Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mac OS X Leopard is Now Officially Unix

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the thank-god-now-cat-will-work dept.

OS X 351

An anonymous reader writes "Mac OS X Leopard is now officially Unix, according to the Opengroup." I know everyone out there was really worried about this one. Welcome to the August news vacuum!

cancel ×

351 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I think its a major achievement (5, Interesting)

DogcowX (888899) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069241)

There aren't many members of that club (IBM, HP, Sun)

Re:I think its a major achievement (5, Funny)

nightcats (1114677) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069445)

If The Open Group is "making standards work" (TM), then who is Making Work Standard? These are the really big questions that we have long meetings about here in corporate America. These are the things you contemplate when you've finished your third cup of jove and are sitting on the porcelain throne, thinking about death...

Re:I think its a major achievement (5, Interesting)

krgallagher (743575) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069669)

"There aren't many members of that club (IBM, HP, Sun)"

Yeah that was my reaction. I checked on the site to see the list of other certified OS'. Here it is:

  • Apple Inc.: Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers
  • Fujitsu Limited: Solaris(TM) 10 Operating System on Fujitsu PRIMEPOWER® 64-bit SPARC® Based Platforms
  • Hewlett-Packard Company: HP-UX 11i V3 Release B.11.31 or later on HP Integrity Servers
  • IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.3 dated 7-2006 or later
  • IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.2 dated 8-2004 or later with APARs: IY59610, IY60869, IY61405 with VAC 6.0.0.8 or later on pSeries CHRP systems
  • Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System plus patch 118844-06 for X86 and on, on 64-bit X86 based systems
  • Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit X86 based systems
  • Sun Microsystems, Inc.: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems
There is no Linux. The only BSD up there is OS X. Apparently even Unix isn't Unix. It looks to me like 'THE Open GROUP' is a PR firm for Sun and IBM.

Re:I think its a major achievement (5, Insightful)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069753)

Linux isn't UNIX for cost reasons. UNIX is a copyrighted compatibility certification. It costs a lot of money to get that moniker, and it really doesn't mean anything in these days of Linux and BSD.

Linux is Linux, it doesn't NEED to be UNIX.

*yawn* (0, Offtopic)

IsItWashable (753805) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069253)

Must be holiday time soon...

Re:*yawn* (-1, Offtopic)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069381)

My holiday is a week on Saturday, I'm really excited.

Re:*yawn* (0, Offtopic)

IsItWashable (753805) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069647)

How did you get modded more than the parent for that???

Good for them (4, Insightful)

ceeam (39911) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069255)

Now can we have POSIX specs publically available (free)?

Re:Good for them (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069375)

I thought that you only had to pay for a printed copy of the POSIX standards? Oh well, I've heard that Windows (NT4, I think, but I may be wrong) was considered POSIX compliant before GNU/Linux; I guess it's all a money game, in the end.

Re:Good for them (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069517)

Well, the now retired POSIX "subsystem" on top of NT kernel did yearn some proto-POSIX certification a decade ago. I wouldn't call _that_ Windows though. And as for why I'd like it (POSIX specs) is so I can code against it and hopefully FreeBSD, Linux, MacOSX, Solaris etc would be able to run it AOK. Standards are good.

Re:Good for them (3, Informative)

the_arrow (171557) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069811)

Well, the "Single UNIX Specification Version 3" is available to read on the Open Groups website, for free. Registration needed but then if you need to it's easy to download with wget. It contains all of POSIX and more if I'm not misstaken.

Re:Good for them (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069861)

Aren't Single Unix Specifications available? Try http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/nfin dex.html [opengroup.org] . I suppose you will be asked to 'register' which means entering your name and something similar to your e-mail. I once entered an existing one, and it hasn't even done this e-mail any harm. As I understand it is a standard developed by formally the same committee as POSIX, and it is even formal replacement for it.

Imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Araxen (561411) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069267)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those.

Re:Imagine... (0, Offtopic)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069473)

In Czarist Russia, *Nix-olas clusters you!

I know this... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069273)

this is unix!

Re:I know this... (5, Funny)

Code Master (164951) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069497)

It is a well kept secret that the new Finder of Leopard will have a 3D interface that is navigated by flying through an oil refinery like layout of 3D block buildings...

Linux has no hope, because this is UNIX...

Re:I know this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069817)

It is a well kept secret that the new Finder of Leopard will have a 3D interface that is navigated by flying through an oil refinery like layout of 3D block buildings...

Yayyyy! A native Carbon port of FSV [sourceforge.net] !

Dumb questions (1, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069283)

Was Tiger (10.4) certified? I don't see it listed on the Open Group website. Did Apple even try to certify Tiger? Why (not)? If not then why start now with Leopard?

Re:Dumb questions (2, Funny)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069307)

Because it's freakin LEOPARD, man. LEOPARD!

Re:Dumb questions (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069345)

Because it's fucking CockTip, man, COCKTiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiP(!!!)

(What's in a name, anyways...heh)

Re:Dumb questions (1)

blake3737 (839993) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069855)

1)I dunno, it looks more like a puma to me...

2)Yeah yeah fine... but does it linux? :Ducks:

Re:Dumb questions (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069327)

Well, you have to start sometime, and I presume the process is not cheap. You might as well use your soon-to-be-launched version instead of the soon-to-be-stale release.

Re:Dumb questions (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069421)

You might as well use your soon-to-be-launched version instead of the soon-to-be-stale release.

So why didn't they get 10.4 certified back when they were about to release it?

Re:Dumb questions (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069623)

So why didn't they get 10.4 certified back when they were about to release it?

The two simplest reasons are that 1) it wasn't ready yet, or 2) there wasn't a demand for it. It seems possible that some large customer needed the "certified Unix!" checkoff for purchasing authorization and this makes it compliant.

Again, you have to start sometime. Apparently Apple felt that this was that time.

Correct answers (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069413)

Was Tiger (10.4) certified?


No.

Did Apple even try to certify Tiger?


No.

Why (not)? If not then why start now with Leopard?


Well, if you want certification, you gotta start sometime. I seem to remember the Open Group getting into a little tussle with Apple over Apple's use of the UNIX trademark in its advertisements. The Open Group owns the name UNIX, so you don't get it to call it UNIX unless the Open Group says so. I think this may be part of the arrangement they entered into....

Anyway, the process is expensive. So expensive that none of the *BSDs are certified, no Linux, of course, is certified (yes, a Linux distro could be), etc.

The members of the UNIX club are few: IBM, HP, Sun, NEC, The SCO Group, and a few others.

Re:Dumb questions (1)

gig (78408) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069863)

They were working towards this for a few versions. Leopard is the first one submitted for certification.

Ownership (0, Redundant)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069291)

So CSO now wons Apple? whatever next!

Whos on First (2, Funny)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069355)

So CSO now wons Apple? whatever next! (huh??)

No, Next folded and Jobs came over to Apple. Pixar on third.

Thank goodness! (4, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069303)

I can finally officially launch Terminal.app and not feel dirty!

(hooray for betas :)

Re:Thank goodness! (-1, Flamebait)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069649)

Terminal.app is a abomination of a UNIX Terminal. It....well....it SUCKS! Yeah it's nice that it's there, but call me crazy....when I type Ctrl-D it should CLOSE the terminal window! Not show process is complete and THEN make you close the terminal. That's just one gripe. It's a horrible terminal.

Re:Thank goodness! (3, Insightful)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069751)

Ummm... when I hit Ctrl-D, it DOES close the terminal. Ever thought about examining the preferences? I guess not.

Re:Thank goodness! (3, Interesting)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069777)

forgot to mention... (sorry, I hit submit before it occured to me ;-))

OSX Terminal is one of the few terminal programs I've used on any OS that dynamically re-wraps existing text in a window if you resize the window. That is very handy. OSX Terminal is otherwise a fairly minimal setup, but it is reliable. I sometimes wish it had tabs, but I generally use screen in any case for session portability, so it's not super critical to me to have elaborate terminal management via the GUI.

Re:Thank goodness! (1)

fracai (796392) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069771)

You don't open the Preferences or Settings much do you...

It's supposed to 'just work', right? (0, Flamebait)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069819)

I mean, I can configure crappy old Windows to my liking too....I thought Macs just 'did the right thing'.

GP's default terminal behavior sounds like the wrong thing.

Re:Thank goodness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069813)

Terminal:Window Settings...
Choose When the shell exits: Close the window
Click "Use Settings as Defaults"
Next gripe?
Terminal isn't fancy, but it works well enough for me.

Re:Thank goodness! (1)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069827)

Control W should close windows - consistency...
Pretend Control D is short for disconnect terminal... you will live longer...

