# Unix operating systems



## ramakrishna (Sep 7, 2012)

What is the difference between Unix operating systems and Unix like operating systems?Both are same or not?


----------



## derekschrock (Sep 7, 2012)

Being certified or not would be my way of looking at it.

From the UNIX wiki page: 


> The present owner of the trademark UNIX is The Open Group, an industry standards consortium. Only systems fully compliant with and certified to the Single UNIX Specification qualify as "UNIX" (others are called "Unix system-like" or "Unix-like").
> 
> By decree of The Open Group, the term "UNIX" refers more to a class of operating systems than to a specific implementation of an operating system; those operating systems which meet The Open Group's Single UNIX Specification should be able to bear the UNIX 98 or UNIX 03 trademarks today, after the operating system's vendor pays a substantial certification fee and annual trademark royalties[27] to The Open Group. Systems licensed to use the UNIX trademark include AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, Tru64 (formerly "Digital UNIX"), A/UX, Mac OS X,[28][29] and a part of z/OS.



I believe FreeBSD has said they don't wish to become a UNIX for the fact about:



> ...after the operating system's vendor pays a substantial certification fee and annual trademark royalties[27] to The Open Group. Systems ...



However, this is a goal to make FreeBSD POSIX IEEE 1003.1.

http://www.freebsd.org/projects/c99/index.html


----------



## vermaden (Sep 7, 2012)

ramakrishna said:
			
		

> What is the difference between Unix operating systems and Unix like operating systems?Both are same or not?


----------



## SirDice (Sep 7, 2012)

derekschrock said:
			
		

> However, this is a goal to make FreeBSD POSIX IEEE 1003.1.
> 
> http://www.freebsd.org/projects/c99/index.html



Keep in mind they are trying to be POSIX compliant. Getting POSIX certified would, again, require a substantial amount of money, similar to the UNIX certification.

Also note that FreeBSD is a direct descendant of the original AT&T UNIX. Unlike Linux that was written from scratch.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.c...family-tree?rev=1.156;content-type=text/plain


----------



## Crivens (Sep 7, 2012)

Thanks mate, now you owe me a new keyboard. Hopefully I can remove the tea strains from the monitor...


----------



## gore (Sep 27, 2012)

VMS is a swear word in my House. We do NOT allow it.

As for what's Unix and so on; FreeBSD has more rights to be called Unix than just about anything on that list. Both from an Historic AND a Technical point of view, FreeBSD is Unix. I've been flamed for this more than a Rammstein concert hall Ceiling, but I don't care. 

Linux is "Unix Like" as it was written from Scratch, because Linus Torvalds said he "Wanted to run something similar to what he was using at the University" and it turns out, he was using SunOS, and in Revolution OS, he says SunOS was the actual inspiration for Linux. SunOS is 4.3BSD, so really, BSD has influenced even that.

I'm totally Biased, and I don't have any trouble admitting to this fact; I like BSD, and SysV is inferior. Except of course of IRIX.


----------



## Crivens (Sep 27, 2012)

gore said:
			
		

> VMS is a swear word in my House. We do NOT allow it.


Had to use it for one job, found it "interesting" at best and a right PITA at worst.
But as any tool, has it's places. And as many tools, no such place exists in my house. :beer



> ... I've been flamed for this more than a Rammstein concert hall Ceiling ...


I am _so_ going to copy that reference


----------



## gore (Sep 27, 2012)

Thanks


----------



## UNIXgod (Sep 27, 2012)

It is ironic that OSX is able to pay the open group for the use of the term UNIX; FreeBSD is the core of OSX. Yet FreeBSD had to remove the word UNIX from it's own documentation after the lawsuit and cannot be called UNIX.


----------



## gore (Sep 28, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> It is ironic that OSX is able to pay the open group for the use of the term UNIX; FreeBSD is the core of OSX. Yet FreeBSD had to remove the word UNIX from it's own documentation after the lawsuit and cannot be called UNIX.



I also find that funny. I remember the first time I read about OS X on the Apple Web Site, and saw they had a huge Logo Proclaiming "Unix" and that it was certified. FreeBSD isn't allowed to be LEGALLY called Unix, and yet Apple used it for OS X, and they CAN call it Unix lol. 

I guess the fact that Apple can afford to say it's Unix makes all the difference, as opposed to a great OS that dates back to the original days of Unix, and is the basis of most everything out there heh.

I will say one thing in terms of Apple being a decent Company; They have managed to do something that every company on Earth has been trying to do in the Computer Industry; They made a version of Unix that not only looks amazing, but works well, and is easy to use.

They did something that every Linux distro backed by a major Company has been trying to do for a long time. And I don't think many people would disagree with the statement that Apple's OS looks nice. It's pretty. 

I read somewhere that the original inspiration actually came from NeXT. As a huge fan of Window Maker, I'm cool with that too. You'd think they would have tried out A/UX or something instead, but nope lol.


----------



## ChalkBored (Sep 28, 2012)

I don't see why it's funny, it's just how trademarks work.

For example:
Ford couldn't call the new Ford GT a GT40 because they no longer had the trademark for the name. They sold the rights to the name decades ago because they didn't expect to make another version of the car.


----------



## tingo (Sep 28, 2012)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> FreeBSD is the core of OSX.


This is not correct, even if lots of people believe it is.
The Wikipedia article on OS X '(History section) describes it better.
OS X has a Mach kernel, the core networking parts are not BSD at all (even if the utilities might be) and network config (NetInfo) in OS X is very different from the BSD way.
So, parts of OS X is from FreeBSD and NetBSD. Just parts of. Ok?


