Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #234768 > unrolled thread

Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-10 22:53 +0000
    Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-11 08:23 -0700
      Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-18 17:34 +0100
        Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 20:58 +0000
        Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 23:24 +0000
          Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-03 23:53 +0000
            Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-04 00:48 +0000
              Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-04 02:56 +0000
                Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-04 03:08 +0000
              Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-08-04 15:33 +0100
                Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-04 14:45 +0000
                Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-04 21:31 +0000
                  Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-08-05 00:19 +0100
                    Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-16 21:53 +0800
                      Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-08-18 11:09 +0100
                  Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-05 00:29 +0000
                    Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 03:18 +0000
                      Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-05 04:39 +0000
                Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-05 00:31 +0000
                  Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 03:22 +0000
                    Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 03:24 +0000
                  Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-08-05 18:46 +0100
                    Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-05 21:38 +0000
                      Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:55 +0000
                        Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-06 03:30 +0000
                          Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-06 15:13 -0300
                      Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-08-07 10:16 +0100
                        Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-07 21:46 +0000
                          Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-10 08:46 -0700
                            Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-08-12 12:28 +0100
                              Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 15:38 -0700
                    UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-06 13:54 +0100
                      Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-06 23:58 +0000
                        Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-07 13:17 +0100
                          Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-07 17:18 +0000
                            Re: UNIX certification Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-08-08 12:16 +0100
                              Re: UNIX certification Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2026-08-08 18:41 -0400
                          Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-13 23:23 +0000
                            Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp "Phigan" <phigan@mutinybbs.com.remove-51d-this> - 2026-08-14 01:38 -0400
                              Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-14 12:14 +0000
                                Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-14 21:18 +0000
                                  Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-14 21:31 +0000
                                    Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp "Phigan" <phigan@mutinybbs.com.remove-110l-this> - 2026-08-16 10:14 -0400
                                    Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-08-16 21:33 +0000
                                      Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-16 22:44 +0000
                                      Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-08-17 14:24 +0000
                                        Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-17 14:32 +0000
                                  Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-08-14 20:52 -0700
                                    Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-15 04:21 +0000
                                    Multics (ws: Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-16 21:36 +0800
                                      Re: Multics (ws: Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp) Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-08-16 07:32 -0700
                              Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-14 13:29 +0100
                                Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To  Document-CentricComp vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-16 12:26 +0000
                              Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-08-14 07:31 -0700
                                Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened ToDocument-CentricComp "Phigan" <phigan@mutinybbs.com.remove-110l-this> - 2026-08-16 10:12 -0400
                              Princess Irulan (was: Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-16 21:33 +0800
                            Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-08-14 13:20 +0100
                              Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-16 22:16 +0000
                            System calls in assembly (was: Re: UNIX certification) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-16 21:40 +0800
      Extensible, interoperable standards (Document-Centric Computing) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-05-18 20:56 -0700
        Re: Extensible, interoperable standards (Document-Centric Computing) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 05:49 +0000
    Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 20:16 -0400
      Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> - 2026-05-18 10:31 -0400
    Re: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing? David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-08-04 16:20 +0100

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#235224

On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 03:22:27 -0000 (UTC), Jeffrey Bagely wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 00:31:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> Ah, but then, you have all these Mac fans who claim that their macOS is
>> “Unix”. How do you reconcile that?
> 
> The philosophy must be maintained by the developers, this means the
> philosophy of Unix style programs is just as important as those who
> develop in it's style. Which means that some of their tools may be
> "Unix" but most are not.
> 
> In addtion I found this snippet from the wikipedia page for the MacOS
> Kernel that directly states that it isn't Unix LOL!
> 
> ```
> XNU ("X is Not Unix") is the computer operating system (OS) kernel
> developed at Apple Inc. since December 1996 for use in the Mac OS X (now
> macOS) operating system and released as free and open-source software as
> part of the Darwin OS, which, in addition to being the basis for macOS,
> is also the basis for iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, visionOS, and tvOS.[2]
> ```
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU

I looked a little further down and it turns out that the following is also 
stated.

```
macOS achieved UNIX certification in 2007 with the release of Mac OS X 
10.5 Leopard[7] under the Single UNIX Specification (SUS) by The Open 
Group.[8] Despite this, Apple retained the original 'XNU' name, which 
stands for 'X is Not Unix,' a relic from its NeXTSTEP origins before macOS 
was UNIX-certified. This has led to confusion, as the name suggests that 
XNU is separate from UNIX, even though macOS, as a whole, is officially 
recognized as a UNIX operating system.
```

