I've checked the FAQs, and I can't seem to find a good answer to this: why is Linux not refered to as a flavor of Unix? On Linux.Org, it's referred to as "Unix-like", and this hedging seems pretty universal. Is there some Unix standard that Linux does not adhere to. Is there some licensing organization that expects someone to pony up some dough before they can say, "Unix(TM)" (but if that's it, who paid for FreeBSD?) In my experience, Linux is no more different from any particular flavor of Unix than Solaris is from AIX, or whatever - is there some important difference I'm missing?
--- Mark Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
