Mac OS X Leopard is Now Officially Unix 351
An anonymous reader writes "Mac OS X Leopard is now officially Unix, according to the Opengroup." I know everyone out there was really worried about this one. Welcome to the August news vacuum!
I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Funny)
If The Open Group is "making standards work" (TM), then who is Making Work Standard?
Well, Soviet Russia, of course!
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah that was my reaction. I checked on the site to see the list of other certified OS'. Here it is:
- Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers
- Fujitsu Limited: Solaris(TM) 10 Operating System on Fujitsu PRIMEPOWER® 64-bit SPARC® Based Platforms
- Hewlett-Packard Company: HP-UX 11i V3 Release B.11.31 or later on HP Integrity Servers
- IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.3 dated 7-2006 or later
- IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.2 dated 8-2004 or later with APARs: IY59610, IY60869, IY61405 with VAC 6.0.0.8 or later on pSeries CHRP systems
- Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System plus patch 118844-06 for X86 and on, on 64-bit X86 based systems
- Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit X86 based systems
- Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems
There is no Linux. The only BSD up there is OS X. Apparently even Unix isn't Unix. It looks to me like 'THE Open GROUP' is a PR firm for Sun and IBM.Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is Linux, it doesn't NEED to be UNIX.
Linux, BSD and Unix certification (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux is Linux, it doesn't NEED to be UNIX.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you aware that the Open Group Unix specifications [opengroup.org] go a lot further than POSIX?
Yes, which is why I made the distinction between merely being POSIX compliant and being Unix certified. The two have radically different scopes.
That said, my bit at the end about the day having dawned where POSIX might need a next pass was aimed at a very post-Unix world where the layer above POSIX that's reasonably standard across Unix-like OSes at this point involves things like networking tools, graphics and other things that were never part of POSIX.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks for the precision... (Score:5, Funny)
Or he is kept in isolation in a high security prison with a pristine, never installed Dual 4 Cores Xeon 32 Go RAM 10 Gb Ethernet card with a Ginormous(TM) 34" LCD screen Quad Nvidia 8800 GTX SLI and only a WinME cd with no Internet access and VGA drivers.
Well, to keep things short he suffers. A lot.
Re:Thanks for the precision... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Informative)
A distribution of Linux could apply for certification, but the certification would only be valid for the exact version; update the kernel, any of the GNU utilities, etc, and it would stop being UNIX(TM) (although, for PR purposes, if FooLinux 10 is UNIX, then people probably won't care that FooLinux 10.0.1 hasn't been certified).
The certification is more than just PR, however. Any product that has the certification is guaranteed to comply with the SUS spec. This means any software written to the specification will work. I'm glad OS X is getting it, since there are a few gaps in the implementation on 10.4 that should have been plugged before they got this. I've written code to the SUS spec before, and had it work flawlessly on Solaris but have minor issues on FreeBSD, Linux, and OS X. The more operating systems that conform to SUS, the easier it is to write cross-platform code. Whether they get the certification is irrelevant, to a degree.
GNU (Score:5, Funny)
It's right there in the name. GNU's Not Unix.
Stallman's head would probably explode if they certified a GNU/Linux system as Unix!
hmmm....
Re:GNU (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GNU (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GNU (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Funny)
Now we know they're joking. When did IBM port AIX to UNIX? :)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Interesting)
so when I install Mac OS 10.5 on my powerbook, it is not Unix?
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I know this... (Score:5, Funny)
Linux has no hope, because this is UNIX...
Thank goodness! (Score:5, Funny)
(hooray for betas
Re:Thank goodness! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank goodness! (Score:4, Interesting)
OSX Terminal is one of the few terminal programs I've used on any OS that dynamically re-wraps existing text in a window if you resize the window. That is very handy. OSX Terminal is otherwise a fairly minimal setup, but it is reliable. I sometimes wish it had tabs, but I generally use screen in any case for session portability, so it's not super critical to me to have elaborate terminal management via the GUI.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nice, my capthca is "quieted" - a sign of things that are about to happen to me?
Re:Thank goodness! (Score:4, Informative)
-andy
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, on a hajj to Cupertino, I met some of the people on the Terminal.app team, first time I ever encountered terminal geeks. They knew more about the vagaries of escape codes, character sets, and still managed to make term.app one of the slickest cocoa apps around. Plus it integrates nicely with applescript/automator, so with a scri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Terminal.app is a abomination of a UNIX Terminal. It....well....it SUCKS! Yeah it's nice that it's there, but call me crazy....when I type Ctrl-D it should CLOSE the terminal window! Not show process is complete and THEN make you close the terminal. That's just one gripe. It's a horrible terminal.
