On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 19:26, Ross Werner wrote: > So if, when you say it's not Unix-based, you mean that most of its code > doesn't come from Unix, then you're definitely correct. But it is > definitely Unix /based/ in the same way that Linux is Unix-based. (Which > is the reason that OS X users, heathens though they may be, are just as > welcome as Linux users to the *Unix* Users Group mailing list ;-)
Except that OS X is not unix-based in the same sense that Linux is. OS X is not based on posix-calls. The kernel does not aim to be a unix98-compatibly system, unlike Linux, which does aim to be an API clone of the unix98 and posix specification. OS X is more unix-like than BeOS, even though both had a pseudo posix emulation, but neither OS could be considered to be unix clones or even unix workalikes. That said, from the end user (sysad) point of view, it is very much unix-like and therefore Apple's claims of it being "Unix-based" can be valid from a lay-person's point of view. Hmm. Hope SCO doesn't pick up on this one, since they, um, own Unix. Michael > > ~ ross -- Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
