Apple's Leopard gains UNIX 03 certification

[AppleInsider]

Apple's forthcoming release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is the first BSD-based operating system to receive the UNIX 03 certification, placing the Mac maker among an elite group of official UNIX 03 vendors.

As noted by ArsTechnica in its coverage of the matter, Apple has always touted Mac OS X as UNIX-based, playing up the security, stability, and compatibility that comes with its BSD foundation. At one point, the company's evangelism of Mac OS X through use of the UNIX name actually landed it in hot water with The Open Group, as the OS wasn't actually UNIX-certified at the time.

"All that is changing," explains Ars, "since the upcoming Leopard release has received the UNIX 03 certification as of May 18, meaning that Mac OS X 10.5 on the Intel platform is a 'true' UNIX OS, rather than just being UNIX-like."

From a developer standpoint, UNIX 03 certification means that Leopard conforms to the Single UNIX Specification Version 3 (SUS), which outlines how components like the shell, compiler, and C APIs should function.

In becoming the first BSD-based OS to receive the UNIX 03 certification, Leopard also adds Apple to an extremely short list of official UNIX 03 OS vendors that include IBM, Sun, and HP. This presents several advantages:

"Any software written for the SUS specification is easily portable to a UNIX 03 operating system, meaning that enterprise customers who need a 'real' UNIX for their applications can now use Leopard servers if they so desire," writes Ars. "Leopard's certification also gives developers another option for a development platforms, which could translate into some extra Mac sales."

Leopard's UNIX 03 certification applies only to the Intel-based version according to the official Open Brand Certificate [PDF].

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[djpadz]

I wonder if the efforts toward UNIX '03 certification are pointing toward a real enterprise strategy from Apple. After all, most consumers wouldn't care one way or the other about such things (although it does widen the feature gap between OSX and Windows, at least from a marketing perspective), but it does become important for CIO-types who are looking for an enterprise server platform.

[Zenga]

Originally Posted by djpadz

I wonder if the efforts toward UNIX '03 certification are pointing toward a real enterprise strategy from Apple. After all, most consumers wouldn't care one way or the other about such things (although it does widen the feature gap between OSX and Windows, at least from a marketing perspective), but it does become important for CIO-types who are looking for an enterprise server platform.

I was thinking about that exactly.. If enterprises have softeware written in UNIX and like the article says "easy to port" to Leopard, maybe this is the 4th leg that Steve meant to his peers when he talk about Apple being a 2 leg table before the iPhone..

Let's see what the new cat brings to the mac world.. in the mean time:

WHERE THE HELL IS MY NEW IMAC?

[Rank Xerox]

This was news in Sweden on the 12 of June. Even with a link to download the Apple Unix 03 certificate.

[Moukkis]

Originally Posted by Rank Xerox

This was news in Sweden on the 12 of June. Even with a link to download the Apple Unix 03 certificate.

Not much going on in Sweden then...

Best Regards,
Manu, Finland

[Slewis]

Null.

[drjjones]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Apple's forthcoming release of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard is the first BSD-based operating system to receive the UNIX 03 certification, placing the Mac maker among an elite group of official UNIX 03 vendors.

As noted by ArsTechnica in its coverage of the matter, Apple has always touted Mac OS X as UNIX-based, playing up the security, stability, and compatibility that comes with its BSD foundation. At one point, the company's evangelism of Mac OS X through use of the UNIX name actually landed it in hot water with The Open Group, as the OS wasn't actually UNIX-certified at the time.

"All that is changing," explains Ars, "since the upcoming Leopard release has received the UNIX 03 certification as of May 18, meaning that Mac OS X 10.5 on the Intel platform is a 'true' UNIX OS, rather than just being UNIX-like."

From a developer standpoint, UNIX 03 certification means that Leopard conforms to the Single UNIX Specification Version 3 (SUS), which outlines how components like the shell, compiler, and C APIs should function.

In becoming the first BSD-based OS to receive the UNIX 03 certification, Leopard also adds Apple to an extremely short list of official UNIX 03 OS vendors that include IBM, Sun, and HP. This presents several advantages:

"Any software written for the SUS specification is easily portable to a UNIX 03 operating system, meaning that enterprise customers who need a 'real' UNIX for their applications can now use Leopard servers if they so desire," writes Ars. "Leopard's certification also gives developers another option for a development platforms, which could translate into some extra Mac sales."

Leopard's UNIX 03 certification applies only to the Intel-based version according to the official Open Brand Certificate [PDF].

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

This is great. We can now use an apple servers more ways and show off more capability to overtake the industry with reliability that few can supply . Bigger margins for AAPL.