Oh come on .... I actually like the ^D + CMD+W to close the window. I like the CMD+ARROWKEYS to navigate between windows in terminal. I do think their default TERM setting is annoying, but that's easily correctable and of course I have to set the colors to black & green and set the window size bigger.
I like that when you resize the windows bigger the text will automatically resize correctly to the new width without a bunch of broken up lines.
I dunno, I've been exclusively using unix systems the last
It passed the certification (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you must have a "certified Unix!!1!" system for some reason, then you must buy a new Apple. Remember, they'd still much rather sell you a new system than a copy of OS X for an old iMac. They wouldn't have a whole lot to gain by making that certification backward-compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It passed the certification (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It passed the certification (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It passed the certification (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Few, if any, as far as I know; the tests are a large pile of code you run on your system, and you pass or fail. There's a licensing fee for the UNIX trademark, and you presumably end up signing a contract to license the trademark.
Because Linux didn't exist at the time NeXT was founded, OS X is a NEXTSTEP descendant, and it presumably wasn't considered w
Hrrrrm. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Saints preserve us (Score:5, Funny)
Peter
Re:Saints preserve us (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
As of 10.5, OS X is UNIX. Linux is "UNIX-like".
Re:No Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The certification process is expensive. Very expensive. A Linux distro could, in fact, be certified, but no one has been interested in spending that much money to get one certified. It would take a lot of money, and what's it worth, really?
It would take a lot of money.....? Hey, yo! Mark Shuttleworth! You're a billionaire, right? You want Ubuntu to be UNIX-certified, right?
Is it worth it? (Score:2)
Microsoft has a POSIX subsystem... it's never really been useful, but for bidding on projects where one of the requirements is POSIX c
Money is taken away from the idiots (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Money is taken away from the idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about the 'name' it's about what the certificate represents: Compliance with a specified set of tests.
That's actually very valuable and it isn't just the name, because it means that if you have an application that relies on the functionality proven by those tests, then you're good.
That's the whole point of standards and standardizing bodies. You want a gallon to be a gallon (US or UK, just be consistent!), a kilogram to be a kilogram, a UNIX to be a UNIX. Testing isn't free, so instead of relying on volunteers to do testing it looks like IBM, Apple, Sun, HP, and Fujitsu paid some guys calling themselves the Open Group to do some verification and certify that some standards are met. I don't see a lot of controversy there.
Ask RMS? (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps this lets the gov't buy Macs? (Score:2, Insightful)
But it doesn't really do hard links? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Do hard links work on HFS+? Yes. So what's it matter how they are implemented?
Now we know what Apple will announce next Tuesday (Score:2)
If it meant anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
My guess is very little (as the summary acknowledges, to be fair). Though I can't say it was pointless for Apple to get the certification, if only because it's a selling point to ageing senior managers who vaguely remember when "Unix" actually meant something (and think it still does). Since the Apple and Mac names aren't particularly associated with the Enterprise/Server market, the Unix brand gives them a "serious" selling point.
Sure, they could have pointed out the "BSD" underpinnings, and any real expert would know what they meant. But for the management types, "Unix" is probably still the name to go for.
Linux meanwhile *is* spiritually just as much "Unix" as any of the "official" licensees... but it has enough brand recognition in its own right anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that MacOS X is certified UNIX, it might change some people's perception of the OS.
OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (Score:5, Interesting)
When I bought a Mac (because I wanted something better than Windows), I thought a nice side effect was I would have to learn more about UNIX. I bought a copy of "Learning UNIX for Mac OS X Tiger" and read through most of it. And I'm now very comfortable using the command line for simple things like FTPing, changing file permissions, and modifying simple text files (although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me).
But you know what? I really don't ever need to "know" that Mac OS X is UNIX. More so than any LINUX or Solaris box I've ever used, the UNIXness of Mac OS X is very nicely hidden -- actually, not "hidden", it's just that since Mac OS X has such a nice UI, and such great apps, I never really need to care about the UNIX underpinnings.
It's quite nice to be able to have your nice UNIX cake, and be able to eat your nice GUI cake too.
Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (Score:5, Funny)
Pico (Score:5, Funny)
The trick is to write a set of macros that implement Pico in EMACS. Then you're safe.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me)
So first - I agree with what the other fella said. You don't go around admitting things like that. If you really want to dis vi - start using emacs, and proclaim it to the world (wear a helmet).