----------



## freethread (Sep 29, 2012)

From Apple Kernel Programming Guide. There also was another page with a diagram.


----------



## tingo (Sep 30, 2012)

freethread said:
			
		

> From Apple Kernel Programming Guide. There also was another page with a diagram.



Yes, that page says "The BSD portion of the OS X kernel is derived primarily from FreeBSD".
It does not say "FreeBSD is the core of OS X", nor does it tell how big (in percent or otherwise) the BSD portion of the OS X kernel is.


----------



## UNIXgod (Sep 30, 2012)

tingo said:
			
		

> This is not correct, even if lots of people believe it is.



Check out the 3:00 minute mark... He had to market it as "Linux-Like" and then mentions FreeBSD. So you sir are the one that is wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII

I watched OSX start more of the feel of BSD. Though I believe it was zsh (not csh) as the default shell they eventually put bash there and ash is nowhere to be found. Then again it's got a million ways to install stuff. DarwinPorts...then later MacPorts was slow moving and everyone used fink. Now they use HomeBrew. PF is on the system but no access to jails. OSX is nice for web development and a client box but FreeBSD or DragonFly are still better for servers.


----------



## AJ-BSD (Oct 1, 2012)

Good information on this thread.
New here... still finding my way.
I also thought OSX was based in BSD... yet I don't like Apple/OSX much.

Barely getting my feet wet with FreeBSD now =)


----------



## zeissoctopus (Oct 1, 2012)

Our FreeBSD src committer, David Chisnall, wrote a article to describe the relationship between FreeBSD and Mac OX X in deep.

What is Mac OS X


----------



## jotawski (Oct 1, 2012)

zeissoctopus said:
			
		

> Our FreeBSD src committer, David Chisnall, wrote a article to describe the relationship between FreeBSD and Mac OX X in deep.
> 
> What is Mac OS X





I love his words on the last page



> It's almost as much of a mistake to say that OS X is not FreeBSD as it is to say that it is FreeBSD.
> ....
> ....
> The best way to think of OS X is as a close relative of FreeBSD. It shares a lot of code and is very similar to develop for.


----------



## Linuxgamer94 (Jul 1, 2013)

So is Darwin a dis*t*ro of FreeBSD like PC-BSD, and can Pure Darwin programs run on FreeBSD?


----------



## zspider (Jul 1, 2013)

gore said:
			
		

> VMS is a swear word in my House. We do NOT allow it.



@zspider mails @gore a VAX bearing gifts (of VMS).


----------



## throAU (Jul 1, 2013)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> It is ironic that OSX is able to pay the open group for the use of the term UNIX; FreeBSD is the core of OSX. Yet FreeBSD had to remove the word UNIX from it's own documentation after the lawsuit and cannot be called UNIX.



Yeah, it's pretty ironic.  Either way though it's just a marketing pitch by Apple.

Given FreeBSD isn't a commerical product, marketing is irrelevant really.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 1, 2013)

FreeBSD is NOT the core of OSX.


----------



## vermaden (Jul 1, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> FreeBSD is NOT the core of OSX.



Darwin is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)


----------



## roddierod (Jul 1, 2013)

Linuxgamer94 said:
			
		

> So is Darwin a dis*t*ro of FreeBSD like PC-BSD, and can Pure Darwin programs run on FreeBSD?



No.


----------



## throAU (Jul 2, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> FreeBSD is NOT the core of OSX.



Granted, it's not the core, but as far as the UNIX "personality" of the platform goes (i.e., what the developer will write for) it is largely based on FreeBSD (with the Apple frameworks on top, and Mach underneath).


----------



## SirDice (Jul 2, 2013)

There's actually very little of FreeBSD in OS-X. The "core" of OS-X is the XNU kernel which is a Mach microkernel with a few bits and pieces of the FreeBSD kernel attached to it. They've also used a few userland tools. But that's pretty much where it stops.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 2, 2013)

In case anyone was not aware of this:


> Jordan Hubbard, the open source developer that helped to co-found the FreeBSD Project back in 1993 is leaving Apple.
> 
> Hubbard had been at Apple since 2001 and his most recent title was the Director of UNIX Technology. Mac OS X after all has strong roots in FreeBSD and Hubbard's employment at Apple was a key part of that.
> 
> Hubbard is now set to join iXsystems as CTO effective July 15th. iXsystems is a long time supporter and advocate of FreeBSD.


----------



## tingo (Jul 4, 2013)

We know about Hubbard. And no, that still doesn't make FreeBSD the core of OS X. (I'm not implying that you were saying that, @drhowarddrfine)


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 4, 2013)

I wasn't, and I've said that it wasn't many times,  but just as an interesting note.


----------



## throAU (Jul 5, 2013)

tingo said:
			
		

> We know about Hubbard. And no, that still doesn't make FreeBSD the core of OS X. (I'm not implying that you were saying that, @drhowarddrfine)



Large portions of the *UNIX layer* within OS X is very much based on FreeBSD.

However, it is only one layer in the OS X stack, and not what makes OS X what it is.  They could just as easily have used OpenBSD, Linux (if they were willing to open source it) or whatever.  It's all an evolution of NeXTSTEP, which used code from the original BSD tree instead.

Code from newer versions of FreeBSD is regularly pulled into new releases of OS X.

However what makes OS X what it is are the frameworks for application development, quartz, etc.  The UNIX layer is something the average Mac end user never really sees and doesn't care about.

Apple also fund a number of open source projects which are integrated into FreeBSD such as CLANG and grand central.


Whilst it's not entirely true to say that OS X is a derivative of FreeBSD, there is a lot of cross-pollination going on.


----------

