5 ms·
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
by 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 agoOk, 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