New Patch Fixes 43 Flaws In OS X, Many Serious 2139
Perhaps so. I feared that you would try to define Unix arguments from there.
I think I gave you the *right* one; Unix is a brand owned by X-Open and it is licenced by them to such as want it, and meet the standards they set.
Ah, now here I degree. That stuff about X and KDE is indeed layer, then how security that code is less important; the security of the code they *do* use is more important.
snip
I say such things largely to annoy philosophy professors. :D
Yep.
Linux certain isn't; neither, to my knowledge, are any BSDs.
Unix has a long a tortued history; once upon a time you could reasonably say that "Unix" refered to those OSes derived from the AT&T Unix codebase.
But it has now devolved to a mere brand, and no connection to that original code is required (by X-Open).
I do not approve of those who try to degrade its meaning even *further*, so that it is a meaningless slogan.
I see this:
"Unix or UNIX is a computer operating system originally developed in the 1960s and 1970s by a group..."
This is perhaps a more susbtantial definition than simply referencing the Unix trademark; but it is also narrow. *No* current OS meets this description. There are still some derivatives; Mac OS X is not one of these.
snip
NeXTStep was an OS very different from the BSD family, but with a Unix compatibility layer that, as I understand it, wasn't all that good.
snip
And they all have setuid bits. Was it? I have never used it. Have you? Yes. It's a *brand*. If Apple wished, they could well obtain the right to use this...
I have done: Unix is a brand, and an OS is a Unix if it has aquired the right to use the brand. This requires paying a fee, and acheiving a certain degree of compatibility with other Unixes.
Daniel Johnson Yeup. Now do you know what these are for? Yes. Very buggy. Then...
It implies *nothing* about the codebase, however, and is irrelevant to security.