Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Is Mac OS X real UNIX®? 183

Posted by Hemos from the what's-in-a-name? dept.
Adam Attarian writes "And do we really need to answer the question? Apparently so, because OSOpinion asked, and they got an answer. It's not a surprising answer, is Mac OS X's 'UNIX' core is Darwin, which is based on NeXT Step, which is based on some wacky derivitive of BSD, which in itself isn't a registered UNIX system (nor is Linux). Even with this, I'm not sure I know too many people who would directly compare Linux/BSD with standard UNIX Systems like Irix, Solaris, etc. The article is short and sweet, and provides some good links."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Mac OS X real UNIX®? More

Is Mac OS X real UNIX®?

Comments Filter:

  • Which reminds me of... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Linux being called "the DOS v2.2 of UNIXs". But for the Slashdot crowd, of course, Linux is the center of the world.

  • My experience (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    having used it since the day it came out: it is about as UNIX as it gets. Yes, I couldn't believe either that Apple would make sed and awk and all of those beauties standard (on a Mac!!) but they are there and they work just like they should.

  • Re:UNIX is just a label (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I could care less if it has a BSD core, so long as I can compile a GNU proogie on it and it'll work with no hidden tricks, hooks, or extensions.

    Man, you're scarin' me. What the hell is a "GNU proogie"? It sounds like a sex act Richard Stallman would engage in. The thought of that is enough to give me nightmares.

  • This story is a troll (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:06PM (#242075)
    Why don't you just cut the BS and post a story like this: "Please Start A Flame War Here. It can involve Linux vs. BSD vs. Unix, Free Software vs. Commercial Software, Apple vs. Everyone Else, Open Standards vs. Closed Standards vs. No Standards, or pretty much any other subject you want to argue about. Let the games begin."
  • Yes, it is g++, but Apple renamed it c++. I made a symlink to cc, and named it gcc, so as not to confuse myself. I also compiled & installed bash. If you'd like, you can certainly install the official gcc package from ftp.gnu.org; it should compile and install just fine.

    --

  • Did you read the article, or just start posting? It should be pretty obvious from the article that UNIX is now a trademark of The Open Group. Mac OS X does not conform to the specifications for UNIX operating systems, as defined by The Open Group. Like Linux, it looks pretty much like UNIX (the main problem is that different UNIX-like OSes are different enough to require some adjustment to an application's code for each OS it runs on, and Mac OS X is new enough that this has in many cases not yet been done).

    Does it meet your requirements? Well, perhaps you think that should be the question, but that wasn't the question, now was it?

    --

  • I remember hearing that many years ago, The Coca-Cola Company would send a representative around to various eating establishments, and order a Coke, and if he was given a beverage other than Coca-Cola, the company would fine said establishment for abuse of their trademark.

    --

  • SysV is irrelevant - to obtain the UNIX branding, you have to meet TOG's Single UNIX Specification (version 1 for UNIX95, version 2 for UNIX98).

    BTW, The Open Group are now the sole proprietors and licensors of the "UNIX" mark.
    _____

    Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
  • Probably more like the (now ancient) A/UX operating system that Apple produced for the olden 680x0-based Macs. I believe that was a branded UNIX, back in its day.
    _____

    Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
  • Windows wouldn't have to drop any features to be UNIX certified. But it would have to add some, most notably hard links, which to this day are not possible with FAT or NTFS.
  • In this context, Windows NT could obtain UNIX status.

    Whyever not? NT is Posix compliant, and I believe with layerered products [mkssoftware.com] meets UNIX95 compliance too.

    Gee, you'd think stability would be a requirement of UNIX status

    Never used IRIX, have you? *ducks*

    No, seriously, stability has never been one of Unix' strengths. It's pretty easy to accidentally fork() bomb most of them even now, which can even lock the system administrator out. It's happened to me (a poorly coded Pro*C daemon which couldn't contact Oracle and went crazy, spawning child processes every time it attempted to connect again). An OS like VMS would simply contain such a process within quotas and leave the system fully usable.

    Getting back on topic, Apple's regular customers (i.e. Photoshop/DTP at one end, families and students at the other) don't really care about "official" Unix status. The only people who might are the US Government (who have FIPS, which includes POSIX, as a minimal specification).

    And don't drink so much coffee

    Kid, I've barely gotten started....

  • OSX is UNIX (Score:3)

    by pneuma_66 ( 1830 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:04PM (#242083)
    Right at the bottom of the article there is a link to:

    http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_unix/single_un ix_specification.html#platform [unix-systems.org]


    Which includes apple in their lists of vendors who support their UNIX specification.

    --
  • So if I ship a Linux without vi, ls, cp and X, but includes CDE, it's a UNIX?

    Who gives a fuck about this, anyway? MacOS X might not technically be a UNIX, but it's still a damn good operating system. Isn't it time for the Linux open source crowd to stop developing applications for X, and create a worthy replacement without the moronic solutions?

  • Then Windows 2000 is good enough! (Score:3)

    by Carrion ( 2315 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @04:47PM (#242085)
    Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
    (C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.

    C:\>./configure
    '.' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
    operable program or batch file.

    C:\>make; make install
    'make' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
    operable program or batch file.

