• Is macOS Unix?

    From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 02:11:42 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    Interesting results from asking Google whether macOS is Unix or not <https://www.google.com/search?q=is+macos+unix>. The first quality
    (i.e. non-AI) answer I got was this <https://www.reddit.com/r/unix/comments/qwklm4/is_macos_unix/>:

    MacOS is officially Unix™ (as a slew of pedantic nerds will
    inevitably point out in every thread like this) so that clueless
    managers can tick boxes on forms. Meanwhile, that's not what the
    rest of us mean. If you say something is running on a Unix system,
    MacOS is obviously not what comes to mind. Describing Macs as
    "Unix" is just being unnecessarily obtuse.

    The software itself also betrays this reality. It's certified
    Unix™, yet, for example, POSIX semaphores don't work. There is a
    stub header they added in there that just silently does nothing,
    which is apparently okay. There are many things like that. This is
    more "Unix" than, say, FreeBSD ? Hah. I guess it is if you care
    more about bureaucracy than reality...

    MacOS is clearly more Unix than Windows, and clearly less Unix
    than *BSD. This becomes obvious when you port "Unix" software
    across these systems: porting across BSDs and Linux is usually a
    "fix up a few minor details" sort of task. MacOS and Windows, on
    the other hand, both tend to require whole new portability layers
    because the systems are significantly different.

    Sometimes Windows is even easier, since if you need to touch the
    Mac level stuff, you have to interact with an entirely different
    universe that clearly doesn't stem from Unix at all. The
    interfaces aren't even in C! The Open Group can - for a price -
    call that Unix™ if they like. I don't care.

    The quality of the discussion tends to deteriorate in a lot of the
    subsequent responses, but there are still one or two definite
    takeaways.

    First of all, macOS is just as much “Unix” as IBM’s z/OS is.

    Also, macOS derives from NeXTStep, which in turn derives from BSD,
    which doesn’t actually have any official Unix code in it.

    Oh, and here’s another bit of trivia: macOS is built on a microkernel
    called “XNU”, which stands for ... “XNU’s Not Unix”.

    So there.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Brock McNuggets@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 04:23:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Nov 7, 2025 at 7:11:42 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10em8su$29hal$[email protected]>:

    Interesting results from asking Google whether macOS is Unix or not <https://www.google.com/search?q=is+macos+unix>. The first quality
    (i.e. non-AI) answer I got was this <https://www.reddit.com/r/unix/comments/qwklm4/is_macos_unix/>:

    MacOS is officially Unix™ (as a slew of pedantic nerds will
    inevitably point out in every thread like this) so that clueless
    managers can tick boxes on forms. Meanwhile, that's not what the
    rest of us mean. If you say something is running on a Unix system,
    MacOS is obviously not what comes to mind. Describing Macs as
    "Unix" is just being unnecessarily obtuse.

    The software itself also betrays this reality. It's certified
    Unix™, yet, for example, POSIX semaphores don't work. There is a
    stub header they added in there that just silently does nothing,
    which is apparently okay. There are many things like that. This is
    more "Unix" than, say, FreeBSD ? Hah. I guess it is if you care
    more about bureaucracy than reality...

    MacOS is clearly more Unix than Windows, and clearly less Unix
    than *BSD. This becomes obvious when you port "Unix" software
    across these systems: porting across BSDs and Linux is usually a
    "fix up a few minor details" sort of task. MacOS and Windows, on
    the other hand, both tend to require whole new portability layers
    because the systems are significantly different.

    Sometimes Windows is even easier, since if you need to touch the
    Mac level stuff, you have to interact with an entirely different
    universe that clearly doesn't stem from Unix at all. The
    interfaces aren't even in C! The Open Group can - for a price -
    call that Unix™ if they like. I don't care.

    I get what you (or the AI) mean. macOS being certified Unix doesn't make it identical to FreeBSD or Linux -- some POSIX features aren't fully implemented, which can make porting software trickier. But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    macOS still has a solid Unix foundation: the terminal, system calls, and POSIX layer make a lot of things just work, without needing to rewrite everything from scratch. The parts that diverge—Cocoa frameworks, Objective-C APIs, and the GUI—give it a very different flavor, but some of this is also what makes macOS what it is.

    So yes, it's not BSD-level Unix "purity", but it's definitely closer to Unix than Windows, and that Unix base is genuinely useful. It’s just a unique mix of Unix underpinnings and macOS-specific layers.

    The quality of the discussion tends to deteriorate in a lot of the
    subsequent responses, but there are still one or two definite
    takeaways.

    First of all, macOS is just as much “Unix” as IBM’s z/OS is.

    Also, macOS derives from NeXTStep, which in turn derives from BSD,
    which doesn’t actually have any official Unix code in it.

    Oh, and here’s another bit of trivia: macOS is built on a microkernel called “XNU”, which stands for ... “XNU’s Not Unix”.

    So there.
    --
    It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 04:49:47 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:23:58 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    Remember that trademarks are meant to be used as adjectives, not nouns.
    You can call macOS a “Unix system”, but it is not itself “Unix”.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Brock McNuggets@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 04:54:24 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Nov 7, 2025 at 9:49:47 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10emi5a$2bk2d$[email protected]>:

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:23:58 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    Remember that trademarks are meant to be used as adjectives, not nouns.
    You can call macOS a “Unix system”, but it is not itself “Unix”.