[noirdesir]

So what are the main UNIX variants? Apparently, IBM, Sun and HP are the main 'industry-strength' suppliers, Sun's Solaris certainly has a very solid reputation, and this is also true for the high-end systems of IBM and HP. Then there is the open-source world (*) with Linux, which has almost reached consumer-grade status, plus all the BSD variants and naturally OS X.

Does this cover basically the whole market (with some niche solutions, is there still an SGI)? Or are there other relevant UNIX flavours? And what is the relative importance of these systems in the non-consumer market?

(*) I know Solaris is open-source now, but not by tradition.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by Slewis

Thanks for the content recently, but now you're reporting something that should be dated June 12th.

This was on Apple's site since WWDC, and just reading this page would tell you all about SUSv3 and POSIX compliance.

Sebastian

It's a slow day...

K

[melgross]

I had thought that the Sun implementation was based on FreeBSD just as Apple's is.

If not, then what?

[theapplegenius]

The funny thing is that Mac OS X's kernel is XNU, a backronym for "X is Not UNIX". Well now XNU *is* UNIX.

Hahaha...ha....

[melgross]

Originally Posted by theapplegenius

The funny thing is that Mac OS X's kernel is XNU, a backronym for "X is Not UNIX". Well now XNU *is* UNIX.

Hahaha...ha....

What?

The kernel is MACH.

Or am I missing something here?

[acslater017]

I have no idea what this means!

All I know is Time Machine lets you fly into a wormhole

[MsNly]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Leopard's UNIX 03 certification applies only to the Intel-based version according to the official Open Brand Certificate [PDF].

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

All the more reason for Apple to release a minitower (I know I know) so I can replace my iBook G4 Of Horror!

[lfmorrison]

Originally Posted by melgross

I had thought that the Sun implementation was based on FreeBSD just as Apple's is.

If not, then what?

Sun's Unix is SunOS, whose heritage as a UNIX system dates back to the early 1980's, when it was derived from BSD. This was back when the legitimacy of Berkeley's version of Unix wasn't debated as hotly as it would be later.

As of SunOS 5.0 (re-branded as Solaris 2.0) and later, it was derived instead from System V Release 4 (which is unquestionably a legitimate Unix, and itself was an amalgam of technologies from various sources, including, you guessed it, BSD.)

FreeBSD came into existence as an open-source project later on, as Berkeley was officially dropping development of BSD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...ory-simple.svg

[macbear01]

Originally Posted by MsNly

All the more reason for Apple to release a minitower (I know I know) so I can replace my iBook G4 Of Horror!

I would bet this is the beginning of the end for those of us on PowerPC systems, which is a shame. I still love my Dual 2.5GHz G5. It still kicks ass!

Well actually, I guess the switch to Intel was the real beginning of the end, but you know what I mean.

[MsNly]

Originally Posted by macbear01

I would bet this is the beginning of the end for those or us on PowerPC systems, which is a shame. I still love my Dual 2.5GHz G5. It still kicks ass!

Well actually, I guess the switch to Intel was the real beginning of the end, but you know what I mean.

Ya, and wish I could afford a Mac Pro, Apple retire the mini and make a minitower so your fanboys can finally make the transition!

[badNameErr]

Originally Posted by melgross

What?

The kernel is MACH.

Or am I missing something here?

The NAME of the kernel is XNU. (Darwin is only a marketing name really).

[theapplegenius]

Originally Posted by melgross

What?

The kernel is MACH.

Or am I missing something here?

You're missing a little.

XNU is a fucked up hybrid of like 3 or 4 things. I don't really have the knowledge to elaborate but kernelthread does.

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html

[theapplegenius]

Originally Posted by badNameErr

The NAME of the kernel is XNU. (Darwin is only a marketing name really).

Darwin is a whole OS based off of XNU.

[McDave]

Originally Posted by macbear01

I would bet this is the beginning of the end for those of us on PowerPC systems, which is a shame. I still love my Dual 2.5GHz G5. It still kicks ass!

Well actually, I guess the switch to Intel was the real beginning of the end, but you know what I mean.

You noticed?

Originally Posted by MsNly

Ya, and wish I could afford a Mac Pro, Apple retire the mini and make a minitower so your fanboys can finally make the transition!

Originally Posted by MsNly

All the more reason for Apple to release a minitower (I know I know) so I can replace my iBook G4 Of Horror!

Maybe just make the Mini a bit taller? Y'know like a cube but with snap-in drives, memory & graphics? C'mon Steve - 3rd time lucky?

McD

[MsNly]

Originally Posted by McDave

Maybe just make the Mini a bit taller? Y'know like a cube but with snap-in drives, memory & graphics? C'mon Steve - 3rd time lucky?