    C:\>What do you know, I could actually type it!
  • > don't know how to do this... I'm not a >programmer, I'm a sysadmin.

    you really are a sad excuse for an SA if you cannot build & install bash on any unix system. With ./configure its childs play.

    I was building/installing GCC & bash on SCO back in 1994. How much linux knowledge do you really have, if any ?

    greg
  • odd, worked for me. Only problem I've had is end-of-line interpretation, which a quick pipe through tr fixed for me. Hell after that, vim compiled and ran perfectly. have you tried reinstalling sendmail? Oh, and it's (an admittedly broken version of) php4 that ships with OS X. nobody seems to know why it doesn't work.

    --

  • it is g++.

    Besides, did you read the note at the bottom of the lrand48 manpage? "These functions are declared obsolete by SVID 3, which states that rand(3) should be used instead."

    --

  • mandrake 8's does.

    try c++ -v: Reading specs from /usr/libexec/gcc/darwin/ppc/2.95.2/specs Apple Computer, Inc. version gcc-926, based on gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release)

    --

  • Wacky BSD? (Score:3)

    by Lally Singh ( 3427 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @12:56PM (#242090) Journal
    OS X comes back from NextStep, which comes from 386BSD. Just like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. Not so wacky, IMHO.

    --

  • Uh, no, cygwin ln does not do this, it just does not work.

    You can make symbolic links, but only programs that use the cygwin libraries works with them, which makes them pretty close to useless.

    PS: symbolic links would be much more useful (I'm sure there are many people who think hard links are a mistake in Unix design and symbolic links should be used everywhere), and could easily be implemented in NT (or any other system) without affecting the file system, as long as there is space for one bit that can be set on each file entry (to indicate that it is a symbolic link). The reason MicroSoft does not support them is obvious: it would instantly allow interoperability with Unix because you could eliminate the drive letters and make things like home directories appear in the "Unix" locations without breaking any Windows software. Actions like this, much more than "secret interfaces" (which are really the result of incompetent programmers who don't document what they are writing, than of some evil conspiracy) are a much clearer indication of how much MicroSoft wants to disallow interoperability. MSDOS had a simple symbolic link (the destination had to be a disk) called "assign", this was conspicuously deleted from newer versions of the system. From my own experience with writing portable software, the drive letters are a bigger hinderance to interoperation than anything having to do with GUI.

  • On my machine it creates a file that contains the text "link to blahblahblah" or something like that. It is not clear what program libraries obey this.

    This may be true on newer NT systems (this was NT4.0). However the lack of symbolic links (which should be trivial to implement compared to hard ones) is still glaringly obvious.

  • At least, that's how I see it. Basically, if the OS kernel supplies sufficient compatibility that more or less "standard" tools, shells, and apps will run with minimal or no modification (short of mods for processor families), then it's Unix. It doesn't matter if an OS can use the little Unix (tm) symbol or not.

    The other side of my view, though, is that if Unix compatibility is provided through a bolt-on layer (like the POSIX layer to Windows NT that was built just to get government check-offs), it ain't the real thing. So MacOS X is Unix - Aqua and the "Macishness" of X are bolted onto Unix, not the other way around.

    This standard of mine also makes Linux and all the BSDs = Unix, and I believe it would also cover the Hurd as well. And Apple's old A/UX (the 68K Unix they had for servers in the early '90s) qualifies - the Finder ran as a process under A/UX, not the other way around.

    Tenon's otherwise excellent MachTen, though, would not be a true Unix (despite being compatible with damn near everything) since it runs on top of MacOS (through 9.x) and doesn't own the machine. It's a bolt-on - just far better than Microsoft's kludge.

    To paraphrase the late Justice Potter Stewart, "I may not be able to define Unix, but I know it when I see it". And I see Unix when I look at MacOS X.


    - -Josh Turiel
  • Thanks for posting that MacSlash post. It's always good to see a little cross-Slash post lovin'

    Anyway, the gist of the MacSlash discussion is the Unix trademark is doled out if you meet the technical requirements AND pay a license fee to the trademark folks (the open group, me thinks). As far as I'm concerned, OS X is every bit as good a Unix as anything else I've used (solaris, linux, irix).

    Brought to you by a current OS X user.

  • Ugh... You can't figure out how to compile bash? (Score:3)

    by JerkBoB ( 7130 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @07:47PM (#242095)
    I don't know how to do this... I'm not a programmer, I'm a sysadmin.

    Two thoughts:

    1. How can you be a sysadmin without knowing how to compile software? How do you install software which isn't pre-packaged? Lord help us if "sysadmins" today are dependant on RH or Debian packages. That's almost as bad as NT "admins". Don't get me wrong... My preferred OS is Debian, but I wind up recompiling stuff fairly often because the packaged binaries don't do what I need them to.

    2. LEARN HOW TO DO IT! It's not as if you need a 4-year CS degree to run less README; ./configure; make install ... No one asked you to write your own shell from scratch.

    Sorry if this comes off as harsh... It's just troubling to hear someone call themselves a sysadmin when they openly admit to not being able to compile something as simple as bash. We all started somewhere, but most of us didn't have the chutzpah to call ourselves something we weren't.

    --
    A host is a host from coast to coast...

  • Technically there a different forms of Unix and there is Linux. The Unix systems include the BSDs since they evolved from now proprietary versions by slowly replacing all code with newly written code under BSD license.