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235230

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 04 Aug 2026 15:33:38 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
> 
> > 6. RISC OS' desktop was designed a bit like the Unix philosophy -
> > small programs each doing one thing well, with easy drag and drop
> > between them. So it wasn't unusual to have lots of windows open for
> > editing different things. It wasn't like the Mac/Windows idea where
> > you have one heavy app which seemingly takes over the machine.
> 
> Ah, but then, you have all these Mac fans who claim that their macOS
> is “Unix”. How do you reconcile that?

UNIX (TM) != 'the Unix philosophy'.

MacOS is UNIX (TM) certified at the system call level. UNIX certification
doesn't touch the GUI.

RISC OS is not Unix (probably wouldn't pass certification even with UnixLib)
but the GUI borrows certain ideas from how Unix programs work together on
the command line.  In philosophy only, the mechanics are wildly different.

Apples and albatroses.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235233

On 05 Aug 2026 18:46:59 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:

> RISC OS is not Unix (probably wouldn't pass certification even with
> UnixLib) but the GUI borrows certain ideas from how Unix programs
> work together on the command line.

Here’s a subtle question: how exactly is the command line implemented
at the kernel level?

In a Unix-type system, the command line is passed as the “argument
vector” (you may be familiar with the “argv” that you see as an
argument to the main() of a C program). Whereas in Windows (and its
precursor MS-DOS), you have the simple string buffer inherited from
CP/M from the 8-bit era, which in turn copied it from the DEC
operating systems that came before.

The difference is, trying to pass multiple command-line arguments in a
simple string buffer requires the use of shell-style escaping
conventions, even when no shell is involved. Whereas on Unix-type
systems, it is easy (and common) for one program to directly invoke
another, passing the argument vector directly, without having to worry
about escaping any characters that might be interpreted specially by a
shell -- because you don’t need to go through a shell.

So, which way does RISC OS do it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235235

On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 21:38:49 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> trying to pass multiple command-line arguments in a
> simple string buffer requires the use of shell-style escaping
> conventions, even when no shell is involved. Whereas on Unix-type
> systems, it is easy (and common) for one program to directly invoke
> another, passing the argument vector directly, without having to worry
> about escaping any characters that might be interpreted specially by a
> shell -- because you don’t need to go through a shell.

This is outside the realm of my understanding but why would a string 
buffer need escaping at all? Especially without a shell? 

I just don't quite understand how that would work if there isn't an 
interpreter between invoker and invoked? Assuming the kernel doesn't do 
parsing of the argument string, I wouldn't understand why it would ever 
need to.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235239

On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 21:55:28 -0000 (UTC), Jeffrey Bagely wrote:

> This is outside the realm of my understanding but why would a string
> buffer need escaping at all? Especially without a shell?

Because you want to pass separate command-line arguments. A command
line typically consists of multiple words/arguments/options. With the
Unix system, you have a ready-made mechanism for passing an array of
separate words direct from one program to another, but with Windows
you don’t.

> I just don't quite understand how that would work if there isn't an
> interpreter between invoker and invoked?

The thing with the Windows-style simple string buffer is, you always
have to pretend there is such an interpreter, even when there isn’t.

So how does RISC OS do it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235246

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 21:55:28 -0000 (UTC), Jeffrey Bagely wrote:
>
>> This is outside the realm of my understanding but why would a string
>> buffer need escaping at all? Especially without a shell?
>
> Because you want to pass separate command-line arguments. A command
> line typically consists of multiple words/arguments/options. With the
> Unix system, you have a ready-made mechanism for passing an array of
> separate words direct from one program to another, but with Windows
> you don’t.

Jeffrey Bagely is likely thinking the other system would also assume
0-terminated strings so that one could just copy over the array from its
beginning to its last byte without having to copy string by string
looking inside to see where each of them terminate.