Re:Thank goodness! (1)

ryanw (131814) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069837)

Terminal.app is a abomination of a UNIX Terminal. It....well....it SUCKS! Yeah it's nice that it's there, but call me crazy....when I type Ctrl-D it should CLOSE the terminal window! Not show process is complete and THEN make you close the terminal. That's just one gripe. It's a horrible terminal.
Oh come on .... I actually like the ^D + CMD+W to close the window. I like the CMD+ARROWKEYS to navigate between windows in terminal. I do think their default TERM setting is annoying, but that's easily correctable and of course I have to set the colors to black & green and set the window size bigger.

I like that when you resize the windows bigger the text will automatically resize correctly to the new width without a bunch of broken up lines.

I dunno, I've been exclusively using unix systems the last 10 years of my life. I don't really feel that any other *Term's really do much of a better job. Terminal.app can be a tad 'slow' if your command is spewing 10's of thousands of lines at a time, but that's not something I try to let happen often.

Re:Thank goodness! (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069869)

when I type Ctrl-D it should CLOSE the terminal window! Not show process is complete and THEN make you close the terminal.
Um, open a window, go to Terminal->Window Settings->Shell, set the "When the shell exits" option to "Close only if the shell exited cleanly" then hit the "Use Settings as Defaults" button

There ya go, now the window will close when the shell exits. :)

Terminal.app is not a half bad terminal program. Yeah there are more customizable ones out there and ones that have some interesting features but Terminal.app is a decent no-frills terminal program. Poke around (or use the help menu) and you'll see that it can be customized decently to fit your liking.

It passed the certification (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069305)

The Open Group's trademark-protected Unix certification program determines who gets to call themselves 'UNIX'. Just because an OS is derived from the original Unix sources at some point doesn't make it a 'UNIX'. You get to call it a 'UNIX' if it passes the Open Group's tests, which determine if it meets the specifications. In this case, Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard', only when running on Intel Macs, not PPC Macs or any other box was found to meet the UNIX 03 specification.

Re:It passed the certification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069509)

You get to call it a 'UNIX' if it passes the Open Group's tests, which determine if it meets the specifications.

And if a certain cigarette-smoking man lets you.

Re:It passed the certification (1)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069583)

In this case, Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard', only when running on Intel Macs, not PPC Macs or any other box was found to meet the UNIX 03 specification.
And this is what confuses me. There is no 10.5 for ICBMs and 10.5 for PPC Macs. It's all one, single, unified version with one SKU. It's odd they explicitly mention ICBMs.

Re:It passed the certification (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069675)

And this is what confuses me.

If you must have a "certified Unix!!1!" system for some reason, then you must buy a new Apple. Remember, they'd still much rather sell you a new system than a copy of OS X for an old iMac. They wouldn't have a whole lot to gain by making that certification backward-compatible.

Re:It passed the certification (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069677)

Don't have time to wade through the Open Group's documentation right now, but is it possible that these certifications are issued in a similar way to government security certs - that is, a specific version of the software running on a specific version of the hardware?

Re:It passed the certification (4, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069829)

Apple used to specifically claim their products were not certified for use in weapons systems (one of the disclaimers in MPW), so there may not be a 10.5 for ICBMs.

Re:It passed the certification (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069841)

It's not just testing, there is a LOT of money involved here. Maybe Apple only paid to test the Intel version, there is little reason for them to pay to test a legacy (for them) architecture, the newest PPC models are now nearing two years old now.

Hrrrrm. (1)

Funkcikle (630170) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069315)

The certificate mentions Intel-based Apple hardware but not PPC...wonder why that is. Is PPC Leopard actually AmigaOS in disguise or something?

Re:Hrrrrm. (1)

simong (32944) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069785)

It looks like Leopard will be Universal so either Apple or Opengroup have gone for certification on the current, Intel platform.

Great dept. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069321)

cat... hehe

Saints preserve us (5, Funny)

pzs (857406) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069333)

Does this mean that turtle neck wearing goatie bearded design weenies will start calling themselves Unix geeks?

Peter

Re:Saints preserve us (4, Funny)

stuntpope (19736) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069525)

Only if pony-tailed, sandal-wearing bearded fat guys with rainbow suspenders start calling themselves sensitive artists.

Re:Saints preserve us (1)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069765)

You just described Jerry Garcia...

Re:Saints preserve us (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069873)

You just described Jerry Garcia...