    Linux however was written from scratch and does not share ancestry with Unix systems (and is in that way not a Unix, even if it looks and feels like one). Therefore I don't understand what place the arrow from Minix 1.0 to Linux 0.01 has in the diagram you linked. It was written and compiled on Minix, but I would not consider that as an "evolved from" which the arrow implies.

  • I'm probably a bit late with my reply but anyway...

    Linux was originally a Minix clone.

    Nope. Minix is an academic microkernel design, Linux is a monolithic kernel. These are already pretty fundamental differences.

    I don't know if Linus actually used any Minix code

    The Minix license was pretty strict. Linus would have been in a lot of legal trouble if Minix code were found in Linux back then.

    Minix filesystem support still exists in some dark corners of the source tree

    MS-DOS filesystem support also exists, but that doesn't mean Linux has anything to do with MS-DOS. Linux was written and compiled on Minix (before it became self-contained), so it's only logical that it had support for the Minix filesystem format (which should be pretty well documented, given the academic nature of Minix). ext, xiafs and ext2 were only introduced to overcome the limitations of the Minix filesystem.

    and Andy Tanenbaum knew about Linux quite early on

    Linus at some time announced the existence of Linux on the Minix newsgroup. This was what started the long "Linux is obsolete" thread which is archived in a number of places.

  • I think Jailbreakr's point is that interoperability
    doesn't come from acronyms. NT is or was able to use
    the POSIX label -- marginally -- but I'm pretty sure none
    of the free BSDs are. Which do you think will give you
    more trouble compiling and running common
    POSIX[-ish] applications?

    --
  • Dude, I'd fuckin' love to be able to ./configure, make and make install.,,

    But the linker that came on my OSX Dev Tools CD-ROM has let NOTHING past it. I tried compiling Postfix to replace sendmail, php4.0.5 to replace php 3.x and apache 1.3.19.

    As a result, my mail doesn't work anymore and apache doesn't work anymore.

    I was less than thrilled. Right now the ball is back in apple's court and I'm back to being a page surfer. I am pissed...
  • Linux, OS X, are both UNIX like. At the core of darwin (which is the core of OS X) is a BSD type kernel. Darwin probably uses the same commands as most UNIX systems so it is UNIX like if nothing else.

    The real question is does this really matter? OS X will provide the stability of UNIX as well as better multi tasking and protected memory just like BSD, Solaris, and other UNIX OSes.

    You can open up an terminal window in OS X and start issuing UNIX commands do you really care if people call it UNIX or not???

    I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
    Flame away, I have a hose!

  • Maybe Apple's legal department should take a page from the Open Group's. If it had been Apple at the helm, I am sure they would have sued themselves ten times over to keep the Unix stamp off of the OSX webpage.....

    Bryan R.
  • The memory requirements are a bit exaggerated for one. 128M is a practical amount of RAM for *any* Linux system where you plan on using KDE or GNOME. 64M just won't cut it. If you want a browser that takes little RAM, try Lynx. But just don't expect things like Netscape plugins (Flash, etc.) or even graphics.

    I used to be able to say Opera had low memory requirements, but Opera on Linux is a pig.
  • There is actually standards test put forth by the Open Group. It tells you what is Unix and what isn't.

    Many commercial Unixes that weren't in fact derived from the *original* AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX (the original determination for what is UNIX and what is not) haven't even passed this test. (Neither has Linux, I'm not sure about the *BSDs, but I'd be willing to bet not all of them have passed either).

    So there's your answer: if it passes the Open Group's test, you can call it Unix.

  • I concurr. (Score:4)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Monday May 07, 2001 @02:19AM (#242112)
    Having also adminned on Solaris, SunOS 4, Irix, etc...

    Discussing whether or not it's 'real unix' is splitting hairs. The answer as to whether it can be called 'Unix' or not depends on Trademark. Do you have rights to use the mark? That's a simple yes/no question.

    Linux is fine. The *BSD's are fine. All have their strengths and weaknesses. For most administrative jobs I've had, I would *prefer* to work with most modern Linux or *BSD distributions than with Solaris or SCO, all other things being equal.

    Calling NT 'Unix' is a joke. Posix compliance is a good thing, but not the be-all-end-all of compatability. Heck, even Unix apps can't run cross-platform if one system has the required libs and the other doesn't.

    Or, ignoring trademark issues, OS-X is as much a unix as FreeBSD or Linux, for all intents and purposes.

  • What is the point of this discussion? (Score:4)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Monday May 07, 2001 @02:25AM (#242113)
    Really? What is the point?
    Unix(tm) can only be technically used by those with rights to the trademark. os-x does not, nor does linux, or FreeBSD & friends. SCO does. Solaris does. Irix does (I think.....).

    If we ignore trademark, and go by feel, and how 99% of the administrators of those systems would describe them...

    Linux is a unix.
    *BSD are all unix.
    Solaris is a unix.
    SCO (uck) is a unix.
    OS-X is a unix.

    I've had to administer all of the above, with the exception of os-x (I've only briefly tinkered with it). They are all basically the same. They all have their own quirks. They all fall under what I consider in my mind to be unix.

    What the original trademark means, or what the exact technical definition of unix is, doesn't matter. It's like arguing over the meaning of the word 'hacker'.

    And I can think of LOTS of admins who would easily say that any of these variants is 'unix' without even giving it a second thought.

