4 ms·

I don't know what UNIX means to you but where I come from UNIX means an atomic rename(2). http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple/rename.html http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple

by dmm 16y ago

I don't know what UNIX means to you but where I come from UNIX means an atomic rename(2). http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple/rename.html http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple/rename.html

bradleyland 16y ago
I said specifically in my post that OS X is UNIX 03 certified. http://www.unix.org/version3/ http://www.unix.org/version3/ The Open Group owns the Unix trademark, which is what we're all referring to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group So I don't know what UNIX means to you, but where I come from, it's based on a certification that adheres to a defined set of standards. What you posted is an unresolved bug report that doesn't prove or disprove that OS X is Unix certified.
- dmm 16y ago
  I'm well aware of what UNIX 03 means. Are you? The core of it is IEEE Std 1003.1. Here's a quote from the Rationale section of the rename(2) page from IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 edition: "This rename() function is equivalent for regular files to that defined by the ISO C standard. Its inclusion here expands that definition to include actions on directories and specifies behavior when the new parameter names a file that already exists. That specification requires that the action of the function be atomic." So to comply with the Single Unix specification, rename(2) must be atomic. The rename(2) function on OS X has been empirically shown to not be atomic. What reasonable conclusions can be drawn here?
  - bradleyland 16y ago
    The reasonable conclusion is that a bug exists where -- under certain circumstances -- rename(2) fails in a way that is not expected. It's a bug. It's not as if rename(2) is intentionally implemented in a way that is not atomic; it's that there is a bug. Should it be fixed? Yes. Does it mean that OS X is not Unix? No.
    - dmm 16y ago
      > Does it mean that OS X is not Unix? No. What exactly are you arguing? What is your definition of unix? A label purchased from the Open Group or an implementation of a specification? If it's the former, I completely agree with you, OS X is UNIX. If it's the latter, what standard of proof would it take to convince you otherwise?
      - bradleyland 16y ago
        Ok, I'll state it clearly. I'm arguing that: One may feel comfortable claiming that OS X is "Unix" based on the fact that all versions of OS X since 10.5 have been "Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product" (from an archive of the Apple website), signifying that they have met the requirements for the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specification. http://web.archive.org/web/20070823040630/http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/unix.html http://web.archive.org/web/20070823040630/http://www.apple.c... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification

by dmm 16y ago

I don't know what UNIX means to you but where I come from UNIX means an atomic rename(2). http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple/rename.html http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple/rename.html

bradleyland 16y ago

I said specifically in my post that OS X is UNIX 03 certified. http://www.unix.org/version3/ http://www.unix.org/version3/ The Open Group owns the Unix trademark, which is what we're all referring to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group So I don't know what UNIX means to you, but where I come from, it's based on a certification that adheres to a defined set of standards. What you posted is an unresolved bug report that doesn't prove or disprove that OS X is Unix certified.

dmm 16y ago
I'm well aware of what UNIX 03 means. Are you? The core of it is IEEE Std 1003.1. Here's a quote from the Rationale section of the rename(2) page from IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 edition: "This rename() function is equivalent for regular files to that defined by the ISO C standard. Its inclusion here expands that definition to include actions on directories and specifies behavior when the new parameter names a file that already exists. That specification requires that the action of the function be atomic." So to comply with the Single Unix specification, rename(2) must be atomic. The rename(2) function on OS X has been empirically shown to not be atomic. What reasonable conclusions can be drawn here?
- bradleyland 16y ago
  The reasonable conclusion is that a bug exists where -- under certain circumstances -- rename(2) fails in a way that is not expected. It's a bug. It's not as if rename(2) is intentionally implemented in a way that is not atomic; it's that there is a bug. Should it be fixed? Yes. Does it mean that OS X is not Unix? No.
  - dmm 16y ago
    > Does it mean that OS X is not Unix? No. What exactly are you arguing? What is your definition of unix? A label purchased from the Open Group or an implementation of a specification? If it's the former, I completely agree with you, OS X is UNIX. If it's the latter, what standard of proof would it take to convince you otherwise?
    - bradleyland 16y ago
      Ok, I'll state it clearly. I'm arguing that: One may feel comfortable claiming that OS X is "Unix" based on the fact that all versions of OS X since 10.5 have been "Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product" (from an archive of the Apple website), signifying that they have met the requirements for the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specification. http://web.archive.org/web/20070823040630/http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/unix.html http://web.archive.org/web/20070823040630/http://www.apple.c... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification