MacOS is the true heir of Unix

autism

No it doesn't. There's nothing GNU in macOS

well.... bash

macOS is peak unix

You're right, I guess there is a little bit of pre-GPLv3 GNU stuff in macOS.

macos is closed source

OP is a fag

>peak unix
>doesn't run on a server.

how many UNIXes are left?

Attached: highlander1.png (350x240, 130K)

most all unix are closed source.

>fagOS
>unix

Attached: 1512284411673.png (1245x852, 125K)

How are you defining a "complete rewrite"? Modern OSX has none of the proprietary 4.3 code, just like BSD 4.4 Lite did. They rewrote only what they had to, not everything.

I think they have bash, and GCC, but just about everything else is BSD.

OSX is, but XNU is not:
opensource.apple.com/source/xnu/

>I think they have bash
They have old bash from when it was GPLv2, and refuse to update it to a recent version because GPLv3 is completely incompatible with macOS
>and GCC
Nope. They ship clang and a link to clang invoked by "gcc" that runs clang in gcc-compat mode

whoever wrote this pasta knows nothing about unix. Every fucking unix was cobbled together with either BSD or SysV code (and most of the time both). Plus macos isn't the only mach kernel based unix (DEC did it in the 90's with Alphastations. )

Literally no web browser

Um, sweaty

Attached: .png (481x259, 76K)

OP, at least post the good one, and put a white background behind it. pngs are cancer

Attached: UnixTimeline.jpg (1280x971, 188K)

There are at least 3, maybe more

>less than 2 stars
sounds like even macfags hate it.
Oh and you can't run it headless.

What actual code from GNU wound up in Linux?

Do any of them support javascript?

Unix was proprietary pig disgusting garbage. There's no need to glorify unix nor to be proud on a cert Apple bought from the open group in order to shill outdated bsd and gnu software pissed on, shat on wrapped up with cringe as ((((((((((Unix)))))))))

Can anyone track down why the 1996 rainbow boiz at Apple named XNU to stand for "XNU is Not Unix"?

Seems like they were playing on GNU's naming. Can't find any historical references, just statements that XNU is either "X is not unix" or the above.

>Oh and you can't run it headless.

Headless but able to be remotely GUI controlled - might actually be useful to some amateur server admins.
Does Windows server run headless with remote GUI admin?

GNU is not a kernel, it's a collection of programs that make up a full operating system.

In that collection they have a kernel named Hurd. That kernel doesn't work as well as most people would want it to, so linux is used instead in order to create GNU/Linux hybrid OSs. Linux could have been in part inspired by some layout of Hurd and probably back in the early 90s a lot of Hurd developers jumped ship to linux and brought their initial ideas and expertise to make linux what we have today.

In the 70-80s, when you made a fork of a program, you usually used a name saying 'this is not that'. It's just on old hacker tradition. Hence GNU is not UNIX, while actually a clone, same with XNU.

>line 4
opensource.apple.com/source/bsdmake/bsdmake-16/mk/sys.mk.auto.html

MACTODDLERS ON

S
U
I
C
I
D
E

WATCH

Fixed.

Attached: 1512972841037.png (633x679, 31K)

>1994 - 2004
At that time it wasn't UNIX. It is now.

Meanwhile in the real world.

Attached: 1519067460463.jpg (599x1445, 77K)

see

still wrong. NextStep used BSD4.3 and 4.4
not the lite edition of 4.4.

I see, I've heard RMS' naming sound byte, but didn't think it applied to XNU, since I don't really know of many things that try to match the *NU bit other than GNU.

GNU attempted to emulated the Unix userspace, but not the kernel, so it's unix-line in that respect. Hurd is very unlike a traditional, monolithic unix kernel such as the *BSD kernels (from what I understand).

XNU does not refer to anything BUT a kernel AND it happens to not follow a monolithic design and instead is hybrid, using both Mach and freeBSD kernel components. The hybrid approach is definitely not what a "unix kernel" would have ever meant, especially in 1996. (now XNU is pars of Darwin which *is* a certified UNIX 03, so could mean that a XNU-like kernel could be considered unix-like)

Don't know if my break-down makes sense.

Unix was actually pretty shit. Use it fir a while and you'll be thankful being back at GNU after. It's no surprise tho. First off you had limits. Harware and software. That lead to lots of inane shit in unix you had to deal with. GNU made the whole stuff great. Actually GNU and BSD, since both shared the live of free software. You can see it in the manpages still to today. Unix meanwhile went completely garbage. Bought here, sold there, right here, certifications there. And it didn't go better and it was never good. The idea of unix was good and that's it. MacOS isn't unix. I piss on your cert and everyone at a specific age would laugh (or cry) tears looking at some walled garden playdoh os with outdated & ripped of gnu and bsd stuff called "unix".

When is Apple going to drop the clustefuck that is XNU and Darwin?