  • Try installing Cygwin first. It might--gasp--actually work then.
  • BTW on a more serious note MULTICS supports a helluva lot more features than UNIX. it included stuff like the ability to use and hot swap bad RAM and CPUs (including nifty stuff like killing the processes whcih used the bad blocks of memory only and leaving the rest intact) which modern UNIXes cant do (nope not even solaris on the E10K). the only things that come close to MULTICS is the S/390 mainframes from IBM.

  • Another way Windows NT trumps Linux (Score:3)

    by brianvan ( 42539 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:03PM (#242119)
    Quote:
    Obtaining an official UNIX title is merely achieved when key functionality is added, thus allowing the OS to meet the requirements of the UNIX brand. In this context, Windows NT could obtain UNIX status. Believe it or not.

    Gee, you'd think stability would be a requirement of UNIX status, eh? *wink wink, nudge nudge*

    (Disclaimer: This is a joke. If you have a serious response to this post, please seek professional help. And don't drink so much coffee.)
  • Well, I said it ages ago, but I might not have been the first (since it's obvious).
    ------
    I'm a C++ guru ... What's STL?
  • WTF? Why should I get more RAM just because someone decides to write bloated software? If it was Microsoft, you'd bitch too.
    ------
    I'm a C++ guru ... What's STL?

  • If it works... (Score:4)

    by mr100percent ( 57156 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:01PM (#242125) Homepage Journal
    As long as I can type

    ./configure
    make; make install

    It's a good enough OS for me.

  • Free Software vs. Commercial Software

    Well, on the topic of flamewars, I'd like to point out you're incorrect there.

    Neither of the four definitions of commercial in my dictionary involve being sold for profit. Many free (as in speech, or beer) projects (eg, Red hat Linux, Zope, etc) are commerical in nature, and produced with the aim of profit. Many others are not.

    Whether an app is commercial or non-commerical has no bearing on whether it is free (speech) or Open Source.

    I believe the phrase you were looking for was `free software versus proprietary, commercial software versus non-commercial software'.

    Oh well...

  • Re:UNIX is just a label (Score:3)

    by dbrutus ( 71639 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @06:07PM (#242133) Homepage
    iMacs are going for between $500-$600 on ebay and there are plenty of them out there. Any iMac is going to run OS X just fine. Just load up on ram though, 128 Mb is just not enough to do all the graphics tricks that OS X does without severe paging problems.

    As for whether OS X is Unix, if such a label were to enable more sales then I'm sure that Apple would fork over the cash to get the official naming rights. Otherwise, I don't think that Apple is likely to ever do it.

    db
  • I've played with it, briefly however, and when I opened a terminal it sure smelled and breathed like a typical Unix.

    Many of us will find it right at home in many ways, and the best part about it is it has a GUI shell that's so easy to use your mother can use it.

    I highly reccomend Linux/Unix freaks (and windows freaks too) check it out sometime, it's very impressive.

    Now if I could only afford a machine that can run MacOSX

  • The point is that everyone is using the Linux or UNIX buzzword so much, it is losing meaning.

  • www.amiunixornot.com? (Score:5)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:11PM (#242142) Homepage Journal

    Do we need to set up a site which compares Unix variants? A little 1 to 10 rating scale where people can decide if FreeBSD is a Unix, or if OSX is not a Unix?

  • well, the unix guru universe site has made a bunch of binary decisions, and they have a list of unix flavors [ugu.com] *including* Mac OS X.

  • At least it doesn't plug into .NET. :)
  • From the OSOprinion article:

    Don't be fooled. While Apple's OS X (as well as Linux and BSD) is not an officially sanctioned UNIX, that does not make it any less powerful or compatible than the official UNIX standard, nor does it trivialize it as a bastardized offshoot with only limited capability.

    I've sysadminned on SCO, Solaris and Linux. Linux may not qualify for use of the trademark, but it's more than close enough for me. I can't comment on OS X, tho, haven't tried it.

    --
  • if GNOME or KDE were ever to become so easy that they would let someone use linux without 'living and breathing computer', would linux still be considered a UNIX?

  • Re: "Broken" PHP (Score:4)

    by iso ( 87585 ) <slash.warpzero@info> on Sunday May 06, 2001 @05:19PM (#242148) Homepage

    Oh, and it's (an admittedly broken version of) php4 that ships with OS X. nobody seems to know why it doesn't work.

    i thought it was well known why PHP4 that ships with MacOS X doesn't work. PHP4 has a directory called PEAR in one directory, but also has a file named pear in that same directory. MacOS X's file system defaults to HFS+ which isn't case sensitive. if you use the UFS file system instead you'll have no problems whatsoever. this has been documented on many sites, including stepwise [stepwise.com] and php builder [phpbuilder.com].

    - j

  • It states that Apple supports the UNIX group, and says NOTHING about Mac OS X being 'branded UNIX'.

    Apple has had a couple of different unix versions. There was a 68000 based version of A/UX of which I remember little. Then there was the re-labeled AIX version of A/UX that ran on the Apple server line.

  • Look at "reparse points" on NTFS, and if you have the reskit for w2k, look for "linkd"

    Microsoft has no problem giving people what they want - its not that microsoft doesn't "Want something in there". The issue is more like "hey, what should all these _millions_ of apps do when they see a symlink when they've never worried about them before ?"

