> my point? the unix operating system has
> had a monumental impact on the computing
> world and on the design and
> implementation of every operating system
> i've even seen.
Agreed; well put. One other thing to mention, however, is that Unix, originally, was never meant for the desktop. So, logic would suggest, that Unix made desktop-friendly is going to look quite a bit different than any flavor you've recently encountered.
> my last question to the author is, so
> what if os x isn't unix? the linux
> operating system is also unix-based, as
> you pretty much said yourself.
Depends on what you mean by Unix. If you mean philosophy, perhaps. Except that now, modern Linux philosophy is "if it's not bleeding edge, it's not worthy", which is somewhat off from Unix philosophy, "hm, that's nifty...how can I make it work with other stuff?".
On the other hand, if you're talking from a source-code perspective, not even close. The Linux kernel was meant to be a Minix clone. And the userland is GNU, who we all know stands for GNU's Not Unix. So, it looks like even the author has some misconceptions on both Unix *and* Linux.
Besides, beating up Mac OS X because it's Unix-based or Unix-like, and then turning around and touting Linux as the Right Way for exactly the same reason, kicks one's credibility out the window...even moreso when you're wrong about both.