Is macOS really unix

is unix better than linux? whats the difference between these two OS's.

Other urls found in this thread:

opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3627.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tru64_UNIX
twitter.com/AnonBabble

MacOS is UNIX-like, not UNIX.
Linux is not an OS. Many (if not all?) Linux distros, however, are UNIX-like.

macOS and Free/OpenBSD are the closest real up to date UNIX's we have.

They are actually way more UNIX than just UNIX like, Linux is UNIX like.

It literally is UNIX. That is an indisputable fact.

Read this and don't ask dumb questions.

Too bad an OS like the one in op's pic no longer exists.

Only difference from the photo is the UI

It doesn't hinder it to be a gayish shit though.

Stop spewing memes that are older than you are.

>macOS and Free/OpenBSD are the closest real up to date UNIX's we have.

you realize that stuff outside this imageboard exists, right? Stuff that is used in the industry is way closer to UNIX than what you listed

OS X is as close to UNIX as it gets. An OS either is UNIX or it isn't, and OS X is.

>Is macOS UNIX?
Yes.
>Is UNIX better than Linux?
No. They're very much similar.

Only stuff like Solaris and HP-UX is all that i can think of that is actual genetic Unix (based off of ATT code). But it is dying and good luck purchasing a license.

It's UNIX system but unlike other UNIX systems (*BSD) or UNIX-like systems (GNU/Linux) it doesn't depend on the abomination knows as X11 to provide pretty graphics.

And Quartz + Aqua is infinitely better than Wayland + GTK + GNOME or whatever other shit is supposed to finally "fix" graphics on GNU/Linux. And it's stable, feature complete and it works unlike Wayland which is stuck in infinite alpha and empty promises. What's even funnier is that things that Wayland is supposed to "fix" are fixed in Mac OS X since the first version 15 years ago and it only got better since then.

The tragedy is that Linux is a much better kernel than Darwin but unfortunately Xorg, Wayland, GTK+, Qt, Gnome, KDE are holding it back.

Darwin's an OS, not a kernel. You're thinking of XNU.

Yeah, I meant XNU, thanks

>MacOS is UNIX-like, not UNIX.

macOS is certified UNIX.
Looniks is a UNIX rip off.

OS X is about as far from System V as you can get, not that similarity to System V is anything to strive for.

UNIX is a certification, and every OS X version since 10.5 on Intel has been UNIX certified.

>Free/OpenBSD
>up to date
user...

hello here is my Unix desktop

What a trash.

I always wanted a sparc when I was younger. Thanks for digging up old trauma faggot.

no bully

Nothing is Unix today. Even back in the day, hardly anyone used Unix proper.
They're POSIX-compliant, which is all that matters.

>unix
>outdated shit like OpenSSH

they used the "it's unix" pitch in the early stages to get more geeks to switch. just as they ran their "im a mac, im a pc" commercials.

they don't actually give a fuck about unix other than a free platform to start on and make money off. if apple was so great at design they wouldn't have drained the swamp of OS 9 so quick. fuck apple they did this so many times, khtml/safari, gcc/llvm. fuck them so hard.

something as vague as POSIX shouldn't even exists on the first place

>free
Every time Apple releases a new version they spend $15k on certification

Linux is UNIX-certified, 2 distros acquired certification. Not that it matters, it's a rubber stamp, but you're still wrong.

keep the dream alive i guess. also lol $15k

Actually UNIX is an operating system.

Macshit spaghetti code hacked OS was never UNIX and never will be.

>$15k

A WHOLE 15k?!
Stop the presses!

OpenBSD is more unix-like and it's not even certified.

apple just crammed a bunch of shit into their shinny boxes. when they added bash and emacs to os x everyone was like "oh wow" because they deliberately were targeting switchers. now microsoft even adds bash. is windows unix too?

Unix is an OS, UNIX is a brand owned by the Open Group.

Of course it's not much but it's certainly not $0

Of course Windows isn't UNIX.

Except they objectively improve every open source project they touch. Nobody gave a fuck about khtml before apple turned it into webkit, because it was shit. Now everybody uses it.

thats like a decades salary for a foxcon underage suicidal slave

>MacOS is UNIX-like, not UNIX.
macOS is certified UNIX.

Linux is not UNIX and it never will be.