    Thats a big problem.

    If you want a singly rooted fs, symlinks, inetd, and all those on NT/w2k , you can get them today, via Services for Unix. It's a very slick package, i use it on my w2k box at work when i just cant deal with "cmd.exe" any more :)

    Also, the vi that comes with it is significantly faster than notepad for large files.

  • Re:so what? (Score:5)

    by bmajik ( 96670 ) <matt@mattevans.org> on Sunday May 06, 2001 @09:10PM (#242153) Homepage Journal
    NT and Win2k have fork, exec, and exit, all via the POSIX subsystem. Does that make it UNIX ?

    (aside: the POSIX subsystem as shipped is all but useless (mostly because if if its a posix app it cant make win32 calls))

    You can run apache on W2k out of the box. Does that make it unix ?

    You can write scripts in NT. You can compile gcc for NT. You can use gcc to compile other code.

    Does that make it unix ?

    (heres where i get modded to "troll")
    Its amusing that LINUX die hards give a damn about judging some other OSes "unixness" - linux makes some deviations of its own. It's own IP stack, it's own notion of userspace threading (has that been worked out yet ?), its own version of VFS, etc etc.

    Each UNIX is different enough that portability for a non-trivial app takes a competant C programmer. People that think autoconf is a solves-all should be gut from throat to anus (or should have to compile your average "pengiun pimp powered" GTK app on an IRIX box with MIPS compilers)

    One of NTs design requirements was that it is POSIX compliant. They put enough of a posix subsystem in there to meet the spec, which allowed them to have NT compete for certain contracts. Good luck trying to make anything unixy work on the NT posix subsystem without SFU or standing on the shoulders of cygwin.

  • MacSlash (Score:4)

    by Xenex ( 97062 ) <xenex&opinionstick,com> on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:05PM (#242154) Journal
    There is some good discussion of this very issue, based on this very article, over at MacSlash [macslash.com], which happens to be a very nice Slash-like site based on Slashcode [slashcode.org].

    You can read it here [macslash.com].

    Or
    http://www.macslash.com/article.pl?sid=01/05/04/17 35247&mode=nested
    for those worried about 'bad' links.

  • And on the seventh day, man created UNICS. But UNICS was lonely, for it had no one to ping, and so Man took some Code from UNICS and made The UNIX time Sharing system, on november 3, 1971. And they begat Version 2, and version 2 begat version 3 and version 3 begat version 4 and version 4 begat Version 5, PWB, and MERT, and from then on it was a roman orgy of code crossing over, really not something you would want your childrent to look at, in fact your V-Chip enabled, censorware running computer should be melting right about no......

  • Didn't Caldera create a Unix(tm) based off the Linux kernel? I thought that they had shipped an OS complete with a licensed copy of Motif and CDE. I think that they didn't maintain it when it didn't carve the niche that they were aiming for, but I was pretty sure that someone made an effort to hit the Unix workstation market.

    Alex
  • mikethegeek commented:

    I'm considering buying a used Mac so as to be able to run OSX, or Linux PPC though.

    I think it's going to be difficult for you to test OS 10. I know that macs are a bit on the expensive side (~$1200,) and that the OS, unlike Linux, is expensive too: $129 the last time I looked. So with all the overhead and compounding it with having to find stuff that *run* on both or compile it yourself, it's hard for even seasoned Unix / Linux users running a cheap box to get a secondary box just to look at what Apple is doing with Darwin nowadays.

    I bought a computer in the fall of 1998 that can't run 10 without some serious upgrades. I already have 64Mb ram but must double my ram again if I really want any flavor of *X in it. So I don't want Unix or OS 10, and will be well off reading about it. At least until I am forced to buy a new computer. So if you're planning to buy a used Macintosh, be sure it's no more than 1 year old. You'll be pleased.

    My $.02

  • I've used it (Score:3)

    by Therlin ( 126989 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:24PM (#242162)
    After running wget, I compiled and installed PHP and MySQL. I then went to /etc/httpd and edited Apache's httpd.conf using pico in a terminal window. All from work using SSH.

    It's a UNIX system if you ask me...
  • Probably because simply pasting a link into a comment with no description isn't good form. But, nonetheless, I think modding it all the way down to -1 (where it's at as I type) is a bit harsh.

  • Linux was originally a Minix clone. I don't know if Linus actually used any Minix code (if he did it's long been removed, and besides, a lot of the early kernel was written in x86 assembler and is horribly unportable), but Minix filesystem support still exists in some dark corners of the source tree, and Andy Tanenbaum knew about Linux quite early on (and didn't like it much).

    /Brian
  • This reminds me for reasons I can't quite articulate of an old creationist argument that "the son of a lion is still a lion", a statement that both does and does not apply in this case...

    Define *BSD first. It is generally accepted that Darwin (and Lites and xMach) are all *BSD, though they probably share more in common architecturally with OSF/1 (i.e. Compaq Unix) than they do the original BSD series. (Or is OSF/1 a BSD as well?) The fact of the matter is this:

    -NextStep exists partly because of Avie Tevanian, Apple's chief technology guy and one of the creators of Mach.
    -NextStep was built similarly to Lites and xMach as a BSD-code-base-derived layer over the Mach microkernel.
    -Most of Darwin/OS X's userland comes from FreeBSD, and I think much of the BSD layer that went into Rhapsody was built (from scratch?) from 4.4lite code.

