You are prolly right, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans that I can
see.
Apple, being a publicly traded corporation, maybe wanted to get SUS
certed to be on the safe side.. (Just guessing here)
I've never had an issue running Ubuntu and a couple of other Linux
derivatives for a couple of years now on some of my secondary (spare)
laptops. :)
Speaking of which, I have my buds picking up the Thinkpad T41 or Dell
D600 (both are older P4 1.6 gig Mobile Processor PC's) off the coffee
table
all the time and they have no problems surfing wirelessly with Ubuntu
and Mint when they don't even really know what Linux is.
Firefox is just Firefox to them... :)
Those 2 laptops have only been rebooted a couple times in the last 3-4
months for updates, they just sit there in sleep mode the rest of the
time. :)
On Jun 6, 2009, at 7:41 AM, Gary Jackson wrote:
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
[email protected]
Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.
--
JRS
[email protected]
Facts do not cease to exist just
because they are ignored.
