OSNews

It doesn't mean anything really.

You can have infinite growth of an OS from one year to another, and still not see a single change in the rest of the market.

windows is doing pretty good in the server market. Any OS that isn't IBM or Sun's is loosing.

Mac OS X is NOT UNIX, Mac OS X is built on top of Darwin (BSD + Mach Kernel) it's been along time since anybody called BSD UNIX, in a code sense it maybe a UNIX but in legal terms it is not as Apple have not AFAIK paid for UNIX Certification

Well, I think in common sense Mac OS X is UNIX (like Linux too) - also Apple states this on the website.
The question is what exactly makes a OS a UNIX system.
I believe the most common (unofficial) answer would be the POSIX API that allows (UNIX) software compiled for the OS that results in the common UNIX tools to be available for the OS.
OS X has most POSIX APIs available (like Linux, that had no POSIX threads before 2.6).
So I think Mac OS X is as much UNIX as Linux, Solaris, AIX etc. since all of these OSes have their own kernel, extensions, incompabilities etc.

Except... Solaris..AIX...HP-UX... IRIX are all based on AT&T UNIX Sys.V code, where as Linux and MacOS X are not (yes BSD was originally but in the early 1990's the last reminance of AT&T code was removed it was also with this that BSD UNIX became just BSD)

I am confused as to why you need code from AT&T Sys V to have a "unix" qualify as a UNIX. Why would you need 15 year old code in a modern OS. It makes sense to me that you would improve code after a period of time to make an OS better.

I am confused as to why you need code from AT&T Sys V to have a "unix" qualify as a UNIX. Why would you need 15 year old code in a modern OS. It makes sense to me that you would improve code after a period of time to make an OS better.

Because UNIX is about certification, licensing and origin. Where the code originally derives from is a good part of what makes something UNIX. Since to be officially recognized as being UNIX, a system must follow the Single UNIX Specification as well as meet other criteria.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification

Operating systems such as Linux, etc. are considered "Unix-like":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like

Again, why does it matter if these UNIX-like systems are considered UNIX? If they are good enough systems, they should be able to stand on their own as worthy and capable. For some customers something being UNIX doesn't matter, and for some it does. *shrug* The right tool for the right job.

Except... Solaris..AIX...HP-UX... IRIX are all based on AT&T UNIX Sys.V code, where as Linux and MacOS X are not (yes BSD was originally but in the early 1990's the last reminance of AT&T code was removed it was also with this that BSD UNIX became just BSD)

OK sofar you've mentioned UNIX as a trademark and UNIX as product name (code released by a certain company.) But is that really UNIX ?

Ask any Unix administrator if he/she considers OsX/Linux a Unix, then ask a Unix programmer the same. I would be surprised if you'd find 1 in 10 who said they weren't. All the rest is just corporate propaganda.

OK sofar you've mentioned UNIX as a trademark and UNIX as product name (code released by a certain company.) But is that really UNIX ?

Ask any Unix administrator if he/she considers OsX/Linux a Unix, then ask a Unix programmer the same. I would be surprised if you'd find 1 in 10 who said they weren't. All the rest is just corporate propaganda.

I fully agree. I don't know why you were modded down.

UNIX is unix is *nix...like flavors of icecream are all icecream.

OK sofar you've mentioned UNIX as a trademark and UNIX as product name (code released by a certain company.) But is that really UNIX ?

Yes, as well as source code origination...anything else is just UNIX-like.

Ask any Unix administrator if he/she considers OsX/Linux a Unix, then ask a Unix programmer the same. I would be surprised if you'd find 1 in 10 who said they weren't. All the rest is just corporate propaganda.

Just because something is a common belief doesn't make it true. There are certain qualifications for something to be considered UNIX. Just like certifications exist for a person to be conisdered an MCSE, etc. certifications exist to certify something as UNIX.

Yes, as well as source code origination...anything else is just UNIX-like.

Er...sometimes that's the superior option.

Just because something is a common belief doesn't make it true.

While that is correct, it does not affirm the opposite either.

There are certain qualifications for something to be considered UNIX. Just like certifications exist for a person to be conisdered an MCSE, etc. certifications exist to certify something as UNIX.

