OS X is not a true UNIX because of POSIX

Originally posted by arden
It's something like Godsford's Law (can someone please verify this?) that states that as soon as someone mentions Hitler or the Nazis, a thread on a forum is immediately dead. So I killed this thread. ::ha::
Click to expand...

Sorry to delurk on an irrelevancy.

It's Godwin's Law. And I think it technically only applies on Usenet.

But it still seems appropriate in this thread for some reason.

Asr
--
Wannabe future Mac user
 
Yeah... it seems like asking "What is true UNIX?" is kind of like asking "What is true faith/belief/religion?" The term has a basic core that most people can agree on, but it's all very relative.

Anyway, as long as my computer knows to sleep when it's closed, turn on when it's open, use my extra "mega-widescreen" pixels, and make use of devices as soon as they're plugged in, I don't give a crap what's under the hood. As long as it's a "true Mac," that's good for me.

Ha! I brought up the phrase "true Mac." Now we can argue about what THAT means. heheh. :D
 
true Mac: n. a computer that runs any version of the Macintosh Operating System anywhere from 1.0 to 10.2.6.

There, that was easy!
 
I think symphonix is a type of UNIX because his name ends in "-nix." This is unconfirmed to date.
 
That's definable. The Matrix is a computer program designed by machines to control the collective consciousness of the human race as their bodies are used as an energy source.
 
I don't see how OS X isn't a real version of UNIX, considering that's basically all it is: BSD with Aqua grafted on top. [/B]
Click to expand...

Not quite. Underneath Aqua is Darwin, not FreeBSD. Darwin borrows some BSD code but at the heart of Darwin is the Mach kernel. Mach was suppose to be a microkernel that depended on application servers to provide the rest of the OS functionality rather than squish it all in one fat monolithic binary. But... quote taken from http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_kernel

Mach is not an operating system on its own, and is largely unusable without a set of servers - and those servers did not exist. In order to get some sort of usable system up and running, the Mach authors ported BSD onto the Mach kernel in a quick-and-dirty fashion: instead of breaking down BSD into parts and building each of them as a server, they simply compiled the entire kernel into one server and ran it. The result was known as POE.

Like most people have said in prior posts, even *BSD has strayed from true Unix, and Darwin is yet another step astray. But the Apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so they say :)
 
Originally posted by arden
true Mac: n. a computer that runs any version of the Macintosh Operating System anywhere from 1.0 to 10.2.6.

There, that was easy!
Click to expand...
I've never heard of the "Macintosh Operating System"...

Who makes that?
 
"Macintosh Operating System" me thinks is just a long way of spelling out MacOS. Don't know what they called it back in the days. But starting with OSX they should change the spelling to Machintosh :)
 
Originally posted by pwharff
We started to talk about OS X and he tells me "OS X is not a true UNIX because OS X doesn't support POSIX".
Click to expand...

Windows 2000 is POSIX compliant, so is it a true UNIX? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top