I didn't know he was a Unix guy! What did he do, hack kernel code while on the road?
It would explain some the songs. Heh, folks thought they were about drugs but they were about internals. KC Jones watch your speed must have been about race conditions.

Re:Saints preserve us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069607)

as opposed to dragon-shirt wearing neckbeard weenies that are the current crop of Unix geeks?

Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (-1, Troll)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069337)

Seriously, buying an Apple computer is such an impulse buy anyway. I don't care if the one OS they can run is UNIX (though that's great for them, kudos). To buy an Apple means buying in to that Apple cult err, culture that I just don't want to be a part of... and I look at all the people coming out of the Apple store when I walk around town during lunch & those people REALLY DON'T CARE, that's for sure, they look like they're in a trance coming out of that store...

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069417)

Go on, go in the store. They are nice people, and will be happy to play with you....

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (2, Insightful)

pzs (857406) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069471)

That's preposterous. How do you explain the large number of hard-core computing people who are converting to Mac because they like the balance between usability and Unix?

I regard the drones who buy a Dell machine with Vista as a good deal more trance-like than somebody "thinking different".

Peter

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (5, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069481)

I look at all the people coming out of the Apple store when I walk around town during lunch & those people REALLY DON'T CARE, that's for sure, they look like they're in a trance coming out of that store...
Well, if they're anything like me they're probably just contemplating whether or not they can pay off their credit card bill next month after buying a MacBook Pro and AppleCare coverage. "Hmm, if I only make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for breakfast, lunch, and dinner for the family I might be able to pay for half of the MacBook Pro this month and half next month... Oh shit, I should really just take it back... oh man, but I'd have to pay a $250 restocking fee... shit. I'm just going to go home and play with it and maybe I'll feel better about my purchase even though my 15" Powerbook was working perfectly fine and was only 2 years old."

At least, that was what was going through my head when my eyes were glossed over and I was trudging to the car with my shiny 15" MacBook Pro in my hand. But hey, can I really call myself an American if I don't have several thousand dollars worth of credit card debt spent on totally expendable consumer electronic devices? I don't think so!

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069643)

I saved up the money instead of putting it on credit. Thats another American (USA) way!

Re:Doesn't make me want to buy an Apple any more (4, Interesting)

Otter Escaping North (945051) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069603)

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to buy an Apple and not have the Apple-chip installed into your brain. I'm living proof. I have a Mac mini which I bought as a family computer for a number of reasons; I wanted a good, usable OS, I couldn't get good CUPS/SANE support for my printer/scanner on Linux, and I wanted the iLife suite to make videos of the pups. The form factor is beautiful, and it's quiet - working within Mrs. Otter's ban on loud, whirring machines in the family room. It wasn't an impulse purchase by any stretch of the imagination (I weighed the decision for about a year). So I've got a Mac - and if that Mac goes, I'd replace it with another because I want those features.

That being said, I run a Slackware server, I have an Ubuntu desktop in my study. I run Kubuntu at work (a non-supported OS). I've even got a Windows machine, thought it stays powered down for months at a time except when I want to check something. I'm planning on a laptop purchase...a Dell with Ubuntu if they can get it together in Canada.

I can get the same specs as a souped up powerbook for about a grand less at Dell. Grandpa Otter's MacBook started flaking out recently, and I'd service the thing if it wasn't Fort Knox to get in. I know what Apple's strengths are, and I know what their weaknesses are, and I've not bought into a cult because they build stuff that does what I want. iLife is a good suite, but iMovie can be kinda unstable. Front Row is cool, but the interface is a bit sparse, and can be unwieldy if you have a lot of media (I do). The price of their computers is very high, and they tend to lag behind in terms of hardware specs. You can't really customize (you can only upgrade), and nothing ever goes on sale. The design of the machines are beautiful. An extra $150 to have it black??? The fact that they try and keep you out of them is very frustrating to a hobbyist like me. OSX is a good OS that's easy to use. I can't believe it's taking them until Leopard to get multiple friggin' desktops. Everything "just works" on a Mac...yeah, except the new headset I bought because the audio-in jack won't work with an unpowered microphone.

See? Apple computer, no Apple chip in the head. It is possible.

You should think differently.

No Linux? (3, Interesting)

quanticle (843097) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069343)

Oddly enough, I don't see any Linux vendors on that list. Does this mean that OSX is more Unixy than Linux?

Re:No Linux? (4, Informative)

Swampash (1131503) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069395)

Does this mean that OSX is more Unixy than Linux?