Good comparison ... MCSE ... is the UNIX cert for operating systems as important? [wry grin]

[Don't answer ... to you, it is critical ... to me, it is not.]

You make a good point, really, but in my view if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'm not going to call it a duck-a-like until it's certified by Ducks-R-Us(tm).

"There are certain qualifications for something to be considered UNIX. Just like certifications exist for a person to be conisdered an MCSE, etc. certifications exist to certify something as UNIX."

So what you're saying is that it's an entirely useless certifications whos only purpose is to inflate prices.

So what you're saying is that it's an entirely useless certifications whos only purpose is to inflate prices.

Hardly. The certification isn't just about someone looking at a produc and going "that's UNIX!". No, it's about thousands and thousands of test suites and many hours of analysis to ensure that a product provides APIs necessary for a product to be qualified as UNIX. A product must meet and follow all the behaviours found in the Single UNIX Specification to be considered UNIX. Mac OS X, Linux, and others do not even come close to meeting the specifications, therefore they do not qualify as UNIX.

Except... Solaris..AIX...HP-UX... IRIX are all based on AT&T UNIX Sys.V code, where as Linux and MacOS X are not (yes BSD was originally but in the early 1990's the last reminance of AT&T code was removed it was also with this that BSD UNIX became just BSD)

Think of the *BSDs and Linux as an evolutionary path. Sharing good design ideas vs. vendor lockin on design differences (aka the old 'open UNIX').

If the POSIX API is what makes a Unix, then Windows (NT, 2k, XP, 2k3) is by far the biggest selling Unix system.

Windows' POSIX implementation is very limited as it is, and will get worse with Vista.

Actually, Linux has had Posix threads for years, I've got a book on Linux programming at home, published when 2.2 was the norm, and it has a full chapter on the pthreads library.

What happened in 2.6 was that a number of changes were made the kernel to improve the performance of threading. Using these new kernel interfaces a new library, following the existing Posix API, was created: the Next-Generation Posix Threading Library (NPTL).

And as for the Unix thing, no-one bothers with the trademark group. Unix at this stage in the game is a "style" of operating system more than anything else. Anything with /dev, /mnt, standard Unix commands (ls, mount) and reasonable Posix compatibility is Unix-like. This includes Solaris, AIX, Linux and to a lesser extent MacOS X.

The reaons Mac OS X doesn't quite make the Unix-like grade, in my opinion, stems from the fact that most people I've talked to have had a torrid time getting Unix tools to compile on MacOS X. To a certain extent this could just be people getting used to creating Autoconf scripts for another Unix-like OS, but I think the slightly complex MacOS X userland situation (where certain elements are hidden from the desktop, and certain desktop elements are hidden, or not available, from the command-line) is also to blame.

To BryanFeeney: I like your posts and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously, though, it is remarkable how much misinformation flies around OSNews. It's a shame that this thread had to be flooded with worthless drivel about what is UNIX and what isn't, and it's equally regrettable that most of the participants won't read to the second page where you hit the nail on the head.

At this point, UNIX is a label that identifies a group of operating systems that look similar to userland applications and their developers. Most of my shell scripts will work on AIX, Solaris, HPUX, Linux, BSD, and MacOSX, whereas they won't work on Windows, ReactOS, SkyOS, and Zeta. Most C programs have the same distinction.

I sincerely hope that this idea is reflected in the SCO/IBM/Novell suits, but I can't hold my breath that long.

Mac OS X is NOT UNIX, Mac OS X is built on top of Darwin (BSD + Mach Kernel) it's been along time since anybody called BSD UNIX, in a code sense it maybe a UNIX but in legal terms it is not as Apple have not AFAIK paid for UNIX Certification

Certification for the UNIX brand name means zip and has meant nothing for this decade and even in the late 90s.

For all intents and purposes, the BSDs and Linux are the core of all things unix -- just without the official brand title.

Nit pick: Yes, there are gaps in POSIX compliance, yet the old mangling of the word 'open' is largely gone and these days it means more -- even if OSX doesn't use X on the desktop by default and POSIX compliance is intentionally lacking.

