why，just beacuse that its the bottom layer uses a small amount of bsd code? In my opinion, macos and Unix are completely different. The directories are long directory structures. For example, /application, /system, /user, /volumes, etc. are completely different from the traditional /bin/ /sbin /etc/ /sys directories. The core uses a mixed kernel of mach and xnu, and is not a traditional monolithic kernel of Unix. The application uses older versions, such as sudo1.8.17, bash3.18. This is updated to sudo1.8.28 and bash5.0 under archlinux. You must also get the app store to install the program. Such an os I think it is more like windows
On the contrary, Linux I feel it more like Unix, keep the simple and stupid Unix style, and even some distributions do not provide gui, just shell mode. The directory follows the Unix traditional directory /bin /boot /etc/ /tmp /var and so on, not innovating alone. The core uses the traditional monolithic kernel written by linus. Installing the software needs to be done under the terminal, although different distributions have different command line styles. Give the user great freedom. In addition to the software you think it is not derived from the original code of at&t, but a cloned version of gnu. I really can't see where it is not Unix. Why do many people call it a class of Unix? What are they thinking about?
Is it only use "car"word call the car, Toyota and Mazuda and Ford do not call the car? ? Is it only use �airplanes� call the aircraft, Airbus and Boeing are not called airplanes? ? Different motors, different design styles, different appearances. But their principles are the same. In my opinion, as long as the design philosophy of kernel, shell, and user space is followed, having the same directory structure, shell, and underlying c language design can be called Unix.
Therefore, Unix did not disappear, but changed a vest, with gnu/linux, freebsd mode continues to exist.
In the literal, legal sense, UNIX means you had your operating system tested and certified as UNIX-compliant. Apple did this, and Linux hasn't (and perhaps can't, except for a tiny subset of configurations and features.)
In the same sense, Windows NT was partly compliant back in the day. They hastily added enough bolt-on modules and compatibility software it was compliant for a few narrow cases.
I consider MacOS more "unix-like' than Linux because (1) the Darwin core and (2) UNIX certification.
The fact of the matter is that UNIX and unix developers are responsible for the success of both MacOS and Linux and it is pointless to debate.
In my view, if unix had not of been tied up in years of litigation based on commercial (profit motivated) licenses and copyrights and unix had gone the same route as Linux, unix would be the dominate force in computing today.
its true that MacOS is more "unix-like' than Linux because of UNIX certification. On the other hand totally unrelated Z/OS, BS2000 and other proprietary mainframe OS'ses also have posix certification. That's it and that's all either.
Under the hood MacOS keeps the user far away from the BSD cellar. The typical macos user runs very proprietary gui apps on very proprietary hardware, and only a small minority installing UNIX related services, libraries, X11, vi, emacs and so on, however that's not part of the MacOS culture, which is more windows a-like restricted, limited, not to say even worser capitalism than M$. Furthermore MacOS hat nothing to do with the classic UNIX approach of free and open, sharing and open community. Just the opposite is true. Running MacOS is like Ricky Rich living on a lonely island.
I use UNIX tools on MacOS every day and so do most MacOS users I know.
Just because MacOS has a great GUI, does not mean that the underlying Darwin OS is "not good" and "not UNIX"..... just because MacOS has a great UI, that has nothing to do with the underlying OS, which is as much "UNIX" as is any other modern "UNIX" OS.
I will close the thread, per the forum rules.
I don't have time to moderate "MacOS is NOT really UNIX" nonsense.
Of course MacOS is based on UNIX and, as a matter of great fact... the largest UNIX user base in the world at this time, and for the past many years, are MacOS users.
Closing comment:
Arguing "OS Purity" is no different, or little different, than arguing "ethic purity" ... or "racial purity" ..... it is a divisive discussion with no purpose other than to be divisive.
That is why we have a long established forum rule to not have these kinds of "religious" and "divisive" discussions here at unix.com.
This rule certainly includes "OS purity" kind of divisive discussions and negative, biased opinions about operating systems.
The culture is not UNIX culture, it's BSD and GNU. The entire "classic UNIX approach of free and open" was anti-UNIX backlash! A little history is needed to understand why.
Until "recently", UNIX was a monolithic copyright and licensed software hoarded by AT&T.
Richard Stallman disliked the closed binary approach and began GNU to create a portable, compatible, open UNIX alternative.
BSD, in modern parlance, was an open, pre-AT&T "fork" of UNIX, in pure sourcecode form. "Binary source distribution" in short.
Linux was a madcap project out of nowhere which got so popular that GNU adopted it over their HURD kernel.
The modern meaning of UNIX has changed. It's now a paper standard and series of tests of describing the languages, API's, programs, and shells that must be available for an operating system to call itself UNIX. Certification is not free. The standards need upkeep paid for somehow.
So, open and closed systems can both be UNIX, the same way different brands of appliances use the same wall sockets. And the standard means that one UNIX system can run the same software as a completely different UNIX system, given source code and a little work.