Speaking as a vi user; it's not black magic. It is a little dark arts, though yes.
For black magic, you want to start doing your text editing with awk.
To really cross over to the other side, do everything in perl.
That's not a text-editor... (Score:3)
Nothing else comes close. Or wants to.
Simon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice try, I won't say anything about the GUI and it's monolithic apps as that can be quite subjective, but the low profile of OSXs text UI is due, in part, to their suckage. This might not be visible to someone who only plays with chmod, pico, and ftp (btw, ftp is bad(tm), use ssh instead).
For those who use
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This stuff doesn't have to happen at the expense of the GUI either. My impression has been that Terminal.app is more of an accident than an accepted member of the operating system.
bash is the default shell as of Tiger. Your impressions seemed to be based off of Panther.
/etc or /bin, for example). Mac-specific stuff is simply stored in a different (non-unix) set of directories than you're used to.
OS X also has standard directory locations. The unix stuff even sits in standard unix directories (peek into
I spend much of my day, every day, in Terminal.app. Works great for me. Love the fact that you can resize the window and long lines reflow themselves. What, exactly, do yo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
bash has been default since at least Tiger, and I believe Jaguar as well, not that it matters. Choice of a default shell is hardly an advantage, just a difference. I happily used tcsh as my default (interactive) shell for many years, on SunOS and Solaris.
OS X has standard directories too, just longer ones for their own (and it still has /bin /etc for unix-only apps). Again, not an advantage, just a difference.
GNU (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GNU (Score:4, Funny)
Math:
GNU/Linux = !Unix/Linux
so, (hypothetically) if Linux = Unix, then GNU/Linux = !Unix/Unix
We can't let Unix be 0, because then there would be no Unix, and we can't have that.
So, let Unix = !0.
now, !Unix/Unix = !(!0)/!0
this simplifies to 0/!0
since 0 over any non-0 is 0
we get GNU/Linux = 0. Now, GNU/Linux is not 0 for the same reason Unix isn't 0. (it's just to awesome to not exist) So, therefore, Linux != Unix. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Oblig. (Score:3, Funny)
Why this is significant (but not earth-shattering) (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's part of the argument that there are viable -standards-based- alternatives to Windows. As a long-time open systems advocate (and someone who worked on POSIX standard), I think this is A Very Good Thing for the industry as a whole, and I'd hope Linux advocates would also see this as progress. Note that Linux does have some known inconsistencies with the POSIX standard, so this is something OS X did that Linux has not achieved.
2. I know (private communications) that there were problems between Apple and Open Group on this for a long time. Some of these were technical problems, areas where apparently Apple didn't conform to the standard. Now those problems have been fixed.
The Linux community needs to work with Open Group and IEEE and ISO to get Linux into conformance (and I think changes to the POSIX standards could well be appropriate here. Presumably we've learned some things over the last 15 years in specifying and implementing the Unix interface.)
3. Open Group testing does have some value, it has been known to find bugs in vendor implementations.
So the fact that OS X provides a complete Unix implementation is hardly earth-shattering. But at least it's a commitment by Apple to pay for the certification, and a recognition that Apple has jumped through both technical and managerial/business hoops.
Now Apple needs to work through the FIPS/Common Criteria certifications for IA.
dave
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So why didn't they get 10.4 certified back when they were about to release it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The two simplest reasons are that 1) it wasn't ready yet, or 2) there wasn't a demand for it. It seems possible that some large customer needed the "certified Unix!" checkoff for purchasing authorization and this makes it compliant.
Again, you have to start sometime. Apparently Apple felt that this was that time.
Correct answers (Score:5, Informative)
No.
No.
Well, if you want certification, you gotta start sometime. I seem to remember the Open Group getting into a little tussle with Apple over Apple's use of the UNIX trademark in its advertisements. The Open Group owns the name UNIX, so you don't get it to call it UNIX unless the Open Group says so. I think this may be part of the arrangement they entered into....
Anyway, the process is expensive. So expensive that none of the *BSDs are certified, no Linux, of course, is certified (yes, a Linux distro could be), etc.
The members of the UNIX club are few: IBM, HP, Sun, NEC, The SCO Group, and a few others.
How expensive is it? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, the process is expensive. So expensive that none of the *BSDs are certified, no Linux, of course, is certified (yes, a Linux distro could be), etc.