If that's so, an answer that would satisfy him here is why such system
doesn't assume that or doesn't work that way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235251

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 05 Aug 2026 18:46:59 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
> 
> > RISC OS is not Unix (probably wouldn't pass certification even with
> > UnixLib) but the GUI borrows certain ideas from how Unix programs
> > work together on the command line.
> 
> Here’s a subtle question: how exactly is the command line implemented
> at the kernel level?
> 
> In a Unix-type system, the command line is passed as the “argument
> vector” (you may be familiar with the “argv” that you see as an
> argument to the main() of a C program). Whereas in Windows (and its
> precursor MS-DOS), you have the simple string buffer inherited from
> CP/M from the 8-bit era, which in turn copied it from the DEC
> operating systems that came before.
> 
> The difference is, trying to pass multiple command-line arguments in a
> simple string buffer requires the use of shell-style escaping
> conventions, even when no shell is involved. Whereas on Unix-type
> systems, it is easy (and common) for one program to directly invoke
> another, passing the argument vector directly, without having to worry
> about escaping any characters that might be interpreted specially by a
> shell -- because you don’t need to go through a shell.
> 
> So, which way does RISC OS do it?

You call the SWI (syscall) OS_GetEnv and get back a single string buffer of
the command (as well as your RAM size and timestamp).

You can call OS_ReadArgs to parse the string if you like (and many do), but
that's just a helper function.  That provides quote handling - you can
optionally apply more advanced 'GS translations'.

There's no shell because RISC OS doesn't have shells.

https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/OS_GetEnv
https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/OS_ReadArgs
https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/OS_ReadArgs%20Input%20String
https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/GS%20Translations

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235259

On 07 Aug 2026 10:16:21 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> So, which way does RISC OS do it?
>
> You call the SWI (syscall) OS_GetEnv and get back a single string
> buffer of the command (as well as your RAM size and timestamp).
>
> You can call OS_ReadArgs to parse the string if you like (and many
> do), but that's just a helper function. That provides quote handling
> - you can optionally apply more advanced 'GS translations'.
>
> There's no shell because RISC OS doesn't have shells.

You don’t have a “shell”, but you still have to pass command lines
around as though a shell were involved.

Does the phrase “worst of both worlds” come to mind ... ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235290

On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 21:46:34 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> > There's no shell because RISC OS doesn't have shells.  
> 
> You don’t have a “shell”, but you still have to pass command lines
> around as though a shell were involved.
> 
> Does the phrase “worst of both worlds” come to mind ... ?

I'm not sure where the idea that RISC OS doesn't have a CLI comes from,
it most certainly does. As regards the original question, per the docs
for OS_GetEnv the command line is passed in as a whole null-terminated
string.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235294

John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 21:46:34 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > There's no shell because RISC OS doesn't have shells.  
> > 
> > You don’t have a “shell”, but you still have to pass command lines
> > around as though a shell were involved.
> > 
> > Does the phrase “worst of both worlds” come to mind ... ?
> 
> I'm not sure where the idea that RISC OS doesn't have a CLI comes from,
> it most certainly does. As regards the original question, per the docs
> for OS_GetEnv the command line is passed in as a whole null-terminated
> string.

Nobody said RISC OS doesn't have a CLI.  Lawrence was talking about a Unix
shell in the context of 'shell escaping', ie passing command lines through
one program which launches another.

RISC OS doesn't have the model where one process is used to launch other
processes; for one thing it doesn't have a process model. Programs are
launched directly by the kernel, and if one program runs another then the
first is replaced.

There's a hack used by Acorn's version of 'make' where it launches other
programs by first copying itself to higher memory addresses, running the
child program, and then shuffling itself down again.  This is horrible, and
only allows one child program (ie child 2 can be run but it terminates child
1 - you can't return to child 1 after child 2 exits).  It's just enough for
simple Makefiles where you're just running the compiler, linker or whatever.

But RISC OS has multitasking, so obviously it can run multiple programs at
once?  Yes it can, and this hack is only slightly less horrible.

