From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Jan 16 05:49:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA14650 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 05:49:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from cam.grad.kiev.ua (grad-UTC-28k8.ukrtel.net [195.5.25.54]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA14628 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 05:49:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ruslan@Shevchenko.kiev.ua) Received: from Shevchenko.kiev.ua (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cam.grad.kiev.ua (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA01252; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:47:49 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <34BE2FA2.7B201AEC@Shevchenko.kiev.ua> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 17:47:47 +0200 From: Ruslan Shevchenko X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.5-STABLE i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Lehey CC: Das Devaraj , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is FreeBSD UNIX? References: <19980116113349.19517@lemis.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------E5EDDFB0F48825C602B44905" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk --------------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 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--