    Fair.
    --
    It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 06:36:33 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:54:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    On Nov 7, 2025 at 9:49:47 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10emi5a$2bk2d$[email protected]>:

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:23:58 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    Remember that trademarks are meant to be used as adjectives, not nouns.
    You can call macOS a “Unix system”, but it is not itself “Unix”.

    Fair.

    I just realized, I did the same. ;)
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Brock McNuggets@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 06:59:56 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Nov 7, 2025 at 11:36:33 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10emodh$2d14t$[email protected]>:

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:54:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    On Nov 7, 2025 at 9:49:47 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
    <10emi5a$2bk2d$[email protected]>:

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:23:58 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    Remember that trademarks are meant to be used as adjectives, not nouns.
    You can call macOS a “Unix system”, but it is not itself “Unix”.

    Fair.

    I just realized, I did the same. ;)

    Also fair. LOL!

    Lots of comments here are off-the-cuff... this is not a doctoral dissertation. --
    It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From vallor@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 07:53:00 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    At Sat, 8 Nov 2025 06:36:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:54:24 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    On Nov 7, 2025 at 9:49:47 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote <10emi5a$2bk2d$[email protected]>:

    On 08 Nov 2025 04:23:58 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    Remember that trademarks are meant to be used as adjectives, not
    nouns. You can call macOS a “Unix system”, but it is not itself
    “Unix”.

    Fair.

    I just realized, I did the same. ;)

    We go 'round and 'round on this every time.

    "UNIX® is a registered trademark of The Open Group."

    https://unix.org/trademark.html

    Linux is _a_ "Unix" (note caps), but is not "UNIX®". The
    trademark is in all-caps.

    Also, the microkernel for MacOS Darwin is Mach. Darwin
    is based on FreeBSD, and you can download the source
    for your inspection.

    As far as "XNU" goes, I'll take your word for it that it is
    another name for the Mach microkernel. I see it in the
    output of MacOS's "uname -a":

    $ uname -a
    Darwin mac-studio.local 25.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 25.0.0: Mon Aug 25 21:17:51 PDT 2025; root:xnu-12377.1.9~3/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64

    And you are correct, XNU stands for XNU's not Unix.

    Somehow, MacOS is certified UNIX®...which doesn't mean much anymore,
    I daresay.

    This PSA brought to you by the letter "U" and the number "2".
    --
    -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G
    OS: Linux 6.17.7 D: Mint 22.2 DE: Xfce 4.18
    NVIDIA: 580.95.05 Mem: 258G
    "Flying saucers are real, the Air Force doesn't exist."
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From CrudeSausage@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 06:29:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On 2025-11-07 23:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On 08 Nov 2025 04:23:58 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    Remember that trademarks are meant to be used as adjectives, not nouns.
    You can call macOS a “Unix system”, but it is not itself “Unix”.

    Not one person who buys an Apple computer does it because they're
    looking for a UNIX computer. The people boasting about the Mac being
    such a machine are grasping at straws, looking to sell it as something
    other than an ultra-convenient machine secured by a walled garden incorporating a time bomb if you use it for longer than the company
    intended you to.
    --
    CrudeSausage
    John 14:6
    EndeavourOS backer
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Brock McNuggets@[email protected] to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy on Sat Nov 8 15:17:08 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

    On Nov 8, 2025 at 4:29:58 AM MST, "CrudeSausage" wrote <WQFPQ.1624498$[email protected]>:

    On 2025-11-07 23:49, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
    On 08 Nov 2025 04:23:58 GMT, Brock McNuggets wrote:

    But that doesn't mean it’s misleading to call it Unix either.

    Remember that trademarks are meant to be used as adjectives, not nouns.
    You can call macOS a “Unix system”, but it is not itself “Unix”.

    Not one person who buys an Apple computer does it because they're
    looking for a UNIX computer. The people boasting about the Mac being
    such a machine are grasping at straws, looking to sell it as something
    other than an ultra-convenient machine secured by a walled garden incorporating a time bomb if you use it for longer than the company
    intended you to.

    Speak for yourself. I, at the very least, am happy that Apple moved to an at least more Unix-like environment, and happy Unix (Linux) has moved to having a better front end (more Mac-like, if I dare). I had wanted that for a long,
    long time -- even before the following quotes, but these are the oldest I have found:

    <http://goo.gl/0wHM> Jul 18 1995 <3uh4b8$[email protected]>
    -----
    if DOS were a combo of UNIX and Mac it would be cool. I
    just wish we had something that combined the two. In theory
    that is the way both UNIX and Mac are growing
    -----

    <http://goo.gl/EDip> Jul 19 1995 <3ujt0s$[email protected]>
    -----
    But UNIX does have some advantages over the Mac... a CLI
    would be a great addition to the Mac. I would say that
    between Mac and UNIX you have the best operating systems
    around.
    -----

    <http://goo.gl/vrLf> Aug 10 1995 <40d96e$[email protected]>
    -----
    The Mac is not the end all in computer technology. Where it
    fails, UNIX excels. Between the two, there is almost no task
    that computers would be used for that can not be done. And
    one or the other will beat the competition in almost every
    area.
    -----

    One of the reasons I like macOS is the CLI. One of the reason I like Linux is the fact you can get much better GUIs than you could back then.
    --
    It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2