The Window Manager (aka the Wimp, which runs in kernel mode, like all other
'relocatable modules') can do some page table footwork to swap one program
out for another - like what 'make' can do, only using hardware support. 
That's half of 'context switching' taken care of.  But the Wimp doesn't
preempt programs - they just yield by calling the SWI Wimp_Poll.  When the
Wimp is called in that way, it swaps the page table for the next application
and returns control into that app.  If an app doesn't yield it has full
control of the machine forever (ie everything locks up).  [There is a way to
terminate such programs, but the result is often messy if as haven't
cleaned up properly]

On top of that hack there's another one.  There's also another module called
'TaskWindow'.  That starts a normal command line program as a desktop
application but sets timers to preempt it - and on the timer it calls
Wimp_Poll to yield on its behalf.  Result is something that feels like a
Unix process (it runs in a window happily with other apps, doesn't freeze
the machine if it takes lots of CPU, and you can compile Unix command line
programs to run in it) but it isn't a Unix process under the hood.  In
particular, just like the native CLI, when one command line program calls
another the first program is terminated.  You have to explicitly launch
other TaskWindows if you want them to coexist, and that's something you need
to implement yourself if you want that.  Somebody did compile bash once, but
without the ability to launch other programs it's pretty useless.

Because there's no process mechanism according to the Unix model, the idea
of a shell process for launching other programs (and passing command
arguments) doesn't exist.  The native CLI does happen to be called ShellCLI
but it's not a shell in the Unix model, it's merely a way to run one program
at a time.  So Lawrence's concerns about escaping parameters aren't really
relevant.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235325

On 12 Aug 2026 12:28:27 +0100 (BST)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Nobody said RISC OS doesn't have a CLI.  Lawrence was talking about a
> Unix shell in the context of 'shell escaping', ie passing command
> lines through one program which launches another.
> 
> RISC OS doesn't have the model where one process is used to launch
> other processes; for one thing it doesn't have a process model.
> Programs are launched directly by the kernel, and if one program runs
> another then the first is replaced.
>
> [...]
> 
> Because there's no process mechanism according to the Unix model, the
> idea of a shell process for launching other programs (and passing
> command arguments) doesn't exist.  The native CLI does happen to be
> called ShellCLI but it's not a shell in the Unix model, it's merely a
> way to run one program at a time.  So Lawrence's concerns about
> escaping parameters aren't really relevant.
> 
> Theo

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235242 — UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?)

Theo wrote:

> MacOS is UNIX (TM) certified at the system call level.

A couple of nit-picks:

1. It's UNIX(R) not UNIX(TM).

2. UNIX(R) certification is at the C library function level (including
ones that are commonly implemented as system calls - the standard does
not distinguish between library functions and system calls), and also
at the C language and shell command levels.

For more info see
https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/docs/UNIX03_Certification_Guide.html

(That's the old UNIX 03 guide, since MacOS is certified to UNIX 03, not
the later UNIX V7 one; just change "03" to "V7" to see the latter.)

-- 
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235249 — Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?)

On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 13:54:56 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote:

> 1. It's UNIX(R) not UNIX(TM).

This is the 21st century. We can write “UNIX®” and “UNIX™” now. At
least on 21st-century operating systems.

So why does Apple’s OS still call its kernel “XNU”?

“XNU” = “XNU’s Not UNIX”.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235252 — Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?)

Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> So why does Apple’s OS still call its kernel “XNU”?
> 
> “XNU” = “XNU’s Not UNIX”.

Because there's no reason to change it?

Taken as a logical statement, it is true that XNU is not UNIX.
That's because XNU is just a kernel, but a UNIX system requires
a C library and compiler, plus a shell and a bunch of utilities.
I.e. XNU is a proper subset of a UNIX system; it is not itself
a UNIX system.

-- 
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235255 — Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?)

On Fri, 07 Aug 2026 13:17:50 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote:

> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> 
>> So why does Apple’s OS still call its kernel “XNU”?
>> 
>> “XNU” = “XNU’s Not UNIX”.
> 
> Because there's no reason to change it?
> 
> Taken as a logical statement, it is true that XNU is not UNIX. That's
> because XNU is just a kernel, but a UNIX system requires a C library and
> compiler, plus a shell and a bunch of utilities.
> I.e. XNU is a proper subset of a UNIX system; it is not itself a UNIX
> system.

I'm afraid Lawrence is getting confused in his dotage.

