I am probably missing something real basic here, but a couple of questions come to mind...

1. Is there really anything to be gained for any of the Linux companies to get that certification ? Looks like it costs a boatload of money to get the offical compliance.

2. Everyone has their favorite OS, that is human nature...but practically speaking, have you ever come across a Unix App that you couldn't get to compile on Linux ? I haven't used Linux for a few years now, but when it was my main OS...I never did. But I might have just been lucky


Regards,

Gary


At 02:02 AM 6/6/2009, It was written by John R Steinbruner that this shall come to pass:
Interesting.........

Just read up on that, and yep, OSX is fully POSIX and *Nix compliant,
and is Unix 03 certified on the SUS side,
while no release of Linux has made it to SUS certification as of
now.  :)

Cool beans.  :)



On Jun 5, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Scott Sipe wrote:

Not all correct.

OSX -- and it's pure core called Darwin (that lacks some of the GUI
stuff) has a terminal -- I run tcsh for mine, the standard is bash
-- just like your average linux desktop. OSX comes with grep, find,
bc, vi, emacs, du, df, yes, etc etc -- all the random commands that
you expect to find on a *nix/*bsd system. Furthermore, "genetically"
speaking, most of the userland derives directly from FreeBSD. As I
understand it, parts of the kernel (the non-mach parts) were also
derived from the FreeBSD monolithic kernel. The mach kernel was
developed specifically as a microkernel for I believe BSD systems.
So, the userland and the kernel are pretty much pure unix, with some
Apple additions thrown on the top.

Furthermore, somewhat incorrect when you separate unix and nextstep
-- nextstep is ALSO a unix-derived system.

Last, but not least, check out Unix certification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification

OSX is an _official_ unix. You know what's not an official unix--any
version of linux ;-) (so, take that with a grain of salt!)

Scott

On Jun 5, 2009, at 2:17 PM, maccrawj wrote:

--
JRS
stei...@pacbell.net

Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.




Reply via email to