It's Unix, Jim, but not as we know it

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 22, 2008.

  1. Had to help out with a Mac running OS X today. The client wanted to run some
    software written in Java, that required Apache Tomcat to be installed.

    What kept irritating me was the number of things that simply didn't work
    like other Unix systems.

    Simple example: the ls command applied to a symlink by default shows
    information about the link itself, not what it points to. To get
    information about the item linked to, you either 1) use the -L option, or
    2) put a slash on the end of the symlink name. E.g.

    user@pearl:~$ ls -l /var/spool/mail
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 2007-10-10 03:32 /var/spool/mail -> ../mail
    user@pearl:~$ ls -lL /var/spool/mail
    total 0
    user@pearl:~$ ls -l /var/spool/mail/
    total 0

    On OS X, option 1 works, option 2 doesn't.

    Another example: "netstat -nlt" is supposed to show information about TCP
    sockets ("t"), listening sockets only, not connected ones ("l"), and
    displaying numerical addresses without trying to translate them into names
    ("n"). Guess which of these options actually works on OS X? Well, one out
    of three isn't bad. Does it output any errors? Oh no, it just goes ahead
    and does something completely different.

    Finally, the actual problem I was trying to figure out, which was finding
    where Apple had put the JDK directory for its Java installation. On normal
    systems, this might be something like "/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun". But
    not on OSuX--that would be too simple. You know what it is on the Mac? Go
    on, have a guess.

    It's roughly (I'm going from memory here)

    /System/Library/ApplicationFrameworks/JavaVM.framework/CurrentJDK/Home

    Couldn't they at least provide a symlink from a more usual location? Nope.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2008-05-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > Had to help out with a Mac running OS X today. The client wanted to run some
    > software written in Java, that required Apache Tomcat to be installed.
    >
    > What kept irritating me was the number of things that simply didn't work
    > like other Unix systems.
    >

    Apple never has been like anything else its perhaps MS. In some ways that
    has been the cuase of its sucess. The reason is that the masses/or few think
    this way
     
    Gordon, May 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In <g13fmh$1mj$> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > Finally, the actual problem I was trying to figure out, which was
    > finding
    > where Apple had put the JDK directory for its Java installation. On
    > normal
    > systems, this might be something like "/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun".
    > But
    > not on OSuX--that would be too simple. You know what it is on the Mac?
    > Go
    > on, have a guess.


    > It's roughly (I'm going from memory here)
    >
    > /System/Library/ApplicationFrameworks/JavaVM.framework/CurrentJDK/
    > Home
    >
    > Couldn't they at least provide a symlink from a more usual location?
    > Nope.


    What are you compaining about? You found it didn't you? Besides, since
    Mac OS X is by far the most popular UNIX it would make more sense for
    all the other Unix-type vendors to move their locations to match Apple.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 24, 2008
    #3
  4. In <> Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (
    SCLC) wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 May 2008 01:16:35 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >
    >> Besides, since Mac
    >> OS X is by far the most popular UNIX

    >
    > You've got to be joking!!


    No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 24, 2008
    #4
  5. In article <>, Roger Johnstone did
    write:

    > In <> Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (
    > SCLC) wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sat, 24 May 2008 01:16:35 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>
    >>> Besides, since Mac
    >>> OS X is by far the most popular UNIX

    >>
    >> You've got to be joking!!

    >
    > No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?


    Linux systems probably outnumber Mac ones 2:1 by now.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 24, 2008
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    Roger Johnstone wrote:
    > In <> Smoking Causes Lung Cancer (
    > SCLC) wrote:
    >> On Sat, 24 May 2008 01:16:35 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>
    >>> Besides, since Mac
    >>> OS X is by far the most popular UNIX

    >> You've got to be joking!!

    >
    > No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?
    >

    Google
     
    sam, May 24, 2008
    #6
  7. In <g181a8$om7$> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <>, Roger
    > Johnstone did write:
    >
    >> In <> Smoking Causes Lung
    >> Cancer ( SCLC) wrote:
    >>>
    >>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 01:16:35 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Besides, since Mac
    >>>> OS X is by far the most popular UNIX
    >>>
    >>> You've got to be joking!!

    >>
    >> No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?

    >
    > Linux systems probably outnumber Mac ones 2:1 by now.