Not the cube, they were only good for fish tanks...

But I agree make the Mini upgradeable with better graphics; actually better everything!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by badNameErr

The NAME of the kernel is XNU. (Darwin is only a marketing name really).

What are you talking about?

Darwin isn't a kernel.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by theapplegenius

You're missing a little.

XNU is a fucked up hybrid of like 3 or 4 things. I don't really have the knowledge to elaborate but kernelthread does.

http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html

Heh! Now we're getting into a definitional kind of thing with XNU.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by MsNly

Not the cube, they were only good for fish tanks...

But I agree make the Mini upgradeable with better graphics; actually better everything!

The Cube was a much better computer then it's been given credit for.

[MsNly]

Originally Posted by melgross

The Cube was a much better computer then it's been given credit for.

Ya, but if i was going to have a mini that was upgradeable (minitower) I'd rather it look like a mini mac pro.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by noirdesir

So what are the main UNIX variants? Apparently, IBM, Sun and HP are the main 'industry-strength' suppliers, Sun's Solaris certainly has a very solid reputation, and this is also true for the high-end systems of IBM and HP. Then there is the open-source world (*) with Linux, which has almost reached consumer-grade status, plus all the BSD variants and naturally OS X.

It is just an expensive test and certification, which gives the rights to call it UNIX if it complies. Linux and the BSDs don't have certification because it costs a lot of money, something they can't do just because there's no money in a free operating system.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

It is just an expensive test and certification, which gives the rights to call it UNIX if it complies. Linux and the BSDs don't have certification because it costs a lot of money, something they can't do just because there's no money in a free operating system.

It does get that high level of compatibility between the non graphical areas of the OS's.

That goog. It makes program portability easier.

And, Hp, IBM, and Sun isn't bad company to be compatible with.

While Apple MAY not be interested in higher end sales, they might. This makes it easier.

[city]

Originally Posted by MsNly

Not the cube, they were only good for fish tanks...

!

Guess what I use my cube for.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

It is just an expensive test and certification, which gives the rights to call it UNIX if it complies. Linux and the BSDs don't have certification because it costs a lot of money, something they can't do just because there's no money in a free operating system.

Given that RH, Novell, IBM, and HP have money and have gone through EAL tests and certs (up to EAL4) more than once which can't be much less expensive than Unix certs I can't imagine why major enterprise Linux distros (SLES, RHEL) couldn't afford to get Unix 03 certification simply from license/test/certification perspective. LSB and Posix have some minor to moderate conflicts that would need to be resolved. Nothing show stopperish if I remember right.

Some contracts (TOG says $60B) still require Unix vs Posix but I can't imagine that many that would appeal to Apple or that XServes would be a good fit for that many. These are mostly big iron contracts for government or financial houses.

EAL is even more harsh as the certs really are only good for a specific hardware/software configuration.

The real question is does Apple really sit at the big people table now. Its only a Silver member of the Open Group while HP, Sun and IBM are ICSC Founding Members as well as Platinum Members (or Silver for Sun).

[melgross]

Originally Posted by vinea

Given that RH, Novell, IBM, and HP have money and have gone through EAL tests and certs (up to EAL4) more than once which can't be much less expensive than Unix certs I can't imagine why major enterprise Linux distros (SLES, RHEL) couldn't afford to get Unix 03 certification simply from license/test/certification perspective. LSB and Posix have some minor to moderate conflicts that would need to be resolved. Nothing show stopperish if I remember right.

Some contracts (TOG says $60B) still require Unix vs Posix but I can't imagine that many that would appeal to Apple or that XServes would be a good fit for that many. These are mostly big iron contracts for government or financial houses.

EAL is even more harsh as the certs really are only good for a specific hardware/software configuration.

The real question is does Apple really sit at the big people table now. Its only a Silver member of the Open Group while HP, Sun and IBM are ICSC Founding Members as well as Platinum Members (or Silver for Sun).

It helps. Surely not a deal breaker. Is it a deal maker? Possibly sometimes.

As OS X is now acceptable for certain governmental departments, this could help convince some that Apple is serious. If it's required, then that's the only way to get in.

As we don't know Apple's hardware plans, it's always possible that they will come out with a blade, or larger servers some time.

[MsNly]

Originally Posted by MsNly

Not the cube, they were only good for fish tanks...

Originally Posted by city

Guess what I use my cube for.

[troberts]

I do not think they got the certification because of a specific plan to get into the enterprise, but to eliminate a potential barrier. If a company doesn't care about the certification then it makes no difference, but if a business or government wants or requires the OS to be UNIX 03 certified then they will see Apple's name on the list of vendors whose OS is certified.