[email protected] wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 03:49:59PM -0500, Joe Block wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > nothing else running on commercial Unix that comes close (I'm not > > > > > counting Mac OS X as it's not based on X Windows and isn't a full Unix > > > > > despite its Mach core). > > > > > > > > But on top of the mach core there is a full unix as I understand it, > > > > including an Xserver that coexists with the mac display > > > > I'm kind of curious - what makes you say MacOS X isn't a full unix? I > > run OSX Server on a couple machines and it seems pretty full to me - > > most stuff builds with ./configure;make > > Interesting. My understanding was that MacOS X wasn't a full Unix. I'm > often wrong. > > Could you provide pointers to the Unixy features of MacOS X? Are the > standard Unix features and utilities provided or do you have to obtain > them independently
120+ day uptime, tcsh, bash, gcc (tho a apple version that groks the mach-o format OSX uses), perl, the usual suspects library-wise, crontab, sendmail (which I promptly ripped out in favor of postfix), apache. No X Window yet, but I hear John Carmack is porting it. python was a fairly simple build as I recall. Anything in particular you're looking for, feature wise? My sole complaint unix-wise is that most of the c-l tools are bsd and I'm more accustomed to the gnu versions, but that was easy enough to fix. The first thing I do on a non-linux box is build gnu fileutils, bash, make and gcc, so that wasn't a big deal. jpb -- Joe Block <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CREOL System Administrator Social graces are the packet headers of everyday life.