    They could very well, although there appear to be no reliable numbers,
    but you'll note I said UNIX, not Unix or Linux. Besides I thought Linux
    was just a kernel, not a complete OS.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 24, 2008
    #7
  8. In <g186tb$6ov$> sam wrote:
    > Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >> In <> Smoking Causes Lung
    >> Cancer ( SCLC) wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 01:16:35 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Besides, since Mac
    >>>> OS X is by far the most popular UNIX
    >>> You've got to be joking!!

    >>
    >> No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?
    >>

    > Google


    Google have their own version of UNIX?

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 24, 2008
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    Roger Johnstone wrote:
    > In <g186tb$6ov$> sam wrote:
    >> Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>> In <> Smoking Causes Lung
    >>> Cancer ( SCLC) wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 01:16:35 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Besides, since Mac
    >>>>> OS X is by far the most popular UNIX
    >>>> You've got to be joking!!
    >>> No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?
    >>>

    >> Google

    >
    > Google have their own version of UNIX?
    >


    Are you really going to be one of those boring pedantic cunts like
    lennier who pipes up here to tell us that Linux is actually not unix ?
    Or dispute that using Google is not actually "using" an operating system.
     
    sam, May 24, 2008
    #9
  10. In <g18mqo$upu$> sam wrote:
    > Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >> In <g186tb$6ov$> sam wrote:
    >>> Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>>> In <> Smoking Causes Lung
    >>>> Cancer ( SCLC) wrote:
    >>>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 01:16:35 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Besides, since Mac
    >>>>>> OS X is by far the most popular UNIX
    >>>>> You've got to be joking!!
    >>>> No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?
    >>>>
    >>> Google

    >>
    >> Google have their own version of UNIX?
    >>

    >
    > Are you really going to be one of those boring pedantic cunts like
    > lennier


    Hey! Them's fighting words!

    > who pipes up here to tell us that Linux is actually not unix ?


    Actually I was trying to come across as all innocent. Guess the humour
    didn't work.

    > Or dispute that using Google is not actually "using" an operating
    > system.


    Any interaction with a computer system, however remote, is obviously
    "using" an OS. Do you mean to say that Google alone runs so many copies
    of one particular Unix (where by Unix I of course mean UNIX, Unix, Linux
    or other Unix-like OS) that thay've made it the most popular Unix? That
    seems unlikely, since the best figure I can find says that Google only
    has about 450 000 servers. They also run a customised version of Linux,
    so that figure won't even add on to another group using the same Linux.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 25, 2008
    #10
  11. In <> Freesias wrote:
    > On Sat, 24 May 2008 06:04:04 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >
    >>>> No. What other version of UNIX is more popular?
    >>>
    >>> Linux systems probably outnumber Mac ones 2:1 by now.

    >>
    >> They could very well, although there appear to be no reliable numbers,
    >> but you'll note I said UNIX, not Unix or Linux. Besides I thought
    >> Linux was just a kernel, not a complete OS.

    >
    > If you want "UNIX" rather than "Unix", or a derivative of Unix, or a
    > Unix- like system such as Linux, then I think you'll find that the
    > only "UNIX" around at the moment is SCO UNIX


    No, UNIX (all capitals) is a trademarked name. Any OS which meets the
    Single UNIX Specification, and has someone willing to stump up the fee,
    can be certified and called UNIX, as opposed to 'Unix-like'. Whether
    that actually matters to the typical user is something else altogether.
    I know I certainly don't care that I'm running UNIX right now.

    > And referring to you point about Linux being merely a kernel - All
    > versions of Unix are only kernels and cannot function without the rest
    > of the system also installed.


    Of course. I was merely being a pedantic ****.

    > It is, of course, your choice as to what you want to have installed -
    > the only absolute requirement being Init. The rest depends on what
    > functionality you want in your system.
    >
    > Pick your tools, pick your shell, pick your daemons, pick your
    > userland programs, pick a GUI interface if you want one, pick your
    > desktop software.
    >
    > Hell - even pick the sort of file system(s) you want.


    Those are all good things to be able to do if you need to do them, but
    they immediately take you out of the running of 'most popular Unix'
    since the number of copies of your customised Unix are now approximately
    one.

    > If you've never used Unix before then you'll want an easy system to
    > set up - try the current version of Kubuntu/Ubuntu Linux (I suggest
    > Kubuntu for the KDE desktop) or the newest SuSE Linux (choose KDE
    > desktop), or Fedora 9 Linux (again choose the KDE desktop).


