He would have started just spewing profanity nonstop a long time ago.
Consider what happens when viruses attack biological organisms.
No, because all human beings have approximately equivalent immune systems. All human beings are approximately equal when it comes to their response to disease.
All computers are not equal when it comes to their response to malicious programs.
It'd be like comparing the response of a human being to Epstein-Barr to the response of, say, a car.
Headline: "Based on UNIX"
Giant title in front of the movie "Starship Troopers": "Based on the novel by Robert Heinlein."
Every word has meaning, you know. I'd ask you to put as much energy into deciphering the "Based on" as you have on the "Unix."
In any case, if I make an earring out of gold, it might be called an earring, but it's also still gold.
But we didn't make Mac OS X out of Unix. We made it out of equal parts Mac OS and NEXTSTEP, and NEXTSTEP was made up of about 30% Unix. So to steal your analogy, it's like we made a car and then put a little gold trim around the face of the clock. The car is not made out of gold.
if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck.
But that's just the thing, you see. Mac OS X doesn't just walk like a duck. It's got a set of duck-compatibility features, but it also flies around in spaceships thwarting Marvin the Martian and gets into arguments about whether or not it's wabbit season.
The resemblance between Mac OS X and Unix is exactly like the resemblance between Daffy and that frozen Long Island Pekin in your freezer: superficial.
None of the stuff I mentioned is compiled into the kernel. Why would you jump to that conclusion?