Adi Stav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why aren't they? Unix, BSD and SysV are/were actual branded OSs that
> were sold under that brand, no less than Red Hat or HP/UX are now.
I suppose UNIX was a brand when it was controlled by a single company
and was immediately associated with that company. What is your
immediate association when you say UNIX today? SCO? Sun/Solaris?
HP/UX? IBM/AIX? DG/UX [G-d forbid!]? Now UNIX is more like jeans,
which is not a brand, while Levi's or Wrangler are. Or a hamburger as
opposed to McDonald's or Burger King. At least that's how I think
about branding.
> the term "operating system" meaning a complete and branded software
> system has become far too common by now, so I don't really mind it.
I suppose we should allow the terminology to evolve.
> I don't usually make a fuss over it.
No fuss, just let's define the terms.
> But whichever definition you choose, saying that Red Hat is a variant
> of Linux is not more true than saying that a Compaq PC is a variant of
> Intel's Pentium.
I am not sure I am getting it. PC is not a brand. Intel is, and Compaq
is. And assuming that there are AMD-based Compaqs, and potentially
Transmeta-based Compaqs (not too soon, I guess), there are different
combinations of brands, all of which as associated with the notion of
"PC".
> You don't see the PC forking anytime soon, do you
I think we've seen the PC forked many times already. Even if we do not
consider Apple products PC's, when you buy a "PC" you'll boast (or be
ashamed of, as the case may be) of buying a Compaq PC with an Intel
CPU and this motherboard and that videocard et caetera. All these are
forks in the same sense as
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | Comgates Ltd. | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"... We work by wit, and not by witchcraft;
And wit depends on dilatory time."
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
