[email protected] writes: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:49:59PM -0500, Joe Block wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > nothing else running on commercial Unix that comes close (I'm not > > > > > counting Mac OS X as it's not based on X Windows and isn't a full Unix > > > > > despite its Mach core). > > > > > > > > But on top of the mach core there is a full unix as I understand it, > > > > including an Xserver that coexists with the mac display > > > > I'm kind of curious - what makes you say MacOS X isn't a full unix? I > > run OSX Server on a couple machines and it seems pretty full to me - > > most stuff builds with ./configure;make > > Interesting. My understanding was that MacOS X wasn't a full Unix. I'm > often wrong. > > Could you provide pointers to the Unixy features of MacOS X? Are the > standard Unix features and utilities provided or do you have to obtain > them independently
Aren't you running things together here? Unix does not equal X. X-Windows is a completely different animal than "Unix". It's a graphical system that is often associated with Unix, but not necessarily unique to Unix. Certainly you can buy commercial X-Windows implementations for Windows. I think X-Free86 even has a Windows implementation? My understanding was that MacOS X was a full X-windows implementation for MacOS. Am I wrong in this? Gary