    Furthermore, the community at large says so.

    ?

    /Brian
  • Well...

    Okay. First off, HFS+ is a necessity -- UFS is there if you want it, but remember that you're on a Mac. The OS is different, but if all you're doing is slapping an upgrade onto an existing system you don't want to be going back and relearning the entire thing from scratch.

    Alien directory format is to be expected for much the same reason (though the OS X tree is weird even for Mac users). If it's any consolation, old school Unix directories are still there; you just have to convince your system that you're good to run as root in order to do it (there was something in a MacAddict a couple of months ago that told how, I think).

    But at least you're not too critical; I like seeing votes of support like that. Makes my Mac-fan heart happy.

    /Brian
  • Get the sources from ftp.gnu.org, untar/gzip them, change to the directory, then type 'make'.

    Nowadays, I always kick myself whenever I use my Win98 startup disk to install Linux on my old non-boot-off-cd computer by using the boot.bat file, because I alway type bo(tab)(insert expletive)(backspace multiple time)ot.bat at the prompt expecting command line completion... droool..... Thank god for cygwin.

    Tell me what makes you so afraid
    Of all those people you say you hate

  • About 15 years ago Apple made their own version of "real UNIX" called A/UX [faqs.org]. It featured X as well as a Mac application layer. (Gee, sounds a lot like Mac OS X...). This had *nothing* to do with AIX and it only ran on a few 680x0-based Macs.

    Fast forward to the PowerPC era. Apple made a series of nifty (for their time) Apple Network Servers [erik.co.uk] running IBM's AIX (UNIX) OS.

  • Good point. I wish I could mod that up.
  • Apple's A/UX OS used the licensed "Unix" name as did Apple's AIX-based Network Servers (Apple hardware running IBM's version of Unix).

  • Look at the UNIX timeline... (Score:5)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @01:11PM (#242183) Homepage
    http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/ [wanadoo.fr]

    It's a *GREAT* resource for finding out what came from what and when.

  • Re:GNU not UNIX (Score:3)

    by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @02:50PM (#242186) Homepage Journal
    Linux Is Not UniX

    (I know somebody said this on /. ages ago :-)

    --

  • you should go to www.versiontracker.com and nab the mysql there. all will be explained in the docs.
  • Except when you compile something developed on Linux on BSD and it puts the files in all the wrong places. And vice versa.
  • Well I noticed one annoying "feature". The c++ compiler that comes on the official developer disc doesn't recognize lrand48() as a command in the Standard Libraries. I've been able to use the code I'm writing for class on Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris and other UNIX's. Apparently this "UNIX" doesn't like it.

    Now how do I install g++ on this thing?...

  • On all the compilers I have used, that note is not provided at the end of the manpage.

    And there isn't any man page for lrand48 on this machine of course (I'm using MacOS right now).

    By the way, if it's g++ why, when I type "g++", the shell catches me and tells me its "c++"?

  • Actually, it's kind of frightening that some nut took the time diagram all this. :) I guess I should begin my diagram of the history of DeCSS. Be the first in the crowd.
  • does it have fork(), exec() and exit()?
    then it is unix. Well I am exagerrating a point
    here, but just because there is huge propietary
    app running on top of an os that is UNIX that does
    not mean that is shall not be considered one.
    You can write scripts, download gcc for it,
    and compile your code that way... apache
    runs on it fine, out of the box, so do other
    fine unix software. Whats the problem ?

    Just another hype bomb to improve slashdot's ratings?
    Ok, I am off to o'reilly developer network.
    Nuff of OSDN stuff for me.
  • "The Open Group will strive to be the global certification authority for interoperability" - Open Group [opengroup.org]

    So... You people consider that's a good thing ?!?

    Who is this "Open" Group to tell us "respect my authoritah"? The only answer they provide is :

    "We are proud to have some of the world's largest IT buyers and vendors as active members representing both government and commercial enterprises.
    Our buy-side members have combined annual IT budgets of over US$50 Billion.

    All right, I know it's more and more that corrupted scum that lead the world, but how people can consider it a good thing to willing obey them is a mystery to me.

    "As owner of the UNIX® Trademark we continue to strive for greater value from its use, and to address the relationship to Open Source."

    In other words, they want more money from the "UNIX® Trademark" and take advantage of the Open Source popularity. I have to admit, it's working really well...

    By saying Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX are us, the question that comes to mind is "Who IS Unix then?"

    Why did they keep AT&T's name? Unix(tm) is not a state of mind, but a company's trademark... Oh, right, them Billions DollarS Mans (BDSM) the Open Group are the shareholders of AT&T, duh!

    Is the class sleeping again??

    Mac OS != Mac 0$

  • as Forest Gump would say... (Score:3)

    by cbowland ( 205263 ) on Monday May 07, 2001 @03:48AM (#242200)
    Unix is a unix does.