>Of course Windows isn't UNIX.
so why is mac os? because they pay for a piece of paper?

is OpenBSD unix? they don't have said paper.

>Linux is not UNIX
Objectively false, 2 distros have obtained certification, check the list.

>objectively improve every open source project they touch

hilarious. they're running outdated openssh and pf. they don't give back shit to either.

I hope HPE open-sources HP-UX after Itanium dies so we can have the only remaining pure SysV UNIX ported to whatever is mainstream at that point (I'm guessing ARM64?).

Because bash in windows is just a virtualized ubuntu running in the background.

>objectively improve
Kek provide proof pls.

>because they pay for a piece of paper?
Because they made their OS compliant to the standards and paid for the test. You don't just throw money at the Open Group and get a cert, you dumbass.

So what? z/OS has a Unix subsystem and it's SUS certified too (and can therefore use the trademark UNIX).

>windows is just a virtualized
probably because "muh gpl virus code"

redmond lawyers earning their pay.

And how does this break the UNIX spec exactly?

>OS compliant to the standard
oh the rigour

It doesn't, but it isn't part of windows. It's another os running inside an application in windows.

And this matters how? It can still be UNIX if Microsoft gave a shit. UNIX is a crappy certification anyway, it doesn't mention implementation anywhere just "this feature has to exist". HFS+ has symlinks, have you ever seen the implementation? It's atrocious, yet it still counts.

It has to comply with almost 4000 pages of specifications. All I'm saying is that UNIX certification is more than just playing for a piece of paper.

saying ms and apple care about unix is like saying caitlyn jenner was a lifelong feminist or is allowed to speak on their behalf.

It's not enough viral to fuck android vendors in the ass if viral at all.

That's a real fat trolling

>is macOS really unix
LMAO


READ IT AND WEEP, POORFAG!


opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3627.htm

Show me the cert of YOUR OS!

It actually is a part of Windows and is not virtualized. But that would actually require you to know what the fuck you are talking about.

By that logic, anything that can run virtualbox is unix compliant.

It's true, see

2 Linux distros are UNIX-certified, you can look it up.

If windows by default came with virtualbox running Ubuntu on boot, I guess so. This is where you realize how irrelevant muh UNIX is.

So what? It still sucks compared to what most Unices did twenty years ago.

>2 Linux distros are UNIX-certified, you can look it up
But is your distro certified?

>how irrelevant
not if you're running a marketing campaign in 2001 to get disgruntled nerds to switch to your product, which is pretty much the only interest in unix apple has had besides starting over with a sprint from the failures of os 9 (a true testament to their coding abilities).

No because I don't give 2 shits about UNIX. It's completely irrelevant.
Look my distro is approved by the My Little Pony Secret Club, Department of OS Design, this is totally important because I say so.

>2 Linux distros are UNIX-certified, you can look it up.
only specific old versions. and you don't run it. so shut the fuck up.

your mom sucks in the back alley every night.

>only specific old versions
Wasn't Huawei's OS certified not too long ago?

lol @ buttblasted macbabby xD

What would you propose as an alternative?

Do you run it? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Plebs like you make me sick. Keep on using that toy piece of shit you call an OS.

>toy piece of shit you call an OS
oh the irony

Bitch, I'm not arguing against you. I'm just pointing out that Huawei had EulerOS 2.0 certified like 6 months ago.

>mactoddler thinks his spaghetticode clusterfuck gaysexOS unix can become unix overnight with zero code changes because somebody signed a piece of paper

lmao

There's a difference between Unix and UNIX. OS X is undeniably UNIX. Whether or not it's Unix is up for debate.

>oh the irony
Silicon Valley literally runs on Macs. Even Sup Forums runs on OSX. Stay mad.

silicon valley is a mess anyway

*developers* use macs. all the infrastructure runs on Linux
also Sup Forums moved from homOSeX some time ago

but you can very well continue being in closet and lying to yourself

>*developers* use macs. all the infrastructure runs on Linux
That's all that matters.

>also Sup Forums moved from homOSeX some time ago
No it didn't. Still runs on Macs. Stay mad, stay retarded, and most importantly: stay poor you fucking pleb.

POSIX is a meme.

UNIX was always shit, but it was the majority marketshare back in the day, thus if your shit was compatible with UNIX, that made it more functional.

