posted by plabrop on Sat 24th Oct 2009 23:13
Conversations Apple Inc. continuing its strong commitment to standardization has [link]http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3581.htm|| ||registered[/link] the Mac OS X version 10.6 ("Snow Leopard") system as conforming to the UNIX 03 Product Standard.


For more information about this certification and to see the latest list
of UNIX registered products, please go to the Open Brand Register at

[link]http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register|| ||Registration[/link]

For more information on UNIX 03, see
[link]http://www.UNIX.org/unix03.html|| ||UNIX 03[/link]

To follow the UNIX 40th anniversary world tour, see
[link]http://www.flickr.com/groups/unix/|| ||UNIX Plate World Tour[/link]
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Comments:
Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Mon 26th Oct 2009 15:00 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I'd argue that UNIX certification is more about product marketing than standardising a platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by kaiwai on Tue 27th Oct 2009 02:11 in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux and *BSD aren't UNIX 2003 compliant; it is about conforming to a set of specifications. I wish more vendors were UNIX 2003 compliant, even if it doesn't have the certification the compliance would be great - then we wouldn't have situations of GNOME compiling on Linux but needing huge numbers of patches to get it to compile on *BSD or OpenSolaris.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by Laurence on Tue 27th Oct 2009 17:26 in reply to "RE: "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'd be amazed if GNOME ran on Snow Leopard without "needing huge numbers of patches to get it to compile" - so I stand by my original point.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by plabrop on Tue 27th Oct 2009 19:39 in reply to "RE: "
plabrop Member since:
2009-09-15

Both Linux and *BSD are compatible to some extent with the POSIX and consequently a certain fraction UNIX 03 standard (I guess the later more). I would not be surprised to see a Linux distro getting certified in the future. The tools are there for everyone to test against.

Reply Score: 1

RE:
by kaiwai on Wed 28th Oct 2009 11:05 in reply to "RE: "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If *BSD and Linux were at least 100% UNIX 2003 compliant and GNOME was developed for compliancy with the specification then there wouldn't be the ifdef's and patches left, right and centre to the point that it is a mess to get any desktop compiling cleanly.

The one thing I'd love to know is whether the UNIX 2003 test suite is available and free of charge? because if it at least conforms to the test suite then it would go along way to improving the cross platform nature of GNOME and KDE.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by Laurence on Wed 28th Oct 2009 11:08 in reply to "RE: "
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I would not be surprised to see a Linux distro getting certified in the future. The tools are there for everyone to test against.


I can't see that happening personally.
Partly down to cost and partly down to inconvenience because each version (including CPU architecture) would have to be separately certified and paid for.

Plus it's not like Linux's lack of UNIX certification has harmed it's server market share.
In fact, if anything, Linux has steadily gained market share from businesses that were perviously running UNIX systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by Soulbender on Wed 28th Oct 2009 04:28 in reply to "RE: "
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They are not certified or they're not compliant? Those two are not the same.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by kaiwai on Wed 28th Oct 2009 11:02 in reply to "RE: "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

They're neither certified or compliant.

Reply Score: 2

RE:
by plabrop on Tue 27th Oct 2009 19:35 in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
plabrop Member since:
2009-09-15

I do not think that being certified or not as compatible to the UNIX 03 (or any other standard), can dissuade or attract a customer. Yet, I do believe that the standardization procedure is important. Small deviations from the standards cause no harm, so you have to envisage the hole thing in a more diffuse context. There are lots of people involved in the Austin group, and just by looking in the mailing lists archives you can immediately see that market needs are not the main driver. I would say that it is mostly a technical working group. Compiler standards are very important to programmers. OS standards bare the same importance for ISVs and end users. I can only view portability across different OSes as a good thing.

Reply Score: 1

Possibly -
by kaelodest on Wed 28th Oct 2009 01:33 in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
kaelodest Member since:
2006-02-12

And that is a valid point for the desktop and hobbyist crowd. But there is no way that a CTO will install non-certified HW in the server room. There are too many other factors in that sort of decision. WHO built it who can fix it? Is it the same as the server in the branch office? Is there a HW warrantee so that the vendor will bring me one that is exactly the same as the other one? It is not like I am concerned about what 'desktop' the SAN is running. It is good to have something - anything to say about Apple, But this is a BSD Unix. And it does work.

if I was going to get a new certification would I go for a certified track or some 'johnny faith healer' certification? If you were hiring some one would you pick a candidate that met your criteria / could do your job on your day off OR someone who was kind of as good as. And then that makes it easy for the Board of Directors (bean counters) to pick a server OS that is Certified, so YES UNIX 03 is 100% Marketing. But I do not think that it is marketing for the kind of person who can #make /make clean /make dep / make install AND if it is broken then patch it.

BTW I have compiled KDE in 10.2 and every version of the OS since. I suspect that I could be done real swift like on an XServe, what would the benefit be?

Reply Score: 1

RE:
by Laurence on Wed 28th Oct 2009 10:09 in reply to "Possibly -"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

And that is a valid point for the desktop and hobbyist crowd. But there is no way that a CTO will install non-certified HW in the server room. There are too many other factors in that sort of decision. WHO built it who can fix it? Is it the same as the server in the branch office? Is there a HW warrantee so that the vendor will bring me one that is exactly the same as the other one? It is not like I am concerned about what 'desktop' the SAN is running. It is good to have something - anything to say about Apple, But this is a BSD Unix. And it does work.


UNIX certification is a software standard, not a hardware one.
Plus, given that BSD and Linux massively outnumber OS X on servers, I think that your comment about CTOs not willing to run non-certified technology is inaccurate.

CTOs are more concerned about knowing there's support for the product than certifications they don't understand.

Reply Score: 2