As of 10.5, OS X is UNIX. Linux is "UNIX-like".

Re:No Linux? (5, Funny)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069419)

You mean Linux doesn't stand for "Linux Is Not Unix"?

Re:No Linux? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069479)

I think you mean "Linux Is Not Unix, Xavier", as uttered by RMS in the confusing GPLv2-vs.-X-Men crossover

Re:No Linux? (1, Informative)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069587)

No, GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix". Linux is just Linus first name "unixified".

Re:No Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069487)

Linux is a UNIX clone, not a UNIX derivative. Pretty much have to be a SysV to get this (which even the BSD's can't get).

Re:No Linux? (3, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069521)

Oddly enough, I don't see any Linux vendors on that list. Does this mean that OSX is more Unixy than Linux?


The certification process is expensive. Very expensive. A Linux distro could, in fact, be certified, but no one has been interested in spending that much money to get one certified. It would take a lot of money, and what's it worth, really?

It would take a lot of money.....? Hey, yo! Mark Shuttleworth! You're a billionaire, right? You want Ubuntu to be UNIX-certified, right?

Is it worth it? (1)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069735)

Depends on the accounts you are aiming for. If you want to compete for government contracts that specify Unix, than yes, it is worth it. However, the amount of the revenue for the Linux software is kind of trivial. All the Unix vendors have traditionally sold the Unix workstations... hardware and software. It's high margin business, because the barriers to entry are high.

Microsoft has a POSIX subsystem... it's never really been useful, but for bidding on projects where one of the requirements is POSIX compatibility, it served it's purpose. Microsoft couldn't sell NT as a Unix system, but it could compete if the specifications were more vague and called for POSIX compatibility, because NT had it.

Is Ubuntu going to fight for those accounts? Is it worth it without the hardware bundle? The most likely scenario would be if a company like Dell wanted to compete in the workstation market, where they could create a Dell Linux, get it certified Unix on their workstations, and sell into the Workstation market. My guess is that none of the PC Makers want to alienate Microsoft by creating a Linux-based Workstation, and none of the Linux vendors want to get into the hardware business.

I never understood why Penguin Computing or any of the other Linux-hardware guys tried this approach... but selling into specified contracts doesn't mean throwing up a website, it means a sales force focused on that channel, and I don't know if they had the capital to set up the team to get it to market.

Alex

Jurassic Park (0)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069349)

So I guess it will be the OS in the next Jurassic Park movie? This is Unix, or this is Sparta. I know this!

Money is taken away from the idiots (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069351)

Open your eyes. Unix as we know and love it is dead. OpenGroup can sell you a Unix certificate, but that it just a word - a piece of paper. They are just taking money away from the idiots. I could also sell you a property on moon and give you a piece of paper for that so that you could go out and brag about it. It's really the same thing. It has no real meaning these days - ask RMS if you don't believe me. This days "Unix" is not the old school "Unix" we all learned and loved and even if it was then so what? Would OSX have been less usable if it never got that Unix certificate??? What REAL VALUE does this bring to OSX users? Care to explain it to me, because I must be stupid, I've only used Unix since 1978! All this stupid theater is only there to fool you nerds to believe Apple has something really unique to offer to you. It's just a clever Apple marketing trick to fool nerds! It has no real value to any one of you! I'm 100% sure about that!

Re:Money is taken away from the idiots (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069465)

Go on in the store. They are nice people. Don't resent them.

Re:Money is taken away from the idiots (4, Insightful)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069469)

It's not about the 'name' it's about what the certificate represents: Compliance with a specified set of tests.

That's actually very valuable and it isn't just the name, because it means that if you have an application that relies on the functionality proven by those tests, then you're good.

That's the whole point of standards and standardizing bodies. You want a gallon to be a gallon (US or UK, just be consistent!), a kilogram to be a kilogram, a UNIX to be a UNIX. Testing isn't free, so instead of relying on volunteers to do testing it looks like IBM, Apple, Sun, HP, and Fujitsu paid some guys calling themselves the Open Group to do some verification and certify that some standards are met. I don't see a lot of controversy there.

Ask RMS? (2, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069639)

It has no real meaning these days - ask RMS if you don't believe me.
Whatever the point you're making, I think would rather believe you than listen to RMS.