Certification for the UNIX brand name means zip and has meant nothing for this decade and even in the late 90s.

Wrong. If they really meant nothing as you say then:

1) The current UNIX vendors wouldn't spend the millions of dollars to secure certification.

2) Customers wouldn't care (and they do, especially government customers)

For all intents and purposes, the BSDs and Linux are the core of all things unix -- just without the official brand title.

Hardly. They are the core of UNIX-like systems. But remember GNU is "GNU's not UNIX" and Lniux systems are GNU/Linux systems

Nit pick: Yes, there are gaps in POSIX compliance, yet the old mangling of the word 'open' is largely gone and these days it means more -- even if OSX doesn't use X on the desktop by default and POSIX compliance is intentionally lacking.

In many cases the Linux folk have purposefully diverged from the POSIX standard instead of making a new API, or API extensions. You may not think POSIX compliance is important, but those customers coming from older UNIX systems (not newer ones) or government regulated industries care very much. People like it when their applications just work.

Wrong. If they really meant nothing as you say then:

1) The current UNIX vendors wouldn't spend the millions of dollars to secure certification.

To keep current customers and for certian contracts that have occured over the span of decades, they have to. (I have never personally been on one of those contracts, though wacky things show up in contracts all the time.)

2) Customers wouldn't care (and they do, especially government customers)


Yes, but decreasingly so. I chalk it up to inertia and contract specifications and not technical merit.

Hardly. They are the core of UNIX-like systems. But remember GNU is "GNU's not UNIX" and Lniux systems are GNU/Linux systems

On merit, they are quite fine unix-like systems and I do not discourage the right to hold the UNIX trademark from the rightful owners.

From a practical perspective, if I were to specify an OS, 'any UNIX or unix-like system' would be my first choice. Be it a *BSD, Solaris, HPUX, Linux, or any of a score of others would not matter much. In the worst situation, the OS would be abandoned and the app would be ported over to another *nix. No fuss, no hassle (baring really poor design decisions).

Like the BSDs and Linux, the main libraries and servers would be truely open at either the source and/or specification levels -- preferably both.

In many cases the Linux folk have purposefully diverged from the POSIX standard instead of making a new API, or API extensions. You may not think POSIX compliance is important, but those customers coming from older UNIX systems (not newer ones) or government regulated industries care very much. People like it when their applications just work.

Following POSIX is important, though if there are small deviations that they do not cause many problems porting the apps, it's not an issue.

If the app can't be ported, that's a hint that there are other problems to deal with beyond POSIX complance.

Being conservative is a good thing with existing systems, though you can take it to an extreme. For new projects, strict POSIX compliance is there for contractual reasons not technical ones.

(I'm a very big process person myself -- ISO, CMM, CMMI, ... -- so I'm not discarding what you're saying just the absoluteness of it.)

Apple is the fastest growing UNIX vendor in history. Apple ships more UNIX systems than IBM or SUN combined. This grouping of UNIX as a just a "server" platform is BS too. I'm sure Gartner is grouping all of SUN's systems together, not just their server lines.

Apple is not a UNIX vendor. OS X is *not* UNIX. It is *UNIX-based*, but it is not UNIX.

At this point, IBM, SUN and HP are the only UNIX vendors left that anyone cares about.

And yes, this news is about servers, which is why the information is based off the 2005 Worldwide Server Database which was mentioned in the news article this story is about.

UNIX based means probably that there is more than UNIX in OS X (like in any LINUX distribution AND like in *ANY* other UNIX).
Show me a UNIX verdor that does not add some of his own extensions...

UNIX based means probably that there is more than UNIX in OS X (like in any LINUX distribution AND like in *ANY* other UNIX).
Show me a UNIX verdor that does not add some of his own extensions...

The point is that basing an OS off another technology doesn't make it just like that other technology unless *all* the functionality of that technology is there.

For example, I could create a new OS based off part of the OS X sources (Darwin) but that wouldn't make my new OS just like OS X, because I would be missing the most distinguishing feature of OS X, the GUI. In the same way, UNIX-based or UNIX-like systems aren't UNIX because they always are missing the most distinguishing features of what is recognized as UNIX: POSIX compliance, certain interfaces, as well as other characteristics.