Trying to be UNIX compatible in 2016 when desktop/servers/phones are 99% Windows/Linux is retarded.

>That's all that matters.
>implying a bunch of webshits matter
lol no

>Stay mad, stay retarded, and most importantly: stay poor you fucking pleb.
Stay homosexual, stay more homosexual, and most importantly stay the most homosexual fucking pleb.

>homosexual
Sorry, I don't use Android or Google services.

>ceo of apple is openly gay
>t-totally not homosexual
>i-it's le ebil android
xD

And? 50% of Android team is gay. Internal nickname for Android is Gaydroid because of it.

Google sells official gay t-shirts. Offical Android YT channels promotes same sex marriages. They even have official gay pride apps. Apple doesn't have any of that shit.

Stay mad, homophobe.

/thread

>y-you're just a homophobe
that's a very strong argument

>b-but you don't run it
Proofs?

I don't even give a fuck about UNIX, it's a rubber stamp. I'm glad Red Hat was too busy fixing Shellshock and Heartbleed (which Apple contributor exactly zero percent to fix, they just took advantage that other people can actually code) to give a shit about a certificate.

>not Unix
>NeXT/MacOS links to BSD and mach and not considered Unix

>Tru64 which links from ATT SysV and mach and considered Unix.

Are you implying that BSD isn't Unix?

>shellshock heartbleed
I wish Mac like FreeBSD would get away from that GNU shit anyway.

>I wish Apple would code anything lower-level than an office suite
Kek

Do you realize the only people who give a shit about muh UNIX certification are macfags? It doesn't tell you anything about the OS quality, proof of this is that 3 kernels held together by spit (aka the macOS kernel) managed to get certified.

>Are you implying that BSD isn't Unix?
Not him, but surely none of the free versions of BSD have any part of Unix left in them?

So they couldn't find crucial bugs in Bash and their entire OS is a patchwork of other OS's, yet you expect Apple to come up with a new set of coreutils?

POSIX and SUS has nothing to do with kernels you putz.

Mach kernels were used in SysV UNIX used in Alphaservers and Alphastations.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tru64_UNIX

That's up for debate. The unix systems group and BSDi settled out of court after Novell bought the Unix/UNIX rights and novell never monetized the name nor OS; they donated it to the opengroup. Some say a lot of code was rewritten and some say it was still in there.

Nope FreeBSD devs are a thing.

They are, with every release more GNU stuff is being replaced with BSD equivalents

MACTODDLERS BTFO

>That's up for debate.
Not, it isn't.
Berkeley's CSRG had already replaced most original UNIX code to sell BSD to the government by the time USL v. BSDi lawsuit hit, and that only sealed the deal by removing the (small amount of) residual UNIX code.
The free BSDs of today, being descended from 4.4BSD-Lite, have no original UNIX code in them.

>POSIX and SUS has nothing to do with kernels
Yes it does. Where do you think the syscalls defined by POSIX are implemented?
>look, one part of the patchwork was used here
How is this relevant? It's the only OS where the kernel wasn't intended for it. Linux was intended for a full OS. Windows NT was intended for Windows. None of the 3 kernels that compose the clusterfuck of the macOS kernel was intended for macOS.
>BSD devs are a thing
Ooh you expect BSD to create the actual hard part for Apple yet again. Well that does make more sense.

>Not, it isn't.
No citations. BSD and ATT swapped code like baseball cards. There's BSD code in SysV. ATT didn't give a shit about selling Unix because at the time of BSD the US Government told ATT that they couldn't sell Unix. (it was part of the bell monopoly agreements)

>Yes it does. Where do you think the syscalls defined by POSIX are implemented?
In the kernel, but the implementation is not spec'd only the requirements as some user has said before. Microkernel, monolithic, hybrid ..whatever doesn't fucking matter to the spec. So you cannot define Unix by the kernel type.

>In the kernel, but the implementation is not spec'd only the requirements as some user has said before. Microkernel, monolithic, hybrid ..whatever doesn't fucking matter to the spec. So you cannot define Unix by the kernel type.
Oh I agree, and that's actually a reason why UNIX is basically irrelevant as a metric. Some user earlier said that Windows with Ubuntu running in Virtual box at boot would be POSIX and I think it's probably true, even though it's a horrible implementation.

Apple's back-end OS dev skills are questionable at best.

...