Trying to learn UNIX!!! For Mac OS X!

[spb]

Originally Posted by RacerX

Infact, GNU stands for GNU is Not UNIX.

Very true. :7)

Yes, strickly OSX is a Unix and is based upon a branch of BSD.

I've come to OSX from GNU/Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat). I've used a variety of other Unix platforms (DEC, IRIX, True64, AIX) and find that with a few exceptions they all have a similar feel and behavior.

I found that my transition to OSX was not straight forward and hence I'm guessing that going from OSX to another Unix also is not necessarily simple. For this reason I would argue that it is better to learn Unix from somewhere other than OSX. There are Unix skills that can be learned on OSX such as scripting, but this can also be learned in MSWindows via emulators such as cygwin.

sb

[lurk]

Originally Posted by spb

Very true. :7)
I've come to OSX from GNU/Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat). ...I found that my transition to OSX was not straight forward and hence I'm guessing that going from OSX to another Unix also is not necessarily simple.

That is where you are wrong, it is trivial compared tot he hassle of moving to Linux As was already pointed out Linux is not Unix. If you had come from FreeBSD you would not have noticed much at all. This is the same old BSD Sys V thing that has been going on in the *nix world for ages, but they both count.

[Andrew Adamson]

Just out of curiosity, did ANYBODY read the thread on Slashdot? Again, I am not going to take a hard stand on this one way or the other, but I do find the comments of 'AsSeenOnTV' a little more convincing. Perhaps it is just a question of marketing and strategy, but when you read the Apple site, they never say 'Unix', they say 'Unix environment' or 'Unix-based' or 'Unix-derived' or 'Unix foundation'. Once you notice that, it starts to become a little hard not to notice it being done everywhere on Apple. On the other hand, the fact that Tiger is less like Unix (missing things like rc.d and cron) makes me think that at its foundation, Darwin really IS Unix (or at least, WAS Unix).

[RacerX]

It is important to understand that UNIX is a licensed trademark... Windows NT could be made to qualify as UNIX... and it would never be a Unix (ancestral Unix).

Also, qualifying for the license needs to be redone with any major change to the operating system. This is one of the reasons why IRIX is now at 6.5.27... because they don't want to have to requalify. In fact they most likely couldn't qualify today as they were licensed as UNIX 95 and they would have to pass as UNIX 03 now.

There would be no advantage for Apple to qualify Mac OS X to use the trademark UNIX... and they would have had to requalify for 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4. That would have been a lot of work for almost no advantage at all.

Originally Posted by spb

I've come to OSX from GNU/Linux (Debian, Ubuntu, RedHat). I've used a variety of other Unix platforms (DEC, IRIX, True64, AIX) and find that with a few exceptions they all have a similar feel and behavior.

They should, they are all based on System V or are System V look-a-likes.

My background is with NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/Rhapsody/Mac OS X (14 years), IRIX (11 years) and Solaris (6 years). And I have no problems moving between these.

I found that my transition to OSX was not straight forward and hence I'm guessing that going from OSX to another Unix also is not necessarily simple. For this reason I would argue that it is better to learn Unix from somewhere other than OSX.

I don't think that an argument based on your short comings (not meant as inflamitory, based only on your own admission) makes that much sense here. Someone should learn Unix on the platform which they are going to use.

What you are suggesting is that this person learn something different so that Mac OS X will be foreign when he is finished. That is a pretty odd suggestion from my point of view.

[wiz]

yea i agree, its just as easy to learn Darwin than it is to learn FreeBSD or Linux.