Yeah, but none of the system tools and applications follow Unix-like paradigms, so it’s really only Unix-like in name. Sure you can launch a bash or zsh shell, but there aren’t a lot of useful things you can do with that without installing a bunch of third party tools like brew, so the experience isn’t all that different from having to install Cygwin or WSL in Windows.
I mean that you can’t really do much with those userland tools to effectively manage and configure your system. All configuration is abstracted away in a forest of xml files (i.e. /Library/Preferences) that’s as opaque and undocumented as the Windows registry and which you’re not supposed to touch other than with the approved GUI tools.
MacOS applications never follow Unix principles either regarding file placement.
So yeah while MacOS technically still is “Unix”, it really is a giant monolithic blob of shite built on top of the skeleton of what once was a decent Unix.
Well, you haven’t been very specific with your language.
All configuration is abstracted away in a forest of xml files (i.e. /Library/Preferences) that’s as opaque and undocumented as the Windows registry and which you’re not supposed to touch other than with the approved GUI tools.
It’s been some time since I touched MacOS, but there is a CLI tool for editing those preferences. Not unlike gconf. Actually gconf is apparently inspired by that and the Windows registry you so conveniently mentioned.
Not that I’m a fan, quite the opposite.
MacOS applications never follow Unix principles either regarding file placement.
“Unix principles” is the same as “Unix philosophy”, while you apparently mean Linux FHS. Yes, it’s understandably ignored. Yes, maybe it shouldn’t be.
So yeah while MacOS technically still is “Unix”, it really is a giant monolithic blob of shite built on top of the skeleton of what once was a decent Unix.
Well, see, comparing FreeBSD to Linux with its development path, for example, you might feel as if Linux was slowly moving in that direction as well. Linux users usually laugh at that sentiment and say that it’s evolution. So - MacOS too has what its developers considered evolution from what Linux/FreeBSD/… have.
Ah, also X11 is not that integral and traditional for Unix, if you imply that as well. Sun had its SunView in the olden days. There were other windowing systems.
It would appear then that no MacOS before 14.0 Sonoma is a certified Unix. Which is obviously false. Which means that your implication that this page lists everything certified is wrong.
I said “releases”, because these were specific versions a few years ago. Perhaps nothing relevant today was certified, still what I remember is not that different from the mundane Red Hat of the same year.
Which is all useless talk cause when we say Unix as something important, we mean “genetic Unix”, as in something of being derived from the same code base, culture, philosophy, etc, not “legal Unix” as a trademark, because that’s not the only cool-looking word one can imagine to name an OS.
So obviously BSDs are real Unix then, Linux is something weird and MacOS is bullshit.
My experience is the same, but still it’s a Unix-like system. People who fear Linux may do Unix-like things with it. It’s worth something.
Yeah, but none of the system tools and applications follow Unix-like paradigms, so it’s really only Unix-like in name. Sure you can launch a bash or zsh shell, but there aren’t a lot of useful things you can do with that without installing a bunch of third party tools like brew, so the experience isn’t all that different from having to install Cygwin or WSL in Windows.
Eh, WTF? It has normal Unix-like userland tools.
You can’t do much without a package manager under Linux either.
Homebrew, macports, pkgsrc etc are all just ports collections, like the FreeBSD one. A pretty Unixy kind of thing to use, more so than apt or yum.
I hate Apple GUI, but technically it’s almost as good as Linux to use.
You don’t understand what I mean.
I mean that you can’t really do much with those userland tools to effectively manage and configure your system. All configuration is abstracted away in a forest of xml files (i.e.
/Library/Preferences) that’s as opaque and undocumented as the Windows registry and which you’re not supposed to touch other than with the approved GUI tools.MacOS applications never follow Unix principles either regarding file placement.
So yeah while MacOS technically still is “Unix”, it really is a giant monolithic blob of shite built on top of the skeleton of what once was a decent Unix.
Well, you haven’t been very specific with your language.
It’s been some time since I touched MacOS, but there is a CLI tool for editing those preferences. Not unlike gconf. Actually gconf is apparently inspired by that and the Windows registry you so conveniently mentioned.
Not that I’m a fan, quite the opposite.
“Unix principles” is the same as “Unix philosophy”, while you apparently mean Linux FHS. Yes, it’s understandably ignored. Yes, maybe it shouldn’t be.
Well, see, comparing FreeBSD to Linux with its development path, for example, you might feel as if Linux was slowly moving in that direction as well. Linux users usually laugh at that sentiment and say that it’s evolution. So - MacOS too has what its developers considered evolution from what Linux/FreeBSD/… have.
Ah, also X11 is not that integral and traditional for Unix, if you imply that as well. Sun had its SunView in the olden days. There were other windowing systems.
To add with Linux being unix-like not certified unix, macOS doesn’t need to implement anything in Linux fhs style.
Linux is unix-like, macOS is certified unix.
Certification is irrelevant really. There are Linux distribution releases which have been certified, just like MacOS.
That information appears to be false: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
It would appear then that no MacOS before 14.0 Sonoma is a certified Unix. Which is obviously false. Which means that your implication that this page lists everything certified is wrong.
I said “releases”, because these were specific versions a few years ago. Perhaps nothing relevant today was certified, still what I remember is not that different from the mundane Red Hat of the same year.
Which is all useless talk cause when we say Unix as something important, we mean “genetic Unix”, as in something of being derived from the same code base, culture, philosophy, etc, not “legal Unix” as a trademark, because that’s not the only cool-looking word one can imagine to name an OS.
So obviously BSDs are real Unix then, Linux is something weird and MacOS is bullshit.