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

  • Re:Open Group certifies OS X as UNIX! (Score:5)

    by cbwsdot ( 212913 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @07:16PM (#242205) Homepage
    Hrm, I only see the word "Apple". It doesn't say which Unix based Apple OS they are refering to. Remember, Apple has made more than one "Unix". Namely, but not limited to: Mac OSX Server (Rhapsody) [apple.com], Darwin OS [apple.com], Mac OS X [apple.com], mkLinux [mklinux.org] and A/UX [apple.com]

    --
  • What makes an Operating system Unix? the ability to compile source code from any given platform? MacOSX has all the compatability layers in it to compile source code from platforms like FreeBSD and linux, even if it takes a little tweaking (telling it where the appropriate files are at) but it all works. At best *BSD and Linux and MacOSX are Unix Compatable.

  • No, not really (Score:3)

    by Elendur ( 228338 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @12:54PM (#242211) Homepage
    Quasi-Unix. The Diet Coke of Unix.
  • Since 1970, the "unix base" (concept, design & philosophy) has been project-forked into lots and lots of different operating systems. Today it's totally f***ed up. It seems like every project HAS to be split up just because each and everyone know exactly how things should work.
    A neat example: If anyone claims that insert-your-preferred-OS-here is the best OS, a flame war is started. (Windows vs Linux, FreeBSD vs Linux or whatever...)

    Who cares if OS X is a real UNIX!!!???
    It's probably just like all other unices or unixclones; always a little different.


    When I think of all different BSDs, Linux dists and other unices, clones or not; only one thing come to mind: All kernels in all unix systems have the fork() system call but there has never existed any merge() system call, so people probably don't know what "merge" means.

    What I would like to see is a MERGE between a few free unixclones:
    First of all, there should be a strict definition of supported processor arch-s. (There's always NetBSD for the odd people ;)
    For example, let's say that a "merged free unix" uses a Linux kernel, GNU compiler and mostly BSD userland&ports. What if all critical components have been controlled and verified by the OpenBSD code auditing team? That's quite ok, right? If this sounds good, why the hell do people use different Linux dists, complain about their design and then start building their own?!!???

    (I bet that BSD people would like to kill me because I proposed a Linux kernel and that Linux people would like to kill me because I mentioned ports instead of rpms or debs. See? Where's the "unixclone standard"? "Linux Standard Base"? Don't think so...)
    Listen to my desperate plea: MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERGE!!

    My computer has been running ./configure for a total of 2 months.
  • "Who cares if it is UNIX, BSD, POSIX, whatever. They are just labels"

    Exactly... Given that I work with SCO OpenServer and Unixware at work all the time, along with 4 different Linuxes, IMO, Linux is by *FAR* the best implimentation of *NIX in terms of user friendlieness. Who cares if Linux is "official" Unix? All the shell commands I commonly use in Linux's BASH shell is very similar, if not identical to SCO... And I'm all the time wishing that SCO's shell was as user firendly as BASH.

    I've not had the chance to play with OSX (have never owned an Apple system), so I can't say as to whether OSX is superior in user friendlieness than Mandrake/KDE 2.1, my chosen desktop OS (I use Red Hat for my server). I'm considering buying a used Mac so as to be able to run OSX, or Linux PPC though.
  • I don't know how to do this... I'm not a programmer, I'm a sysadmin. Never thought of trying though, I'm sure you could compile the source somehow. BASH is SO much more user friendly than the SCO sh... I suppose with Caldera now owning both OpenServer and Unixware that some of Linux's improvements to Unix user friendliness will make it back into "classic" Unix.

    BASH is by far the most user friendly command line I've ever used, and I was one of the LAST DOS holdouts (dragged kicking and screaming to `Doze with Win 95)

    One reason why I love *NIX is because it is pretty much what I wanted DOS to be... 32-bit, multiuser, multitasking command line based OS.

    I test servers and RAID cards for Linux compatibility (and other OS's) for one of the most Linux of the major computer industry players.
  • I've not had enough exposure to SCO yet for this (only been using it for 4 months)... I'm somewhat hampered by the fact that I'm so familliar with Linux, that the fact that SCO is very similar, yet different sometimes is a barrier.

    I know how to compile/install in Linux, never fear.
  • True UNIX is just a label. Look at the structure of the OS. I'm not an expert or anything but OSX uses the UNIX security model, not the bloated NT model. (Which by the way MS said was superior to UNIX's and then came the IIS root exploit stemming from overly-complicated security model). Look at the locking mechanisms, driver philosophy, programming philosophy.

    I'm not going to defend NT's security model, but your conclusion that it is responsible for the IIS root exploit is wrong. The IIS root exploit is simply a buffer overrun of a chunk of the server that is running in a privledged super-user mode. There are tons of UNIX servers which have to run all or part of the server in root mode (any web server that wants to access port 80, for example, generally has to start up with root access). Many of these servers have had buffer overflow bugs in the past (Sendmail anyone?). The bug found in IIS is by no means Microsoft-specific or due to their security model (which I would agree has some OTHER flaws).

  • AT&T UNIX (now Caldera/SCO Unixware) is the only real "UNIX" due to registered trademark issues. Since it is also the "original UNIX" that must count for something too.

    ALL other *NIX (xBSD, System V, etc.) Operating Systems are "UNIX-like". Of the UNIX-like systems some have paid the trademark toll to be able to call themselves "UNIX".

    I've worked on many of the various flavors of "UNIX" since my days in the University of California CS lab. I've been running various commercial and free flavors of UNIX at home since 1985. IMHO they are all great when compared to most of the other Operating Systems I've used since getting into this industry in 1974.

