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!
It passed the certification (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
As of 10.5, OS X is UNIX. Linux is "UNIX-like".
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.
Re:No Linux? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good for them (Score:1, 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.
Re:Thank goodness! (Score:3, Informative)
Nice, my capthca is "quieted" - a sign of things that are about to happen to me?
Re:Good for them (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank goodness! (Score:4, Informative)
-andy
How expensive is it? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hrrrrm. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think its a major achievement (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It passed the certification (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 worth the effort to construct OS X and all the frameworks in it atop Linux.
Yes, and many Linux commands typed into Solaris will run fine, and many Linux commands typed into AIX will run fine, and many Linux commands typed into {Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}BSD will run fine, and so on. In some cases, that's because the Linux command in question was designed so that {Solaris,AIX,etc.} commands typed into Linux would run fine.
It depends on the user. If the user is somebody who has code that expects Single UNIX Standard behavior (e.g., that all the thread-cancellation stuff works), it means their code should work on OS X. If the user is somebody who wants to use an application with that code, it means there might be a better chance that said application will be ported to OS X (although, if the app is a GUI app, it'll either run only with the X server and won't look particularly native, or would have to be ported, or would have to be written with a cross-platform toolkit such as Qt).
UNIX certification.
Re:But it doesn't really do hard links? (Score:2, Informative)
Mac OS X users looking forward to another two years or so of merrily spinning beachballs, I presume.
Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (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.
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 you not like about the Terminal other than its lack of tabs pre-Leopard?
I'll have to agree with you on Page-up/down, home, and end buttons. They simply work differently on the Mac. I don't use any command-line programs that expects to see those buttons, so it doesn't bother me much. The equivalent of home and end while editing text is command-left and command-right, by the way.
Re:Linux, BSD and Unix certification (Score:3, Informative)
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:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (Score:3, Informative)
I have an Ubuntu linux box, a WinXP box, and PowerBook on my desk. It's the Mac that is the most enjoyable one to use, by far (the others are for added screen real estate and testing).
Re:The Stamp of Stupidity (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 post:
> Is Linux on PowerPC (e.g. YellowDog) binary compatible with Linux on x86? I don't think so.....
The goal for the POSIX standards was -source code- compatability. A "strictly conforming application" compiled and executing on one conforming POSIX system is guaranteed to work the same way as the same application on all other conforming POSIX systems (functionally, performance is another matter, of course.) So the answer to "Are systems branded UNIX source compatible?" should be YES, for strictly conforming applications in source code.
What a certificate of conformance means from The Open Group is that the API has been rather thoroughly tested to ensure that it does properly implement the standard. If you get that conformance, then OpenGroup grants you the license to the name Unix(tm). I'm much less thrilled about the Unix branding, than I am about the investment to open standards and standards conformance checking.
I believe that the Unix brand includes more than just the API tests, it also includes shell and utilities. So you can move a shellscript (in sh) from one system to another, and if that shellscript uses only the standard utilities (and their standardized options), and/or compiled conforming applications, it'll do the same thing on POSIX systems ranging from MacOS X to Solaris to HP/UX to AIX. For some of us who have ported software across multiple vendor platforms over the last 10-20 years, that IS A Big Deal.
I've used the term "strictly conforming application" a couple of times. If you're interested in the formal definition (and this term is formally defined in the POSIX standards), you should go read how the standard defines this. Informally, a "strictly conforming application" uses only APIs defined in the standard and depends only on behaviors in the standard (e.g. doesn't depend on some funny return value from a function call.) Or, to be even less formal, strictly conforming applications "color within the lines". A "strictly conforming implementation" is also defined by the standard, and that's what OS X Leopard was tested against. Informally, a strictly conforming application implements the whole standard, including all error return situations, etc. You can NOT implement less than the full standard and be "conforming".
Important Marketing Hype warning: The term 'compliance' has no meaning with respect to POSIX. Normally when a marketing guy says "Our Frobizz 2000 and its BlotzWare OS are POSIX compliant." that usually means "We've implemented some arbitrary subset of the POSIX standards. We are too lazy to implement the whole standard, and if you happen to use some function call that we don't implement, you're shit-outta-luck."
dave