Perhaps this lets the gov't buy Macs? (2, Insightful)

Lepton68 (116619) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069807)

Doesn't this mean places like US gov't agencies can finally buy Macs, because they are only allowed to buy Windows or Unix? Something like that? If true, this makes the certification very valuable, Macs were shut out from official gov't purchases for a long while.

GNU incompatability (0, Offtopic)

GrEp (89884) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069357)

Will Leopard fully support GNU binutils? More specifically will add2line work?

Re:GNU incompatability (5, Funny)

KH (28388) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069415)

Did you forget that GNU is Not Unix?

Re:GNU incompatability (1)

HairyCanary (688865) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069503)

Oh how I wish I had mod points to give.

Re:GNU incompatability (1)

AnObfuscator (812343) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069695)

But don't you wish it were?

Official Unixes: OSX, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, and... GNU's Not Unix.

You see, it's funny because it *says* that it's not Unix, but it really *would* be unix. ha ha ha! I kill me.

Re:GNU incompatability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069425)

Probably not, as GNU stands for Gnu's NOT Unix. And Leopard just did get branded as a Unix...

Re:GNU incompatability (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069443)

What do you think "GNU's Not UNIX" is supposed to communicate?

Re:GNU incompatability (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069451)

Maybe if Apple wasnt using a fork of an ancient version of GNU as (one that predates libbfd IIRC)...

But it doesn't really do hard links? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069359)

I've heard people saying that HFS+ can't really handle hard links properly pre Leopard. So does this mean that it's going to be fixed in Leopard or what?

Re:But it doesn't really do hard links? (1)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069627)

I've heard people saying that HFS+ can't really handle hard links properly pre Leopard.
Citation needed. Where did you here that? (And don't link to some crazy nutjob idiot cracker that likes to rant about stuff he doesn't understand).

Do hard links work on HFS+? Yes. So what's it matter how they are implemented?

Gooble gobble, one of us, we accept her, one of us (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069399)

Gooble gobble, gooble gobble, one of us, we accept her, one of us, one of us!!!!!

Now we know what Apple will announce next Tuesday (1)

sjonke (457707) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069431)

wump in the box

If it meant anything (4, Insightful)

mjgraham (1135833) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069435)

If UNIX meant more than real world UNIX Compatibility, there's now an easily usable, affordable real UNIX on the market - is the jist of the news. For the few organisations that demand real UNIX this could be in Apple's favour. Yes, the hardware may be crappy, but admin costs would be lower. Or not. Either way the Pointy-haired bosses of the world will be all over it, so many admins will have no choice.

and in other news... (1, Funny)

Potent (47920) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069453)

And in other news, the Pope is officially Catholic.

So what? It's not even a good PR move. (0, Troll)

Derleth (197102) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069477)

And a resounding cry of "So what?" goes up from the huddled geek masses.

This is purely down to Apple having enough money to get the Open Group to administer the relevant tests. Everyone who understands this stuff knows NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and even Linux are more Unix than Mac OS X will ever be in terms of both philosophy and technical details, but nobody connected to any of those projects has both the money and the incentive to get a specific version of those certified so they remain officially "Unix-like" in every context where you have to worry about Rabid Attack Lawyers.

Presumably, Apple has some reason for doing this. I don't pretend to understand what. It isn't the kind of thing that would appeal to their core demographic (iPod kids and Photoshop hacks) and they know Mac OS X doesn't have the technical chops to compete in real-world server farms where being SUS-compliant means being able to run lots of pre-existing software.

I'm probably wrong. Apple isn't known for being stupid. This just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move. (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069651)

Presumably, Apple has some reason for doing this. I don't pretend to understand what. It isn't the kind of thing that would appeal to their core demographic (iPod kids and Photoshop hacks)

I'm sure you know about XServe, don't you? That's where this stuff matters... So they might not be as good as "real" Big Iron, but now they can say they are at the same level as Big Iron. At least according to that certification. This is not for iPod wielding photoshop artists, this is so that IT managers can choose Apple hardware and convince Point Hair Bosses....

Apple has a broader target demographic than you might think... They expanded it the day they released OS X.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move. (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069871)

A nerd without Karma is like a pretty girl without breasts.


Easily solved with an affordably priced surgical procedure?

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20069711)

It's an opportunity to sell to people who have to check off the "UNIX" box on the sheet before they can even look at a product.