    Arguing about which "UNIX-like" OS is really UNIX is pointless.

    These "my favorite OS is better than your favorite OS" arguments are for lamers anyway.

    BTW, what Linus Torvalds did is reverse engineer the AT&T UNIX kernel (major league task). IMHO that is not "writing from scratch" which suggests creating something completely new.

  • ... How many times is this whole topic going to be hashed out? Furthermore, when are people going to see that certain things can only be seen in shades of grey?

    Much worse, the argument in this current rant is very weak; not real UNIX because the Open Group is hasn't received money from Apple for their use of the fucking U word, otherwise known as registration? Give me a break. It makes no mention of POSIX complaince, software compatibility or the presence of Apple's proprietary one of a kind GUI, and those are REAL issues rather then this kind of a trite, petty conclusion.

  • Re:UNIX is just a label (Score:5)

    by Kunta Kinte ( 323399 ) on Sunday May 06, 2001 @04:00PM (#242229) Journal
    that comment getting +5 scares me.

    UNIX POSIX are NOT just labels. How do you think the developers of GNU proogie got it to work on so many UNIX systems. Do you think there are a team of programmers for each OS? Or more than likely just one or two people who do the minimal patch required to get the program to compile on the "secondary" platforms.

    Using POSIX or UNIX standard, programs can be written to run on a variety of platforms. These standards ARE necessary.

    You can choose not to care about these acronyms because the GNU proogie developers, using UNIX and POSIX standards, have already done the caring for you.

  • As long as Windows programs don't use UNIX/POSIX APIs as their primary development APIs, Windows isn't UNIX. Since Microsoft sees the Win32 APIs as a tool for customer retention, they aren't going to change any time soon.

    In order for NT to become UNIX, they would have to drop a lot of the junk they added. Many of the "features" in NT (features Microsoft likes to tout as innovative) were considered for UNIX many years ago and rejected. Cutler didn't get the UNIX philosophy of simplicity with VMS, and he still doesn't get it with NT. (However, Linux and *BSD would do well to think about simplicity as well: their kernels are becoming Rube Goldberg contraptions and dumping grounds for every feature anybody can think of as well.)

    Apple, on the other hand, is pushing UNIX APIs (and libraries built on top of them) for new applications development. Of course, there is a business reason there as well: Apple is behind in terms of software and programmer community, so it makes sense for them to go with something standard.

  • But Windows would have to drop features in order to become "UNIX" in the original sense of the word: the spirit of UNIX is simplicity and elimination of extraneous features. In that sense, Linux and BSD are also straying ever further from the original UNIX ideals.

    BTW, I believe the NT kernel would easily support hard links, just like it easily supports UNIX mount points, and a lot of other features. Microsoft just doesn't want those features in there.

  • Look at "reparse points" on NTFS, and if you have the reskit for w2k, look for "linkd"

    Hello??? Didn't I just say that Windows can support these?

    The issue is more like "hey, what should all these _millions_ of apps do when they see a symlink when they've never worried about them before ?"

    Microsoft changes Windows in much more fundamental ways with every release. Links are transparent to most applications anyway.

    If you want a singly rooted fs, symlinks, inetd, and all those on NT/w2k , you can get them today, via Services for Unix.

    Which brings us back to my original point: the problem with Windows is not that it doesn't have enough functionality, it is that it has too much.

  • UNIX must include CDE and Motif. If it doesn't, it's not technically UNIX. Mac OS X doesn't have either. Therefore it's not UNIX.

    --
  • I dont think any of these system's can be truly calles a *X system. The move away from all assembler code may have been quite convenient, but these lazy coders have sacrificed the pure power and efficiency of the *X platform. Moving to a C code base was the beginning of the end for code bloat. Next thing you know we'll be needing MEGAbytes of RAM...
  • Then one specific version of one OS based on the Linux kernel would be brandable as UNIX. In other words, it would be worse than a waste of money, unless Red Hat or one of the other companies that makes a distribution based on the Linux kernel wanted to start along that track with some variation of one of their products.

    No, a Kernel can NOT be branded as 'a UNIX.'

    It would be far easier to brand one of the BSD os'es than Linux, for the reason that they have a more tightly integraged core userland.
  • osOpinion has just posted an update [osopinion.com] to their story. Now stating that OS X has achieved UNIX certification. Appearently Open Group has updated their list [unix-systems.org] of UNIX approved OS's. score 1 for apple
  • If you like bash so much, why not build it for SCO? The great thing about bash and many other Unix shells is that they work on just about any Unix variant.
  • I'm not trying to troll here but if you ask for a kleenex(tm) and get a tissue are you gonna complain? What if you xerox(tm) some copies on a canon color copier? Some trademarks are victims of their own popularity and become part of our language. It's a marketing wet dream and nightmare rolled into one. Everyone is saying your brand name, but you lost your brand recognition.
  • Doesn't the GNU in GNU/Linux mean GNU not UNIX?
  • And as long as you never have to type

    ./configure
    make; make install

    It's a good enough OS for everyone else.

    Justin Dubs
  • is wasted on what qualifies as having roots in Unix.

    If it's good, use it, if it doesn't, leave it by the wayside.

    I'd prefer to hear more about standards *between* loosely-related variants, than whether something was a variant or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Close