So, the point is, you can call many things UNIX-like, or UNIX-based, but that doesn't make them UNIX. They are what they are.

Instead of arguing that they're really UNIX, if being UNIX doesn't really matter, then why do people feel so deeply the need to argue that they are esentially UNIX? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

So, the point is, you can call many things UNIX-like, or UNIX-based, but that doesn't make them UNIX. They are what they are.

Not UNIX(tm), though they are de-facto unix; *nix.

Instead of arguing that they're really UNIX, if being UNIX doesn't really matter, then why do people feel so deeply the need to argue that they are esentially UNIX? That's what doesn't make sense to me.

Yet, it's not an argument anymore. 8 years ago...yes. Now...nope.

----

There are only two main operating systems being maintained and updated these days;

* Windows

* Unix

Everything else is either highly specialized or is a variation on one of these two.

If you know a UNIX or unix or *nix, you know much of what it takes to learn the other ones, and that includes porting (as long as the original design took portability into account to some extent).

A joke for you as an illustration;

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

I said, "Well ... are you religious or atheist?"

He replied, "religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?"

He replied, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He replied, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He replied, "Baptist."

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He replied, "Baptist Church of God."

I said, "Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He replied, "Reformed Baptist Church of God."

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He replied, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

So I said, "Die, heretic!" and pushed him off the bridge.

to nitpick, OS X != darwin

darwin is the kernel,

OS X is, i guess, the equivilant of an entire distribution (in linux terms)

You are of course correct. There are many people who will suggest that OSX is not Unix. Unix is supposed to be unfriendly, unappealing and made by "serious" companies like IBM, Sun and HP.

The fact is that OSX is not only making inroads into the iPod wielding desktop market but also into scientific computing and high-end Video production.

Some might not LIKE the fact that OSX is Unix but it really is, and as the parent says, it's the biggest selling Unix out there.

Some might not LIKE the fact that OSX is Unix but it really is, and as the parent says, it's the biggest selling Unix out there.

Wrong. Mac OS X is not UNIX, it is UNIX-based or UNIX like....it doesn't meet the qualifications necessary to be called UNIX.

mac is based on bsd.

linux contains lots of bsd code.

both systems are based on unix and are versions or clones of unix.

However.. All you need to be UNIX is.. CERTIFIED

THey are not certified.

I agree with everything you wrote including this;

If you went into the computer room of any large company there was a greater chance of their database server running HPUX than any other NIX.

...but not this;

BTW, HPUX rules as far as UNIXen go..

'H-PUX' had some very strange default settings. Not my favorite by a long shot, though not bad.

Unix is unix, for the most part...

I agree HP-UX is awesome easy to use and friendly yet rock stable. Solaris is good don't get me wrong but it can be a pain to admin.

"VAX/VMS has the biggest uptime of them all."

Maybe. But this article is about :

- market share
- Unix

;-)

Well VMS isn't Unix, and this is an article about Unix

If you say that SUN is UNIX and Apple is NOT, both of these modern OS have been forked from the original BSD tree. This isn't new.

Apple and SUN OS are, yes its true, have roots of the original BSD tree.

You're missing the point. First of all SUN OS up to 4.x was BSD based. When it became Solaris it was SVR* based, which means it was no longer based off BSD. That's the main difference between SUN and Apple. Apple is not a UNIX licensee, SUN is. The only thing left of BSD in Solaris now is a compatability layer for older versions of SUN OS.

and what about SGI's IRIX?

"IRIX has its roots in the AT&T UNIX system 5. IRIX 3 and IRIX 4 were SVR3-based operating systems. IRIX 4, the second-generation implementation, featured symmetric multiprocessing feature enhancements and refinements...IRIX 5 and IRIX 6 are SVR4-based operating systems. IRIX 6 is a true 64-bit operating system that maintains complete forward binary compatibility with earlier versions."

http://www.uoks.uj.edu.pl/resources/flugor/POWER/chap1.html

SGI is also a UNIX licensee.

IBM and HPQ are doing better than any UNIX pure play. All the UNIX pure-plays are suffering.