Attached: disappoint.jpg (500x335, 19K)

>certified UNIX 03, so could mean that a XNU-like kernel could be considered unix-like
UNIX is silent on how the kernel is implemented it only cares if it conforms to a standard.

DEC alphastations ran Tru64 UNIX and used SysVR4 ATT code but had a mach kernel.

>everyone at a specific age would laugh (or cry) tears looking at some walled garden playdoh os with outdated & ripped of gnu and bsd stuff called "unix".
>age group
I used a walled garden known as Solaris for years and I was fine.

POSIX had its uses back in the 80's because UNIX was the defacto standard. If you want mass compatibility, you made your software POSIX.
Today, the only things POSIX are a tiny handful of ancient legacy corporate systems and proprietary fruity toys that amount to less than 5% of the planet.

Meanwhile the entire rest of the world runs either Linux or Windows, making the Linux Standard Base and whatever clusterfuck standard MS has for their OS these days the only standards that actually matter.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

Making your shit POSIX today is fucking retarded.

does it have emacs

then if kernels are, let's call it, "unix-likeness-agnostic", then why would apple name their *KERNEL*, "... not unix"?

MacOS isn't Unix. I have proof: UNIX was proprietary; MacOS used GNU and BSD software. If anything, macOS is GNU/BSD plus malware.

If emacs doesn't compile, it's an appliance and not a computer. Just another law of the universe.

>53 posts in thread and yet no one posts this one

Attached: 1960px-Unix_history-simple.jpg (1960x1358, 429K)

Berkeley Unix had proprietary parts and freely licensed parts (the berkeley stuff. Don't know how they licensed them back then, but they had the copyright and kickstarted unofficial open source movement. That's why for *BSDs of the '90s, some parts had to be rewritten from scratch but not all)

Attached: 1510333112451.jpg (800x663, 79K)

COSE initiative that ended the unix wars in the early 90's. Everyone licensed code from AT&T SVR4. It was a failed initiative and ATT got out of the Unix selling business; sold Unix to Novell and Novell formed X/Open which with became the SUS.

>meanwhile in the real world

Attached: 1522942404784.png (850x610, 71K)

except it is running a really weird kernel

Open Source didn't exist till the 90s.

but the principle of sharing your source code with others did. Even before the GPL that brought us true open source + libre ideas.

who knew real unix was fucking shit

/thread

Attached: 1519880278296.gif (219x186, 1.76M)

that picture's meaning is ambiguous. Is it making fun of the quoted reply or being approving of it since its gnu related?

>Linus Torvalds

Attached: 1513639593602.jpg (707x500, 85K)

>Don't know how they licensed them back then, but they had the copyright and kickstarted unofficial open source movement.
To get BSD code you had to purchase a license from AT&T. Then you wrote Berkeley and asked for their code and they sent it to you on tape.

BSDi then said we will sell our own licenses and ATT sued them (USL vs BSDi on wiki)

It's meat as approval.

That's funny, because Real UNIX couldn't get on the internet without BSD leftover unix code. and wouldn't run in i386 without Xenix leftover unix code.

Linux is a kernel.

>complete rewrite
Not at all, just sections encumbered by AT&T patents.

Also, there was a complete rewrite when they went from PDP-7 assembler to C, is Unix not a true heir of UNICS then?

based gnu poster, in that case

"leftover" unix had all the good stuff

>not knowing the difference between UNICS, UNIX, Unix and unix
MacOS is unix, *BSDs and Slowaris and HP and AIX are Unix, and there is no UNIX left alive.

>they injected freebsd into the consumer branch but not into the server branch
what the fuck were they thinking? is that the reason why macos server was run into the ground?

>and there is no UNIX left alive.
that's a registered trademark and is still alive.

Yes

notice that graph ends in 2001 when the actual Mac OS X Server (with BSD bits) that you're probably thinking about was released

Neh, not really, I know that one lasted longer. I mean, was that the reason why they had to start again?

You're thinking about The Open Group's prostitution of the deceased UNIX name, or as I have taken to calling it, NSA plus Eunuchs

>You're thinking about
I'm thinking about ATT getting a typesetter with smallcaps and thats how they registered UNIX; so that is the registered trademark as submitted by ATT and sold to Novell who then gave it away to X/Open.

So NSA/Eunuchs then

/thread

Attached: 1527719917833.png (1440x1080, 635K)

>the only things POSIX are a tiny handful of ancient legacy corporate systems and proprietary fruity toys that amount to less than 5% of the planet.
GNU/Linux is POSIX. OSX is POSIX. Hell, DOS/Windows is POSIX, or it used to be anyway.

>Making your shit POSIX today is fucking retarded.

Assuming you're going to write a new OS, you'd be retarded to not make it POSIX. Fuchsia is POSIX. Plan 9 is ANSI POSIX.