6 ms·

TL;DR OS X isn't Linux. Just so you know, people that have developed on Unix systems for decades have the same complaints about Linux.

sltkr 14y ago
In fact, OS X is a certified Unix system (while Linux isn't, officially, but close enough).
- lallysingh 14y ago
  But the fact remains, almost every other platform is less hackable than linux. Officially Certified Unix --> Officially Certified Dinosaur. Great ksh88 compatability? Motif? Thanks, I'll actually leave the 1990s alone and come back to the now.
  - jemka 14y ago
    >But the fact remains, almost every other platform is less hackable than linux. Was that a typo? If not, do you have any sources to show this? I don't know or have an educated opinion either way, but that statement does contradict common perception.
    - lallysingh 14y ago
      Hacking, not cracking: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/hacker-vs-cracker/1400 http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/hacker-vs-cracker/...
    - jeremyjh 14y ago
      By almost every other, I think he means all the commercial distributions of UNIX, which really are not very interesting to most hackers. I don't think he meant the BSDs.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      He's using hacking to mean 'messing around with one's own system', not 'gaining unauthorized access to another person's system.' In other words, he's saying that customizing/modding your own system and patching it (for yourself) is much more difficult than it is on Linux.
  - binarycrusader 14y ago
    Solaris 11 is certified Unix and has ksh93, zsh, csh, and bash (I think others as well). Bash is also the default shell. Yes it has motif for compatibility, but it also has Qt and Gtk. So I don't follow the implication that "certified Unix" means ancient platform.
vacri 14y ago
That's a strawman argument. The author says nothing about the Officialness of the Unix. His complaint is that he can't get at the guts of the system, nothing to do with branding.
- adestefan 14y ago
  My point had nothing to do with OS X being Unix (TM). It's just that OS X is a different platform than Linux and it shouldn't be surprising that things don't work the same way even though they're both Unix-y. When Linux started to take over for old Unix workstations around the 2002-2004 time frame a lot of the old Solaris people would complain that "Linux doesn't have truss" or that "Linux's RPC headers are completely FUBAR." I would imagine they'd say even more vile things about OS X even though it has some fancy stamp of Unix approval.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    This is what many kids that only know Linux don't get. UNIX != Linux, and it is sometimes a real pain to use. I had to visit customers with HP-UX installations that were a time travel to the 70's.
  - vacri 14y ago
    Your point seems rather self-evident then, since the author is complaining about the low-level functionality of the different platforms.

sltkr 14y ago

In fact, OS X is a certified Unix system (while Linux isn't, officially, but close enough).

lallysingh 14y ago
But the fact remains, almost every other platform is less hackable than linux. Officially Certified Unix --> Officially Certified Dinosaur. Great ksh88 compatability? Motif? Thanks, I'll actually leave the 1990s alone and come back to the now.
- jemka 14y ago
  >But the fact remains, almost every other platform is less hackable than linux. Was that a typo? If not, do you have any sources to show this? I don't know or have an educated opinion either way, but that statement does contradict common perception.
  - lallysingh 14y ago
    Hacking, not cracking: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/hacker-vs-cracker/1400 http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/hacker-vs-cracker/...
  - jeremyjh 14y ago
    By almost every other, I think he means all the commercial distributions of UNIX, which really are not very interesting to most hackers. I don't think he meant the BSDs.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    He's using hacking to mean 'messing around with one's own system', not 'gaining unauthorized access to another person's system.' In other words, he's saying that customizing/modding your own system and patching it (for yourself) is much more difficult than it is on Linux.
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  Solaris 11 is certified Unix and has ksh93, zsh, csh, and bash (I think others as well). Bash is also the default shell. Yes it has motif for compatibility, but it also has Qt and Gtk. So I don't follow the implication that "certified Unix" means ancient platform.

vacri 14y ago

That's a strawman argument. The author says nothing about the Officialness of the Unix. His complaint is that he can't get at the guts of the system, nothing to do with branding.

adestefan 14y ago
My point had nothing to do with OS X being Unix (TM). It's just that OS X is a different platform than Linux and it shouldn't be surprising that things don't work the same way even though they're both Unix-y. When Linux started to take over for old Unix workstations around the 2002-2004 time frame a lot of the old Solaris people would complain that "Linux doesn't have truss" or that "Linux's RPC headers are completely FUBAR." I would imagine they'd say even more vile things about OS X even though it has some fancy stamp of Unix approval.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  This is what many kids that only know Linux don't get. UNIX != Linux, and it is sometimes a real pain to use. I had to visit customers with HP-UX installations that were a time travel to the 70's.
- vacri 14y ago
  Your point seems rather self-evident then, since the author is complaining about the low-level functionality of the different platforms.