SUN isn't a UNIX "pure-play", so that statement isn't exactly correct.. SUN has partnered with SuSE for Linux. SUN ships systems with Windows, Solaris and Linux.

Lastly, while they've had a downturn in business the past few years, many businesses have. Even the business I work for (which is not a hardware company, but a software development company) has had a downturn due to other businesses having had a downturn.

>>SUN isn't a UNIX "pure-play", so that statement isn't exactly correct.. SUN has partnered with SuSE for Linux. SUN ships systems with Windows, Solaris and Linux.<<

Nothing like picking a nit, I always say. Okay, how much of sun's revenue comes from linux? I would think way less than 1%. Sun ships Windows? News to me. Again, how much of sun's business is that?

>>Lastly, while they've had a downturn in business the past few years, many businesses have.<<

Right. Just a small, tempory, normal, "downturn" is it? How about stock price falling from $64 to $3.67? How about sun just barely over their 52 week low of $3.42? How about sun not being able to make a profit? Get real.

Again, bottom line, UNIX is suffering. So this "UNIX rules" stuff is just cr@p.

Stock prices should not be a determining factor. Both IBM and HP sell PCs as well as serveres but their stock is a combination of all divisions.

The difference between a mainframe OS and a UNIX server OS is huge... but shrinking daily. Unfortunately while UNIX vendors try to cater to the traditional mainframe market, the resulting code volatility and feature explosion contributes to defect densities that are inappriopriate for the mainframe market space. That's about all I can say without getting into trouble.

Yeah, and those include Solaris 10 downloads for home users right? Like my 10 registrations for one computer because their stupid registration service wasn't working properly?

Not really a fair comparison. IBM doesn't hand out free copies of AIX to every Tom, Dick and Harry who is going to use it for 10 minutes, complain that it is harder than Windows, Linux, etc. and uninstall it.

Licensing volume is going to be higher when any random person can download the software. That would be like comparing RHEL + Fedora Core to AIX, again, not a fair comparison.

"Solaris has shipped 2 million licenses in the first six months of this year.

AIX + HP-UX, in combination, was WAY WAY less.

Sun's winning the Unix (I didn't say Linux) game, by a long shot."

There's a saying around here, that IBM has always been great at hunting elephants, but they've never understood how to hunt rabbits. Our profit margins are way higher, but market share is a different story.

Other than that, HP has its head firmly planted inside its ass.

-IBM AIX developer

Did you not read what I said about their registration system being screwed up. I registered, nothing happened for a week (no email, nothing, like they said there would be). I had a Sun account, but no registration for my computer. So I re-registered my computer, and nothing happened after a few days. So I clicked register, and registered a few x86 systems, and 2 days later I had 10 Solaris registrations on my account.

I think Sun needs to beef up their backend hardware a bit when it took me well over a week to register a bloody computer system. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if MS had this problem.

But yeah, I'm currently not using Solaris on any system and am registered for 10 computers on 1 Sun account. Is there a way to remove these registrations?

>>No, Sun is recovering.<<

Debatable. Sun has awful leadership (IMO).

Also, Sun will not be able to command the big fat margins that sun used to.

AMD64 is a commodity. Anybody can use it. It's no special advantage. Sun doesn't own it, so sun can't charge some huge premium, and make a lot of money from it.

Linux and FreeBSD (maybe even windows) insure that sunw can't make any big fat profits from Solaris either.

Sun will have to transform to a high-volume, low profit margin business to survive. Even if it works, the glory days are gone.

But, I was really discussing UNIX's future, not sun's.

No UNIX vendors can demand big fat profit margins any more. In most cases, proprietary UNIX, on proprietary hardware, doesn't have that much of a performance margin anymore.

Sun is trying to be attractive in every segment of the UNIX market. They are not trying to be dominant in any of them. Draw your own conclusion on the profitability of this position.

miss Data General.

After using Data General systems for over 10 years in the seventies and eighties, I don't.

BTW on the original thread which has got so diverted, the import of the article is this - IBM is eating everyone elses lunch ;-)

I miss DG/UX too.

