I don't know what UNIX means to you but where I come from UNIX means an atomic rename(2).

http://www.weirdnet.nl/apple/rename.html

I said specifically in my post that OS X is UNIX 03 certified.

http://www.unix.org/version3/

The Open Group owns the Unix trademark, which is what we're all referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group

So I don't know what UNIX means to you, but where I come from, it's based on a certification that adheres to a defined set of standards.

What you posted is an unresolved bug report that doesn't prove or disprove that OS X is Unix certified.

I'm well aware of what UNIX 03 means. Are you? The core of it is IEEE Std 1003.1. Here's a quote from the Rationale section of the rename(2) page from IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 edition:

"This rename() function is equivalent for regular files to that defined by the ISO C standard. Its inclusion here expands that definition to include actions on directories and specifies behavior when the new parameter names a file that already exists. That specification requires that the action of the function be atomic."

So to comply with the Single Unix specification, rename(2) must be atomic. The rename(2) function on OS X has been empirically shown to not be atomic. What reasonable conclusions can be drawn here?

The reasonable conclusion is that a bug exists where -- under certain circumstances -- rename(2) fails in a way that is not expected. It's a bug. It's not as if rename(2) is intentionally implemented in a way that is not atomic; it's that there is a bug. Should it be fixed? Yes. Does it mean that OS X is not Unix? No.

> Does it mean that OS X is not Unix? No.

What exactly are you arguing? What is your definition of unix? A label purchased from the Open Group or an implementation of a specification?

If it's the former, I completely agree with you, OS X is UNIX. If it's the latter, what standard of proof would it take to convince you otherwise?

Ok, I'll state it clearly. I'm arguing that:

One may feel comfortable claiming that OS X is "Unix" based on the fact that all versions of OS X since 10.5 have been "Open Brand UNIX 03 Registered Product" (from an archive of the Apple website), signifying that they have met the requirements for the SUSv3 and POSIX 1003.1 specification.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070823040630/http://www.apple.c...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification

Sure, I was more offended by words being placed in my mouth. Whether it is UNIX or not is irrelevant to me if it does what I need it to do, I don't really get hung up in the dogma.

I think the "you" was directed hypothetically at the reader, not you specifically.

trevelyan makes some good points. I love my MBP, but consider it more of a host machine than a development machine. I do most of my development in VMs or while logged into various Linux machines. If you've never used OS X before, there are a few gotchas that can make it less suitable for cross platform development. Aside from Apple's unpredictable changes to upstream sources, my biggest complaint is the tendency of the Finder to leave turds everywhere it's been. I'm always disappointed when a vendor distributes source code with these intact (and by default, the Finder will try to write them to practically every network drive folder it visits). That's just one example of things you'll have to watch out for when you develop on the Mac.

If it was directed at a hypothetical reader, it was still implied that I represent the position that OSX = UNIX, based on the contents of my post. Which was never implied in my post.

I may have been a little too jumpy and he may have meant no harm by it, but people putting words in my mouth annoys me to no end. Many times It is used as a deception to falsely strengthen their position.