Re: Commentary on user response
Also, it seems that the author is getting a lot of heat for claiming that it's not UNIX because idiots have taken to arguing semantics. It's very clear that when he means UNIX he means the "free software movement". Not so much the FSF, simply the idea of open source software development. Like what produced the BSD line.
You have to be kidding me. Has Linux become so popular that people think UNIX means "the free software movement?" Do you know what GNU stands for?
Oh, and there's also some commercial offerings based in whole or in part or not at all on this code that is called UNIX, which none of us care about.
But ... but ... WHAT?? Look, reading this sentence over and over again just makes me more frustrated, so please read the excellent link someone posted below (http://kernelbook.sourceforge.net/pdf/ch-intro.pdf, there's even a quote from Maddog Hall so the most rabid Linux evangelists will trust it). Suffice to say that you've got it a little mixed up.
This was exactly the point of the article, which it is clear a whole host of people missed (and called me all sorts of fun names in the process).
I will not call you any names.
The point is this: there is a significant difference between a desktop operating system that is "Unix-based," and Unix that has a "desktop environment" running on top of it. OS X is the former and Unix/Linux is the latter.
First of all: Linux is not Unix, nor is OS X. OS X is "Unix-based" (admittedly I'm using Apple's marketing term, but it's true) and Linux could be called "Unix-like." But the fact remains, OS X has BSD code inside and is in many ways more a "Unix" than Linux. So I'm not sure where this "significant difference" lies -- if Aqua and GNOME/KDE/whatever are both "desktop environments," then wouldn't both OS X and Linux qualify as "the latter" above?
Case in point: my reason for claiming which software wasn't included in OS X by default was to point out that OS X is a desktop operating system, not a Unix operating system with a desktop environment.
But included software is hardly a judge of what is and isn't a "desktop OS." Many production UNIX98-certified systems do not come shipped with a compiler (and if they do, surely not GNU's gcc and gdb, if the vendor has its own compiler), or the "fortune" program. Many Linux distributions I've seen do not include gcc in the default install.
Also, this overlooks the fact that Apple sells its "OS X Server" product which will run all your Unix daemons for you -- with Apple's "desktop environment" on top.
And if people had read the entire article and thought before blindly claiming that I was a Mac basher (my first experience with computers was Apple Basic and Mac OS 6), they may have realized this.
I don't own a Mac, and haven't ever advocated using one (in fact, my current job is working on Linux); it's just that your claims seem inconsistent with facts, and instead betray a bias on your part. This bias is easily perceptable from your relentless attack on all ways that OS X is not like your Linux distribution (no gcc, fortune, X, /etc files, etc) and is probably why people see you as a "Mac basher."
A good example from your article:
But while the kernel is merely Unix-like, show me a Linux distribution that doesn't ship gcc, gdb, X, and all those other utilities (even fortune) that make Unix Unix.
I think other commenters here have explained why this sentence is so misguided (quickly: Linux isn't Unix; many Unices ship without gcc, gdb, X or fortune; Linux is itself only Unix-like; OS X's BSD kernel is more Unix-like than Linux's; your Linux distro doesn't define what "makes Unix Unix"). But in case you're wondering, this is why people think you are misrepresenting facts, either intentially (from bias) or unintentially (from ignorance).