    The tyranny of choice. Some people love tinkering, but the majority want
    one version that works well. I think having multiple, slightly
    incompatible versions of desktop Linux has done more harm to Linux's
    adoption than anything else has.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 25, 2008
    #11
  12. In <> Freesias wrote:
    > On Sun, 25 May 2008 00:42:46 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >
    >>> If you want "UNIX" rather than "Unix", or a derivative of Unix, or a
    >>> Unix- like system such as Linux, then I think you'll find that the
    >>> only "UNIX" around at the moment is SCO UNIX

    >>
    >> No, UNIX (all capitals) is a trademarked name. Any OS which meets the
    >> Single UNIX Specification, and has someone willing to stump up the
    >> fee, can be certified and called UNIX, as opposed to 'Unix-like'.
    >> Whether that actually matters to the typical user is something else
    >> altogether. I know I certainly don't care that I'm running UNIX right
    >> now.

    >
    > Yes, but SCO OpenServer and SCO UnixWare are the only systems
    > available that can authentically claim to be the direct non-
    > derivative descendants of UNIX.
    >
    > Everything else going by the name "Unix" is a derivative work and can
    > only claim that it is "Unix" because it confirms to the Open Unix
    > specification and they have been given permission by the Open
    > Consortium to use the name "Unix".


    They've been given permission to use the trademark UNIX, which The Open
    Group insists be spelled UNIX rather than Unix. As I understand it the
    OS was originally called Unix, although often printed as UNIX just
    because it looked good. The trademark UNIX came much later and is
    currently owned by The Open Group, and legally no one can use the name
    UNIX (or the similar Unix) without their permission. Others regard Unix
    as a generic term, but this hasn't been sucessfully used to challenge
    the trademark yet.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 25, 2008
    #12
  13. In <> Freesias wrote:
    > On Sun, 25 May 2008 02:14:26 +0000, Roger Johnstone wrote:
    >
    >> They've been given permission to use the trademark UNIX, which The
    >> Open Group insists be spelled UNIX rather than Unix. As I understand
    >> it the OS was originally called Unix, although often printed as UNIX
    >> just because it looked good. The trademark UNIX came much later and
    >> is currently owned by The Open Group, and legally no one can use the
    >> name UNIX (or the similar Unix) without their permission. Others
    >> regard Unix as a generic term, but this hasn't been sucessfully used
    >> to challenge the trademark yet.

    >
    > It was called "UNIX" almost from the very beginning in the late '60s.
    >
    > Novell sold ownership of the trademark to to The Santa Crus Operation
    > in 1994.


    Nope, SCO never owned the UNIX trademark. From The Open Group:

    http://www.opengroup.org/comm/press/who-owns-unix.htm

    Who Owns UNIX?

    Regarding SCO's positioning on UNIX, The Open Group would like to make
    it clear that SCO holds the rights only to the operating system source
    code originally licensed by AT&T and does not own the UNIX trademark
    itself or definition of what a UNIX system is.
    Reference to the SCO web site shows that they own certain intellectual
    property and they correctly attribute the trademark. SCO has never owned
    "UNIX".

    In 1994 Novell (who had acquired the UNIX systems business of AT&T/USL)
    decided to get out of that business. Rather than sell the business as a
    single entity, Novell transferred the rights to the UNIX trademark and
    the specification (that subsequently became the Single UNIX
    Specification) to The Open Group (at the time X/Open Company).
    Simultaneously, it sold the UNIX source code and the product
    implementation (UNIXWARE) to SCO. The Open Group also owns the trademark
    UNIXWARE, transferred to them from SCO more recently.

    As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the
    UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing
    multiple implementations. Since the introduction of the Single UNIX
    Specification, there has been a single, open, consensus specification
    that defines the requirements for a conformant UNIX system.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand -> http://roger.geek.nz
     
    Roger Johnstone, May 25, 2008
    #13
  14. In article <>, Roger Johnstone did
    write:

    > What are you compaining about? You found it didn't you?


    I must keep that excuse in mind the next time somebody points out a problem
    with anything.

    "It made me fall down and break my leg."
    "What are you complaining about? The fracture healed, didn't it?"

    I can remember back in the early days, Andy Hertzfeld, one of the guys on
    the original Mac development team, looked at the Amiga and described it as
    a "Macintosh cloned with a Bizarro ray".