Is it worth whatever price they paid? I have no idea, this is not a PR move (why would the public even care) or a move calculated to impress the geek masses.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move. (1)

setagllib (753300) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069737)

Scenario: You're a CIO doing a deployment of UNIX applications, and you want to be absolutely sure you deploy a UNIX. You now have four major vendors to choose from. Apple being one of those vendors gives it access to that niche market. It may not be such a big deal, but it'll probably pay for itself very quickly.

And from all I've heard, it's not a bad OS at all, so having yet another real UNIX is creating even more resistance to Windows in the server space. Real standards go a long way. It would be nice to get a Linux distribution compliant and certified. Does Debian have a chance, money aside? I for one welcome our certified overlords.

Re:So what? It's not even a good PR move. (2, Interesting)

skingers6894 (816110) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069749)

"NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and even Linux are more Unix than Mac OS X will ever be in terms of both philosophy and technical details"

Philosophy and technical details? Do tell. You obviously given it more though than this pfffft "Open Group" mob....

Well... (2, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069511)

Beyond being a brand/certification, what does Unix actually mean these days, really?

My guess is very little (as the summary acknowledges, to be fair). Though I can't say it was pointless for Apple to get the certification, if only because it's a selling point to ageing senior managers who vaguely remember when "Unix" actually meant something (and think it still does). Since the Apple and Mac names aren't particularly associated with the Enterprise/Server market, the Unix brand gives them a "serious" selling point.

Sure, they could have pointed out the "BSD" underpinnings, and any real expert would know what they meant. But for the management types, "Unix" is probably still the name to go for.

Linux meanwhile *is* spiritually just as much "Unix" as any of the "official" licensees... but it has enough brand recognition in its own right anyway.

Re:Well... (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069809)

I think it was probably more important for Apple to get the Mac certified than it is for Linux or *BSD. People already think of Linux and *BSD as UNIX, even though they're not. A lot of people think of the Mac as a "toy" or a system for the artists and graphic designers, and not something that's got real underpinnings on an enterprise platform.

Now that MacOS X is certified UNIX, it might change some people's perception of the OS.

OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (4, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069609)

I spent 10 years as a Windows user, and often watched UNIX savvy coworkers dance magically around terminal windows and vi. While I always thought the character driven interfaces were decidedly 1980, I also always felt it would make me a better rounded tech guy if I learned more about that world.


When I bought a Mac (because I wanted something better than Windows), I thought a nice side effect was I would have to learn more about UNIX. I bought a copy of "Learning UNIX for Mac OS X Tiger" and read through most of it. And I'm now very comfortable using the command line for simple things like FTPing, changing file permissions, and modifying simple text files (although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me).


But you know what? I really don't ever need to "know" that Mac OS X is UNIX. More so than any LINUX or Solaris box I've ever used, the UNIXness of Mac OS X is very nicely hidden -- actually, not "hidden", it's just that since Mac OS X has such a nice UI, and such great apps, I never really need to care about the UNIX underpinnings.


It's quite nice to be able to have your nice UNIX cake, and be able to eat your nice GUI cake too.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (5, Funny)

dbzero (64544) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069655)

First rule of unix, never tell anyone you use pico. Second rule of unix, NEVER TELL ANYONE YOU USE PICO! ...

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (2, Funny)

Otter Escaping North (945051) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069775)

(although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me)

So first - I agree with what the other fella said. You don't go around admitting things like that. If you really want to dis vi - start using emacs, and proclaim it to the world (wear a helmet).

Speaking as a vi user; it's not black magic. It is a little dark arts, though yes.

For black magic, you want to start doing your text editing with awk.

To really cross over to the other side, do everything in perl.

Re:OS X was finally my opportunity to learn UNIX (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069849)

When I bought a Mac (because I wanted something better than Windows), I thought a nice side effect was I would have to learn more about UNIX. I bought a copy of "Learning UNIX for Mac OS X Tiger" and read through most of it. And I'm now very comfortable using the command line for simple things like FTPing, changing file permissions, and modifying simple text files (although I always use PICO because VI just seems like black magic to me).

Nice to read.

Funny how buying a simple book, or investing a bit of time learning something can yield benefits. ;-)

Don't give up on vi, though. I remember when I first started learning it, I spent a solid week or two thinking "This is completely nuts." Now, I don't use anything else.

GNU (4, Funny)

AlanCramer (1132757) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069613)

Damn, GNU is still Not UNIX.....you win this round yet again mac fanboys!

Oblig. (3, Funny)

xerent_sweden (1010825) | more than 7 years ago | (#20069825)

In soviet russia, computer systems certify you!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>