Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:55:15 -0800 From: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what's unix and what's not Message-ID: <3FC41613.50902@adept.org> In-Reply-To: <3FC410B5.6050807@cyberlifelabs.com> References: <000701c3b2ef$a617a080$7ffc2dd5@workstation> <20031126012951.GC1068@dds.nl> <3FC410B5.6050807@cyberlifelabs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Milo Hyson wrote: > Alex de Kruijff wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 02:01:24AM +0100, .VWV. wrote: >>> what's unix and what's not? >> I feel that *anything* that is based up on the orginal Unix version >> should be called Unix. > It is my understanding that the Linux kernel was built from scratch. It > may be patterned after UNIX, but it wasn't based on it. BSD, on the > other hand, is derived (indirectly) from the original work by Ritchie > and Thompson. Of course, I may be on crack.... Linux was built as a UNIX alternative, or so the story goes. i.e. Linus had access to solaris/etc. machines at university, but wanted to try "something new" as an OS project. of course he had basic OS concepts ingrained from using and interacting with other OS (primarily solaris i believe)... but the idea was "something not UNIX", or so i've read in accounts by Linus. so... before making assumptions about Linux, i'd go ask him. ;) in general, i've always heard and believed "Linux is not UNIX" -- but that is really a matter of semantics. how similar does something have to look to UNIX before it actually is UNIX? also, more than something purely technical/identifiable, i've always believed the distinction is one that was historically drawn with design goals in mind... so it's not one i'd just dismiss without understanding those goals. at least not if you respect technical mythology as much as fact. ;)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FC41613.50902>