Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:22:19 +0100 From: Alex de Kruijff <freebsd@akruijff.dds.nl> To: Mike Hoskins <mike@adept.org> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what's unix and what's not Message-ID: <20031128012218.GA395@dds.nl> In-Reply-To: <3FC41613.50902@adept.org> References: <000701c3b2ef$a617a080$7ffc2dd5@workstation> <20031126012951.GC1068@dds.nl> <3FC410B5.6050807@cyberlifelabs.com> <3FC41613.50902@adept.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 06:55:15PM -0800, Mike Hoskins wrote: > 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. ;) With Linux i was thinking about the whole OS, since it quite difficult to compare a kernel with an entire operating system. Its a fact that over the time Linux exist it has had a number of sources imported from BSD. Linux may not be called UNIX because you can get a sued. Only the company that owns that right can call it operating system UNIX. Currently this is SCO. AT&T who had the rigth back then has agreed not to sue BSD. This is way BSD can be more freely in using this term. -- Alex Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/ Please CC me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031128012218.GA395>