7 ms·

> I can't imagine many companies choosing macOS because it's a real Unix, nor would anyone really opt out of z/OS, AIX og HPUX, if they where not certified. Wh

• StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Considering the core utils have even been ported to Windows, I don’t really see what you would lose. The Unix don’t really share much between each other apart from a small core.
  • pjmlp 1y ago
    While true, there are still speed bumps on Windows. One is better using the Windows alternatives.
    • StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      The initial argument was that MacOS is nice because it has the core Unix tool. I find this baffling because MacOS has very little to do with a traditional Unix apart from the certification and the core utils are literally usable on approximately anything. Speed bumps regarding what? I’m mostly using Linux nowadays but when I have to use Windows, the experience is fairly ok. The tooling when you want to manage it is imho superior to what Apple provides. I’m not used to develop on it but I have seen people do and it didn’t seem particularly worse than Linux-like environment. Not that I really have anything against MacOS. I think it’s neglected by Apple and not as enjoyable as it used to be. I dislike Apple and the policies it’s pushing for. Nevertheless, it’s ok to use. Everything pretty much is nowadays.
      • pjmlp 1y ago
        If you mean UNIX System V via green phosphor text terminals, thankfully not. Speed bumps regarding compilation of tooling written with UNIX semantics in mind, without taking into consideration Windows development culture and OS semantics.
        • StopDisinfo910 1y ago
          What are these mythical Unix semantics? Linking to Glibc? Sharing a roughly similar file system structure? Expecting bash to be there? Because from where I stand the people that care about BSD have spent the past decade complaining it’s getting more and more complicated to port Linux software so I’m very curious to know what the common DNA is supposed to be.
          • pjmlp 1y ago
            Everything that UNIX has and Windows doesn't.
            • StopDisinfo910 1y ago
              That’s as vague as it gets. The amount of things various Unix have in common is, well, not that much. Not that people care in any way because frankly speaking no one uses Unix. I get that you meant is probably that MacOS is close enough to Linux that you can somehow pretend it is the same when developing things which are ultimately going to run on Linux. To which I say, I personally think that buying Apple is wasting a lot of money for something which would work fine in a VM but well, that’s nice aluminium I guess.
              • pjmlp 1y ago
                It is super easy, pick any random UNIX tutorials and follow it using Visual Studio, or Windows Terminal.
                • 1y ago
• mdasen 1y ago
  I'd say that you care about it being UNIX-like, not UNIX®. You don't care that Linux isn't UNIX. You don't care that GNU versions of things like ed and awk are slightly off-spec. In some ways, Apple's adherence to UNIX specifications probably makes macOS less useful for you. For example, I wish that grep on macOS was closer to GNU grep. When I look up commands online, I often find answers based on the GNU implementations. Those often work on macOS, but sometimes don't (or have subtly different behavior) because macOS is adhering to the UNIX specification rather than to what those utilities do on the vast majority of systems out there. I don't think Apple would be removing UNIX-like tools from macOS even without certification. They know how valuable it is that most developers use their systems. Even Microsoft went so far as to implement the Windows Subsystem for Linux for developers. At this point, I think that UNIX certification makes macOS less compatible with the tools and help out there which generally targets Linux. Usually the differences are small, but they certainly can be meaningful.
  • cesaref 1y ago
    brew install grep?
    • latchkey 1y ago
      brew is such a treasure.
      • eric_h 1y ago
        and kind of a counter point to the GGGP's "Unix compliancy isn't what's keeping me on macOS, the Unix tools it has under the hood still is." I certainly replace a large chunk of the "unix tools under the hood" with tools installed via homebrew.
  • Avamander 1y ago
    Built-in grep is thankfully not as odd as the builtin find is. Might be the first one I replace on my systems.
    • 1y ago
• zitterbewegung 1y ago
  While macOS only really gets Unix certified they design of the flavor of unix from FreeBSD. Homebrew is also the best port system and package manager I have ever used because it requires no thinking. I actually dislike using Linux because now I have to learn the replacement from ifconfig, the creation of launchd IMHO is way better than init.d and systemd, and the command line diskutil and other additions still feel like its more Unix like while Linux feels like its moving toward its own thing. Before I was using macOS I was using OpenBSD as my daily driver since high school. I still don't understand though why Ubuntu has the ability to break /boot because there isn't enough space to add another kernel to there...
  • StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    I’m going to comment on the homebrew part because well that’s your tastes but I personally think it’s the worst package manager I have ever used and is not really a port system so opinions do vary here. > I have to learn the replacement from ifconfig MacOs switched to networksetup and ipconfig a long time ago. Ifconfig is not recommended so the situation is exactly the same than on Linux here. > launchd IMHO is way better than init.d and systemd Systemd is basically a more complete and better designed launchd. Having used both I have trouble thinking of anything launchd does better. > the command line diskutil and other additions still feel like its more Unix like Diskutil is a MacOS only tool. I’m a bit lost about what your argument is here. Linux still use fdisk and dedicated tools to create file systems exactly like on FreeBSD or any other Unix. It’s MacOs doing its own thing here.
    • zitterbewegung 1y ago
      Thank you for correcting me I appreciate it I will use those new commands.
  • pxc 1y ago
    How is launchd better than systemd? I find the commands much more verbose and the documentation more obscure
  • samgranieri 1y ago
• qmr 1y ago
  > I still get everything that I need from a "Unix like" standpoint Everything except a package manager!
  • zitterbewegung 1y ago
    Majority of people use homebrew. There is also macports.
  • pjmlp 1y ago
    UNIX never had a package manager. Those that have one, it is not standard.
  • philistine 1y ago
    With the way Apple is running its App stores, do you honestly believe that we would benefit from an Apple package manager? I'm convinced the devs inside Apple know what I'm saying as well, and are giving as much help as possible to Homebrew to keep it independent. There is some small proof, Homebrew was considered very highly during the DTK rollout for Apple Silicon.
• mickael-kerjean 1y ago
  There are some infuriating issues though, I have wiped out a couple files on OSX using sed with the -i option to replace a text within a file only to realised OSX would wipe it out instead ....
• makeitdouble 1y ago
  It's not for everyone, but at some point I got tired of the FreeBSD layer being there but not cared for, and WSL+git for windows kinda provides a decent compromise in that regard. The thing I hated the most was spending time building installation scripts or running images for the prod environment, and then go fight macos to replicate the same setup locally. Especially having parralel installs for the system and my user account was a PITA. One would argue I could just dev on the docker image as well, but then being on a somewhat unixy OS doesn't matter much anymore. WSL let's the Windows side live it's life (shell level tools can still be injected for convenience), and the linux side be genuinely Linux, not some ersatz, and duplicable to one's heart content. It's still less pain and better perfs than straight docker, and just extremely well integrated in general.
  • mikeinwc 1y ago
    Agreed, WSL + Windows Terminal on Windows is fantastic. I hope something similar comes to macos, to save us from either running docker local or SSHing to a linux host.
• EPWN3D 1y ago
  There is absolutely no way that happens. Apple cares about Unix compatibility for very good business reasons. Apple gets a lot of value from being even just Unix-ish. It's the same reasons Microsoft eventually knuckled under and made WSL -- the ubiquity of Unix conventions and tooling is just too cemented in the industry. POSIX conformance is a cherry on top, and it helps get them certain sales that require a conforming Unix. But that's not the real value to the platform.
• kjellsbells 1y ago
  There was a time when OS X was new that Apple leaned pretty hard into the OS X is UNIX(tm) story. I was working in academia at the time where the Serious Work was being done on SunOS/Solaris and saw print ads aimed at scientists reminding them that OS X was a Real UNIX: http://xahlee.info/UnixResource_dir/apple_unix_ad.html http://xahlee.info/UnixResource_dir/apple_unix_ad.html
• wkat4242 1y ago
  The enterprise support is actually pretty bad. they offer some cool stuff like DEP but there's so many strings attached that for enterprise it's rarely actually possible in practice. Many things are boneheadedly designed. For example, Apple federated accounts are a great idea. But, in your global directory the UPN and email must be the same. For us it's not, with good reason. We're not going to change our entire setup globally to suit Mac users that make up 0.5% of our systems. And there's never going to be more unless they become more accommodating. We even looked at JAMF but it's too much work to implement a whole separate management system. And the options in apple's configuration profiles are way too limited. Another issue, every account that has already been created as a private Apple id on the corporate email must be manually resolved. Impossible with many tens of thousands of users. AD binding while rudimentarily supported, causes so many issues. If someone's password expires there's no way to log in unless they're physically on the company network. The problem is that our security team demand we bind to AD. Not Azure AD. That's just reality in enterprise. Having a managed local admin account is also a really big problem and there isn't really any tooling for that. Maybe if you go all in on Apple like IBM did, then yeah you could adapt your environment to all their quirks. But it's a big blocker for small deployments. And really besides IBM nobody in enterprise did this. Apple meanwhile doesn't really care anyway. They only care about the customer market.