He is conflating it with XINU (XINU Is Not UNIX), a real embdedded 
operating system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235262 — Re: UNIX certification

Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2026 13:17:50 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote:
> 
> > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> > 
> >> So why does Apple’s OS still call its kernel “XNU”?
> >> 
> >> “XNU” = “XNU’s Not UNIX”.
> > 
> > Because there's no reason to change it?
> > 
> > Taken as a logical statement, it is true that XNU is not UNIX. That's
> > because XNU is just a kernel, but a UNIX system requires a C library and
> > compiler, plus a shell and a bunch of utilities.
> > I.e. XNU is a proper subset of a UNIX system; it is not itself a UNIX
> > system.
> 
> I'm afraid Lawrence is getting confused in his dotage.
> 
> He is conflating it with XINU (XINU Is Not UNIX), a real embdedded 
> operating system.

Both are 'X not UNIX':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinu

Apple use XNU, not Xinu.  Lawrence is correct in saying that XNU is just a
kernel - Apple use parts of the FreeBSD userland.

'XNU' wasn't UNIX back when it was part of the NeXTSTEP OS in the 80s.  But
it has since become part of the UNIX certified macOS.  It's also used in the
the not-certified iOS, watchOS, tvOS, etc.

Xinu seems mostly used for teaching, although also by a few companies
(mostly in the 90s).

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235264 — Re: UNIX certification

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:

  [ snip ]

>> He is conflating it with XINU (XINU Is Not UNIX), a real embdedded operating
>> system.

> Both are 'X not UNIX':
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinu

> Apple use XNU, not Xinu.  Lawrence is correct in saying that XNU is just a
> kernel - Apple use parts of the FreeBSD userland.

> 'XNU' wasn't UNIX back when it was part of the NeXTSTEP OS in the 80s.  But
> it has since become part of the UNIX certified macOS.  It's also used in the
> the not-certified iOS, watchOS, tvOS, etc.

> Xinu seems mostly used for teaching, although also by a few companies (mostly
> in the 90s).

Including, BION[*], 'cisco Systems (as the spelling was at the time) when they
began moving business data processing off the DEC-20s.

[*] Cf. "Ripley's".
-- 
Rich Alderson					  news@alderson.users.panix.com
      Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
	  omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
									--Galen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235298 — Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-Centric Computing?)

On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 13:17:50 +0100, Geoff Clare wrote:

> Taken as a logical statement, it is true that XNU is not UNIX.
> That's because XNU is just a kernel, but a UNIX system requires a C
> library and compiler, plus a shell and a bunch of utilities. I.e.
> XNU is a proper subset of a UNIX system; it is not itself a UNIX
> system.

So Apple’s “UNIX” is implemented as an emulation layer on top of a
non-UNIX kernel?

Contrast that with Linux, where the UNIX support is native to the
kernel itself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235299 — Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp

  To: Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=
  Re: Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp
  By: Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= to alt.folklore.computers on Thu Aug 13 2026 23:23:21

 > > XNU is a proper subset of a UNIX system; it is not itself a UNIX
 > > system.
 > 
 > So Apple’s “UNIX” is implemented as an emulation layer on top of a
 > non-UNIX kernel?
 > 
 > Contrast that with Linux, where the UNIX support is native to the

You all keep capitalizing it like it's an acronym. What does UNIX stand for?
--- Synchronet 3.16c-Win32 NewsLink 1.103
MutinyBBS - telnet : mutinybbs.com:2332 - ssh : mutinybbs.com:2232

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235300 — Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To Document-CentricComp

On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 01:38:07 -0400, Phigan wrote:

>   To: Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=
>   Re: Re: UNIX certification (was: Whatever Happened To
>   Document-CentricComp By: Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= to
>   alt.folklore.computers on Thu Aug 13 2026 23:23:21
> 
>  > > XNU is a proper subset of a UNIX system; it is not itself a UNIX
>  > > system.
>  > 
>  > So AppleΓÇÖs ΓÇ£UNIXΓÇ¥ is implemented as an emulation layer on top
>  > of a non-UNIX kernel?
>  > 
>  > Contrast that with Linux, where the UNIX support is native to the
> 
> You all keep capitalizing it like it's an acronym. What does UNIX stand
> for?

The all-caps is what appears in the original documents from Bell Labs, so 
I guess it's correct. 

It's a play on words - the original word being MULTICS.

(your sig is broken; it should be <dash><dash><space><newline>)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web