| ▲ | microtherion 6 hours ago |
| The certification was always a bit odd, applying only to a configuration nobody would run in practice: https://www.osnews.com/story/141633/apples-macos-unix-certif... |
|
| ▲ | pdw 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you'd try to certify any modern Linux distribution, you'd end up with a very similar list. - The Linux kernel also has timer coalescing - Linux also has lazy atime ('relatime') by default - No Linux distro installs uucp by default, and certainly not suid - Desktop distros will also run a file indexer of some sort etc. |
| |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Isn’t the difference here that Linux was never trying to claim UNIX certification? |
|
|
| ▲ | nxobject 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The certification documents read like the world's most abstruse bar trivia quiz... "1.12 Threads 1.12.1 Cancellation Points Question 31: Which C stdio functions have cancellation points that occur when a thread is executing?" https://www.opengroup.org/csq/repository/noreferences=1&RID=... |
|
| ▲ | saagarjha 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The certification also was kind of bad at actually checking that the standard interfaces behaved as they should. |
|
| ▲ | Topfi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reminds me of (technically) POSIX compatible Windows. |
| |
|
| ▲ | swiftcoder 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The whole UNIX certified thing is a bit odd to start with, but those addendums are really just saying that because the UNIX compliance tests are thoroughly stuck in the past, a bunch of security measures (that users expect to exist on modern systems) have to be disabled to run the test suite. |
| |
| ▲ | jeremyjh 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | SIP is not some irrelevant detail, nor is it an obviously good "modern security practice". A system that the hardware owner cannot modify is not really on the same wavelength as traditional UNIX. | | |
| ▲ | jdiff 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The hardware owner can modify it all they want, disable SIP. For a large swath of average and non-average users that will not be modifying the closed-source OS they're running, it is obviously good. Traditional UNIX is does not mean having an open source core you're intended to tinker with. Traditional UNIX was entirely proprietary, connected with well-defined text-based interfaces. This is entirely orthogonal to user control and manipulation of the OS. | | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | eesmith 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Traditional UNIX was entirely proprietary, with source you're intended to tinker with. AT&T was forbidden by its consent decree from productizing Unix. Licensees received the source code, on an as-is basis, with no official support from AT&T. | | |
| ▲ | jasomill an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but that just means UNIX vendors had access to the source code. It doesn't mean end users had access to the source code. In fact, vendors would have been prohibited from distributing AT&T source code to customers who weren't themselves AT&T licensees, just as CSRG was prohibited from distributing BSD to customers who weren't licensees before 4.4BSD-Lite. The same goes for most other proprietary source-available products. For example, game developers can't open source Unreal Engine projects even though Unreal Engine source licenses are available to end users for free. | |
| ▲ | lgg 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sure, if by “you” you mean universities, Sun, DEC, IBM, etc. As a non corporation end user with a sublicense from one of the above licensees (which is the apt analogy for an individual user in my opinion) you most certainly did not receive the source or have the rights to it. |
|
|
|
|
