Mac OS X is not Linux. News at 11.
> Its kernel is "real BSD Unix"-based;
> remember, even Apple doesn't claim that
> OS X is Unix. How can you say that when
> the vendor doesn't even try to pass it
> off as "Unix"?
4.4BSD's vendor didn't call it "Unix" either.
> From my experiences, and the experiences
> of friends who've tried to move from
> *nix to OS X, that "real BSD Unix" is
> quite hidden and burried...
I was running unix programs within five
minutes of logging in for the first time.
It's not hard, you just launch Terminal
and there you are.
> OS X, out of the
> box, is, IMO, not Unix.
I've seen a lot of arguments about what is and
isn't unix, but this is the first time I've seen
anyone argue that something could be unix in one
configuration but not-unix in another.
> Everyone's getting hung up on the tools
> I decided to pick; it is clear that a
> compiler does not a Unix system make.
No, but "make" does compile a Unix system. :-)
> The fact that you have to do this proves
> that Apple's focus is not concerned with
> grabbing (or supporting) the Unix
> developer and workstation market, which
> was O'Reilly's argument.
So a company that ships a top-notch development
suite along with its operating system can't be
considered developer-friendly because it takes
an extra step to install that suite?
That's not very convincing.
> It is about clarifying some of the hype
> Apple's supporters (who often epitomize
> zealotry) and Apple's marketing
> department are making about their
> desktop, Unix-based OS.
When you set out to "clarify", it's best to have
your facts straight. The latest release of Mac
OS X looks up information in /etc before it looks
in NetInfo. Other factual errors and omissions
in your essay have been demonstrated by others;
I won't duplicate their work.
> OS X, out of the box,
> doesn't know anything about port 6000.
Neither does SunOS 5, nor many other fine Unix