6 ms·
They didn't convince anybody of anything. They poured an enormous amount of technical work [1] into making it compliant with the Single Unix Specification [2].
by alexjplant 8mo ago
They didn't convince anybody of anything. They poured an enormous amount of technical work [1] into making it compliant with the Single Unix Specification [2].
> The standard specifies programming interfaces for the C language, a command-line shell, and user commands.
What else would be necessary to call it such?
[1] https://www.quora.com/What-goes-into-making-an-OS-to-be-Unix-compliant-certified https://www.quora.com/What-goes-into-making-an-OS-to-be-Unix...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#macOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#macO...
- School-Cotton 8mo ago> What else would be necessary to call it such? Unix was a specific piece of software from a specific era. The experience of using it was very much unlike macOS for most users. Making it a "specification" was a later ret-con. If someday Microsoft goes out of business and whoever acquires the trademarks makes a "Windows Specification", that you can meet and be legally considered Windows despite sharing zero code with the original, I would also think that was silly. At most it makes sense to say that macOS has a sufficient set of features to emulate Unix, not that it is actually Unix.