Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

So I know that Linux is considered "Unix-like" while OSX is Unix.

Why is this? I feel like Linux is much more "Unix-like" than OSX is.

What makes OSX more "Unix" than Linux?

share|improve this question

closed as too broad by Braiam, slm, jasonwryan, Ramesh, Gilles May 15 '14 at 23:51

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

OSX is BSD, not UNIX. – Braiam May 15 '14 at 21:10
Why the downvotes ? – Aristides May 15 '14 at 21:17
@Braiam: This depends on wording. You could either say, being UNIX means being descendant of the original AT&T System I+ (which it actually is due to the ancestry with FreeBSD, which somehow is connected to the »old« 4.4BSD and thus to AT&T Unix). The other approach would be saying being UNIX means being UNIX certified (which I'd prefer) by The Open Group, which OS X actually is, and thus it's absolutely legitimate to call OS X not only a UNIX derivative, but actually a UNIX. – Andreas Wiese May 15 '14 at 21:41
@AndreasWiese So then is the only reason that OSX is considered Unix because of the certification? If so, why doesn't Linux take the certification? If it did, why wouldn't it pass? That is the root of my question. – Aristides May 15 '14 at 22:04
up vote 8 down vote accepted

As suggested in the comments, OS X primary is a real Unix since it is certified by The Open Group (owner of the UNIX™ trademark), allowing it to legally claim itself to be UNIX.

Primary requirement for being UNIX certified is being conforming to the POSIX standard(s). Second one is being able to pay The Open Group the certification process. I think the latter point is the main problem why Linux is not certified. ;)

Another good reason for not taking the afford of certification is that there isn't really one Linux. Of course, there is a primary source for the actual operating system's kernel, but most distributors don't ship exactly this kernel, but patch it themselves, which would break certification. Even if you take the vanilla kernel (Linus's tree), there are dozens of possible configurations, and the kernel config even allows you to explicitly break POSIX compliance. This sounds strange at first glance, but absolutely makes sense, for example if you're planning to run your kernel on an embedded system with hard resource constraints. It could be advantageous to disable certain features that simply are not needed by such a setup, but would break POSIX compatibility (by disabling parts of the API, etc.).

OS X on the other hand does not have this problems. There's only one vendor which has complete control to decide which features the kernel supports and which not.

But even in the »iWorld« you can spot this problem: iOS or the system used on Apple's iTV although descendant of and closely tied to development of OS X are not UNIX certified. This most probably is caused by a reduced feature set breaking certification requirements.

Edit: The Open Group actually has a (draft status and rather moldy) document describing the conflicts between POSIX and LSB (the Linux Standard Base) you can find here.

share|improve this answer
is there any element of the POSIX standard that Linux doesn't adhere to? – Aristides Oct 3 '15 at 22:06

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.