I keep hearing that but I have never actually seen any concrete figures, just various claims ranging from $40.000 or so and up to $500.000 total cost to get certification. I'm assuming that doesn't include the annual license fee for using the brand. So just out of curiosity does anybody have an idea of exactly how expensive getting a Unix 03 certification really is? If the previously cited figures are true the cost of a Unix 03 Cert is peanuts for a company like Apple. If this is really all about getting
Re:How expensive is it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dumb questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dumb questions (Score:5, Insightful)
dave
Whos on First (Score:3, Funny)
No, Next folded and Jobs came over to Apple. Pixar on third.
Re:GNU incompatability (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But don't you wish it were?
Official Unixes: OSX, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, and... GNU's Not Unix.
You see, it's funny because it *says* that it's not Unix, but it really *would* be unix. ha ha ha! I kill me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I regard the drones who buy a Dell machine with Vista as a good deal more trance-like than somebody "thinking different".
Peter
Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (Score:5, Funny)
At least, that was what was going through my head when my eyes were glossed over and I was trudging to the car with my shiny 15" MacBook Pro in my hand. But hey, can I really call myself an American if I don't have several thousand dollars worth of credit card debt spent on totally expendable consumer electronic devices? I don't think so!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you see I bought a used dual core G5. I know, I know, how DARE I buy used, but worse, it's not even Intel based.
The other mac users in my neighborhood look at me with disgust. I run 10.4, use a forbidden G5 processor and do not want to upgrade to the Intel mac platform. I am shunned, looked down upon and they even throw their half eaten croissants with caviar on them at me and spew insults like "OBSOLETE LOVER!" or "GET AN INT
Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (Score:5, Interesting)
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to buy an Apple and not have the Apple-chip installed into your brain. I'm living proof. I have a Mac mini which I bought as a family computer for a number of reasons; I wanted a good, usable OS, I couldn't get good CUPS/SANE support for my printer/scanner on Linux, and I wanted the iLife suite to make videos of the pups. The form factor is beautiful, and it's quiet - working within Mrs. Otter's ban on loud, whirring machines in the family room. It wasn't an impulse purchase by any stretch of the imagination (I weighed the decision for about a year). So I've got a Mac - and if that Mac goes, I'd replace it with another because I want those features.
That being said, I run a Slackware server, I have an Ubuntu desktop in my study. I run Kubuntu at work (a non-supported OS). I've even got a Windows machine, thought it stays powered down for months at a time except when I want to check something. I'm planning on a laptop purchase...a Dell with Ubuntu if they can get it together in Canada.
I can get the same specs as a souped up powerbook for about a grand less at Dell. Grandpa Otter's MacBook started flaking out recently, and I'd service the thing if it wasn't Fort Knox to get in. I know what Apple's strengths are, and I know what their weaknesses are, and I've not bought into a cult because they build stuff that does what I want. iLife is a good suite, but iMovie can be kinda unstable. Front Row is cool, but the interface is a bit sparse, and can be unwieldy if you have a lot of media (I do). The price of their computers is very high, and they tend to lag behind in terms of hardware specs. You can't really customize (you can only upgrade), and nothing ever goes on sale. The design of the machines are beautiful. An extra $150 to have it black??? The fact that they try and keep you out of them is very frustrating to a hobbyist like me. OSX is a good OS that's easy to use. I can't believe it's taking them until Leopard to get multiple friggin' desktops. Everything "just works" on a Mac...yeah, except the new headset I bought because the audio-in jack won't work with an unpowered microphone.
See? Apple computer, no Apple chip in the head. It is possible.
You should think differently.
Re: (Score:2)
And from all I've heard, it's not a bad OS at all, so having yet another real UNIX is creating even more resistance to Windows in the server space. Real standards go a long way. It would be nice to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Philosophy and technical details? Do tell. You obviously given it more though than this pfffft "Open Group" mob....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Emulate isn't the right word, either, since the code is native and implemented in an API over the NT kernel. To say this is emulation is like saying WINE is Windows emulation.
I find the tools more useful than the rest of it. I'll take grep over Windows search any day.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Open Group testing is expensive, but I hardly count it as 'extortion'. What's the impact if you don't get their certification? You can't call yourself "Unix". BFD. OpenGroup does require you to pay to implement truth in advertising. (On the other hand, if you think OpenGroup Unix conformance testing is expensive, go check out medical device/drug costs, or even the cost to a University for accreditation...)
Back to the questions raised by the previous