    Well, OS X is a Unix cloned with a Bizarro ray.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 26, 2008
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Freesias <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:41:58 +1200, whoisthis wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>>> Those are all good things to be able to do if you need to do them,
    >>>>>>> but they immediately take you out of the running of 'most popular
    >>>>>>> Unix' since the number of copies of your customised Unix are now
    >>>>>>> approximately one.
    >>>>>> Not at all. You can make those choices at installation.
    >>>>> And yet I am converting linux based Macs back to OSX as the support
    >>>>> overhead is much less. Another choice made.
    >>>> Indeed.
    >>>>
    >>>> What support overhead are you referring to?
    >>> set up, configuration, maintenance, and fixing things when things go
    >>> wrong.

    >> How is MACosX Unix any different from Linux in this respect?

    >
    > Its easier, more consistent.
    >
    > Oh, and we can run Photoshop, Mathtype, Endnote, Word, Filemaker, work
    > with an exchange server, Movie editing and DVD authoring.....


    Like Windows, but not as popular or hardware compliant ;-)
     
    sam, May 27, 2008
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <g1ghf1$fgl$>, sam <> wrote:



    >> Like Windows, but not as popular or hardware compliant ;-)

    >
    > Oh forgot to add we do run windows on them using VM software so I can
    > run Altium designer, Microwind too.


    Lucky you
    I'm quite happy running Windows, OSX, and various types of Linux.
    OSX won't run on my router, I have lots of essential Windows software,
    and it would be a waste to dedicate a Mac or a Windows PC to my low
    power always on media server. I find managing the dongle protected
    plugins on a protools workstation to be an utter pain in the butt, and
    updating the debian box super easy.
     
    sam, May 27, 2008
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    sam Guest

    whoisthis wrote:
    > In article <g1gkb3$sfk$>, sam <> wrote:
    >
    >> whoisthis wrote:
    >>> In article <g1ghf1$fgl$>, sam <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Like Windows, but not as popular or hardware compliant ;-)
    >>> Oh forgot to add we do run windows on them using VM software so I can
    >>> run Altium designer, Microwind too.

    >> Lucky you
    >> I'm quite happy running Windows, OSX, and various types of Linux.
    >> OSX won't run on my router, I have lots of essential Windows software,
    >> and it would be a waste to dedicate a Mac or a Windows PC to my low
    >> power always on media server. I find managing the dongle protected
    >> plugins on a protools workstation to be an utter pain in the butt, and
    >> updating the debian box super easy.

    >
    > I run OSX server 10.4 on an old G4/400 at home, works as my print
    > spooler for various USB printers, VPN server, Squid proxy, firewall, and
    > web server. I am looking to replace it with a Mac mini that will sit
    > nicely under the airport base station.


    Your home OSX server is probably running the same OSS packages as my
    Epia linux server, cups, samba, squid etc.
    I don't see any advantage to replacing it with a Mac, and a few
    disadvantages, the linux version is much easier to apt-get update via ssh.
    A Mac mini will probably be my next buy as a desktop though.
     
    sam, May 27, 2008
    #17
  18. In article <g1gkb3$sfk$>, sam did write:

    > I find managing the dongle protected plugins on a protools workstation to
    > be an utter pain in the butt, and updating the debian box super easy.


    More confirmation of Mac problems with audio and music apps
    <http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=1781>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 30, 2008
    #18
  19. In article <>, whoisthis did
    write:

    > I run OSX server 10.4 on an old G4/400 at home ...


    Whatever happened to Apple's XServe servers? Have they been abandoned?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    David Empson Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:

    > In article <>, whoisthis did
    > write:
    >
    > > I run OSX server 10.4 on an old G4/400 at home ...

    >
    > Whatever happened to Apple's XServe servers? Have they been abandoned?


    No, they are still available, similar in performance (and price) to a
    Mac Pro. Last updated in January this year.

    Not everyone wants a rack mount server. I'm aware of various people
    running Mac OS X Server on a PowerMac G5 (which just replaced a G4/433),
    eMac and Mac Mini, as well as Xserves.

    --
    David Empson
     
    David Empson, May 31, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rogier Mulder
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,103
    Walter Roberson
    Jan 13, 2005
  2. Jason
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,050
    Barry Margolin
    Mar 10, 2006
  3. Avenger©
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    625
    Jeff_Relf
    Feb 5, 2005
  4. Avenger©
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    588
    Jeff_Relf
    Feb 5, 2005
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    It’s Windows, Jim, But Not As We Know It!

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jun 7, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    498
    Boots
    Jun 7, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page