Last DG/UX system I worked on was an A9500. That system kicked ass back in the day, and it was only 45mhz.

b sd(ncsc(8,7),0,3)root0:/

Its mostly a joke these days - for instance IBM"s AIX is the only OS to have POSIX 2003 compliance. No other system has been certified with this.

Wrong:
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm

Solaris 10 is also certified

Which makes it basically meaningless (what good is a standard if only one vendor follows it?).

Oh, you mean like the Linux Standards Base? Which is only strictly followed by a handful of Linux distributions? Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but the same argument applies...

"Oh, you mean like the Linux Standards Base? Which is only strictly followed by a handful of Linux distributions? Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but the same argument applies..."

Not so much of a cheap shot. I'm not even sure there is a 100% LSB 3.0 compliant distribution. It would have to be something RPM-based for starters... is Fedora LSB 3.0 compliant?

With this being said, SUN and HP may soon start fading into history for its failure to adapt. They are holding to an older proprietary marketing model as Linux pushes into the market mainstream.

I can believe that when it comes to HP, but SUN? I don't believe that about SUN. SUN is marketing x64 Opteron Servers (not a proprietary architecture) along with Solaris 10 (free to use and much of it Open Source). SUN also ships systems with Windows and Linux, so I still doubt the proprietary claim...

The problem with SUN and Linux is mostly a communications one. IBM has done a very good job of staying on the "Linux is the way forward" message, and has been good at 'playing nice'... SUN hasn't been able to stay on a consistent message. It has left the impression the SUN sees linux as a necessary evil at best, or a competitor at worst- The 'wobbling' of their message has reduced their mind-share in some segments of the 'linux community'. Please note, the 'wobbling' of the message probably hurts more than them staying, "We see a continuing, if limited, role for Linux in our business".

"The problem with SUN and Linux is mostly a communications one. IBM has done a very good job of staying on the "Linux is the way forward" message, and has been good at 'playing nice'... SUN hasn't been able to stay on a consistent message."

IBM is a very old company, Sun is relatively young, and it shows on the executive level. Jonathan Schwartz wouldn't be given a public blog account if he were an executive at IBM, if he would have even been "groomed" for executive track anyway. You've never heard of the high-ups in the IBM organization. They just don't communicate that way.

I agree with your position. Sun can't stay on message with regard to Linux, yet they sell lots of Linux servers and (sort of) embrace open-source software development. IBM stays on message with regard to Linux, but they dip their toes in the waters of selling Linux or open-sourcing their software. It doesn't help that IBM is getting sued for their first steps toward Open.

There's a lot of "Open" talk at and around IBM, but I'm not sure the big-wigs really have a choice in the UNIX server space. They don't mention AIX much in high-level presentations, but then again they don't have to because AIX is an essential piece of the pSeries line at the moment. There is no question that IBM is committed to pSeries. The only two options are future commitment to AIX, or a skunkworks project to support the pSeries hardware (LPARs, enterprise storage, etc.) on Linux. I don't see the latter happening until the lawyers are through with the whole Project Monterrey nightmare that turned into the SCO suit.

pSeries and OpenPower are two different beasts, the latter being somewhat of a large hand-waving gesture. I truly think that IBM wanted to take Linux into the high-end of the UNIX server market, but SCO trashed those plans. Now we have a Linux/Solaris mix in the high-volume segments of the UNIX space (on Operton and SPARC) brought to you by Sun and AIX on pSeries in the high-end.

IBM will fight hard to keep its virtualization and enterprise management software ahead of Solaris, but the main story will be the hardware. SPARC is not able to support the needs of the high end, and neither Solaris nor Linux support pSeries hardware.

"Remember, noone (sic) ever got fired for choosing Microsoft."

This statement is a derivation of the original: No one ever got fired for buying IBM.

"SuSE is now pushing proprietary Novell technologies. RedHat is building it's own directory structure."

I thought *Novell* was pushing Novell technologies (mostly open source, btw), and I thought RedHat was (like most of the Linux world) moving toward the LSB 3.0 specification. A standard for library interfaces and package management is all that is necessary. Directory structures can vary without pissing off 3rd parties, any glue would be provided by the distribution.