On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 13:39, Paul Tsai wrote: > Niels L. Ellegaard wrote: > >John L Fjellstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:> > >>Is there a semantic difference between being like something or a > >>clone of something, and being that thing in the English language? [snip] > >>Kinda like, Kleenex is both a brand of tissue and the generic name for > >>tissues. Is the same true for unix? > > > >The name Unix is registered trademark in the US and probably also in > >many other countries. This means that it is not automatically legal to > >refer to an operative system as a Unix while trying to sell it in the > >US. This trademark is the reason why the term Unix is not used to > >describe Linux distributions. > > > >I believe that Linux is as similar to the average Unix system, as the > >average Unix system is similar to other Unix systems. > > > For all intents and purposes, Linux is a kernel (or os) that acts like > Unix but is not Unix. Mainly it all depends on your definition of Unix, > however the origins of Linux is Minix which is by no means Unix.
FULLSTOP
NO, LINUX IS IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM DERIVED FROM MINIX.
Linus Torvalds and Professor Tannenbaum have dealt with this for
years. They have repeatedly corrected people stating that they
are related.
Minix is a MICRO-Kernel architecture
Linux is MONOLithic Kernel architecture
Do not confuse these. SCO has tried to do this for a long time.
RESUME
> I
> think BSD is considered Unix no matter who you ask.
>
> I don't think it's a bad thing that Linux is not Unix because it adds
> spice to the computing world (and makes discussions like these
> possible). Linux definitely has its benefits because it's not Unix. I
> think the Unix refers to the Kernel more than the OS, because I believe
> the HURD kernel with GNU Software is considred Unix and Linux with GNU
> is not so Unix.
Well, Linux is Unix. Far more so than some of the so called Commercial
UNIX available today.
GNU == GNU is Not Unix, GNU was synonymous with HURD... Well we shall
all be switching to it RSN, 2001 is coming faster than you can imagine.
Debian Linux is as close to GNU/Linux as you can get. Debian chose to
name itself that. Many other distros DO NOT USE this nomenclature.
> I know a lot of die hard Linux people keep insisting that Linux is Unix,
> but I don't think that's the intent of Linux, at least not at this
> time.
No, you fail to understand, POSIX compliance is accomplished already.
Just not CERTIFIED. There are a myriad of things and tools that provide
it. Actually provide a superset.
> Could Linux become Posix Compliant, etc? Of course, but I think
> they would compromise their objectives too much if they did.
It would NOT compromise the objectives. What you think this POSIX
compliance ios some sort of Magic Pill that makes Commercial UNIX
better? HA! You Kill me!
--
greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster: Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
