Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:47:47 +0200 From: Ruslan Shevchenko <Ruslan@Shevchenko.kiev.ua> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Das Devaraj <das@netcom.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is FreeBSD UNIX? Message-ID: <34BE2FA2.7B201AEC@Shevchenko.kiev.ua> References: <Pine.3.89.9801151337.A21235-0100000@netcom18> <19980116113349.19517@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--------------E5EDDFB0F48825C602B44905 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greg Lehey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 01:44:02PM -0800, Das Devaraj wrote: > ? (This is _reluctantly_ sent to freeBSD-isp also, in case the > ? commercial folks - ISPs - see it in a different light). > > I've taken them off again. Maybe they will, but I don't see how they > can. > > ? Can I _legally_ claim that my box running FreeBSD is UNIX? > > No. > > ? Or should it phrased that the OS is a _UNIX clone_. > > No. It's not a clone. It's a UNIX derivative and contains much of > the same source code that runs in UNIX System V. > > ? Note that this has nothing to do with the actual power of FreeBSD. > ? What happened after the UNIX name was bought from AT?T by Novell (is > ? it public domain now?) > > UNIX is currently a registered trade mark of The Open Group. See > http://www.rdg.opengroup.org/public/tech/unix/trademark.html for more > details. > > ? Also is there a minimum set of functionality that needs to be > ? supported before something is considered UNIX or even a UNIX clone? > ? Have heard terms like UNIX 95, X/Open branding etc. tossed around. > > Correct. There are such names, and they have some minimum (they must > be *very* minimum) requirements, but I don't know what they are. IMO, > there are three reasons why FreeBSD hasn't applied for this kind of > branding: > > 1. It's all hype (see below) > 2. It costs a lot of money. > 3. There are probably some minor areas where FreeBSD would not > comply, and where the FreeBSD team considers non-compliance to be > superior. > > Those of you who have been around UNIX for a while will know that all > through the 80's, 4.xBSD was the leading edge of UNIX development, and > that *all* current UNIX implementations (which effectively means > System V) contain large parts of almost unchanged BSD code. With this > background, which of these systems may *not* be called UNIX 95? > > UNIX System V > 4.4BSD > Microsoft NT > NT ? You mean OpenNT ? > IBM OS/390 (formerly MVS) > > The answer is: 4.4BSD. The suits have disowned the very version of > UNIX which made it what it is today. Since they also allowed such > obviously non-UNIX systems as NT and OS/390 to be called UNIX, I don't > think any of us care too much. > > Greg -- @= //RSSH mailto://Ruslan@Shevchenko.Kiev.UA --------------E5EDDFB0F48825C602B44905 Content-Type: text/html; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML> Greg Lehey wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 01:44:02PM -0800, Das Devaraj wrote: <BR>? (This is _reluctantly_ sent to freeBSD-isp also, in case the <BR>? commercial folks - ISPs - see it in a different light). <P>I've taken them off again. Maybe they will, but I don't see how they <BR>can. <P>? Can I _legally_ claim that my box running FreeBSD is UNIX? <P>No. <P>? Or should it phrased that the OS is a _UNIX clone_. <P>No. It's not a clone. It's a UNIX derivative and contains much of <BR>the same source code that runs in UNIX System V. <P>? Note that this has nothing to do with the actual power of FreeBSD. <BR>? What happened after the UNIX name was bought from AT?T by Novell (is <BR>? it public domain now?) <P>UNIX is currently a registered trade mark of The Open Group. See <BR><A HREF="http://www.rdg.opengroup.org/public/tech/unix/trademark.html">http://www.rdg.opengroup.org/public/tech/unix/trademark.html</A>; for more <BR>details. <P>? Also is there a minimum set of functionality that needs to be <BR>? supported before something is considered UNIX or even a UNIX clone? <BR>? Have heard terms like UNIX 95, X/Open branding etc. tossed around. <P>Correct. There are such names, and they have some minimum (they must <BR>be *very* minimum) requirements, but I don't know what they are. IMO, <BR>there are three reasons why FreeBSD hasn't applied for this kind of <BR>branding: <P>1. It's all hype (see below) <BR>2. It costs a lot of money. <BR>3. There are probably some minor areas where FreeBSD would not <BR> comply, and where the FreeBSD team considers non-compliance to be <BR> superior. <P>Those of you who have been around UNIX for a while will know that all <BR>through the 80's, 4.xBSD was the leading edge of UNIX development, and <BR>that *all* current UNIX implementations (which effectively means <BR>System V) contain large parts of almost unchanged BSD code. With this <BR>background, which of these systems may *not* be called UNIX 95? <P> UNIX System V <BR> 4.4BSD <BR> Microsoft NT <BR> </BLOCKQUOTE> NT ? You mean OpenNT ? <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> IBM OS/390 (formerly MVS) <P>The answer is: 4.4BSD. The suits have disowned the very version of <BR>UNIX which made it what it is today. Since they also allowed such <BR>obviously non-UNIX systems as NT and OS/390 to be called UNIX, I don't <BR>think any of us care too much. <P>Greg</BLOCKQUOTE> <PRE>-- @= //RSSH <A HREF="mailto://Ruslan@Shevchenko.Kiev.UA">mailto://Ruslan@Shevchenko.Kiev.UA</A></PRE> </HTML> --------------E5EDDFB0F48825C602B44905--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34BE2FA2.7B201AEC>