New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2127

What it tells is that advocates here (whether for Mac, Windows, or Linux) don't have the technical background and impartiality to write a fair buttessment that the rest of us can read. (Kshlmann is an example of someone who may actually have technical competence, but he tries too hard to be mistaken for an butthole to be perceived as impartial.)

Well, you don't know it either. So your choices are clear: become an expert and investigate the operating systems yourself, research the investigations others have written, or give up on drawing conclusions.

Oh, and stop trying to be mistaken for someone who has a bias against Macintosh. IOW, when you admittedly have no data and then rely on flaky data from other realms to support your claims, people will draw that conclusion.

Another approach is to come up with some reasonable definition of what Unix is. Test that definition by using it on various operating systems to see whether the definition works: A-UX, AIX, red Hat, SuSe, Slackware, Solaris, OpenSTEP, various embedded switches, the various NT, Cygwin on DOS. If your definition clearly filters the members of that collection as expected, then you should accept that the definition works. Now apply it to OS X and see what happens ... and be willing to stick with that answer.

(Oh, and the definition cannot say "except OS X" in it. But you knew that.)

Hmmm. If OS X is not a Unix, then why is it susceptible to a setuid-root program?

Is that part of your argument that OS X is not Unix? (How does that go? An application that was not developed on a "real" Unix makes any systems it runs on not a "real" Unix? No, probably that's a bit harsh. Feel free to modify that to be closer to what you mean.)

--