The Spirit Of Unix vs. The Unix Trademark

BSD Forums writes "This article conveys the message that Linux, BSD, and Darwin continue what Unix started. InfoWorld's Tom Yager says that several readers took him to task for referring to Linux, BSD, and OS X as Unix. He feels that Unix has a rich legacy that deserves to be preserved and accurately conveyed to new generations of computer scientists. It rattles many of us to see that the operating systems that best exemplify Unix traditions today aren't Unix at all."

Comments

SCO

[ultrabot]

This should be told also to the jury in the SCO trial.

Re:SCO

[Niadh]

To help stall the trial until SCO goes out of business?

Re:SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to start using the GNU more.

Call it Multics

[DaveMe]

It's not one any more, it's a happy variety of dialects. So why not call it Multics? After all, that's where it started...

Re:Call it Multics

[sydb]

To avoid confusion: Polyx.

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem!

GNU/Polyx.

Re:Call it Multics

[ebbomega]

Okay.

Now you go tell everybody. Go ahead.

Why don't people change the name? The same reason that it seems the term "Hacker" is forever doomed to be considered a person who breaks into a computer despite the protests of true hackers and english language etymologists.. Because the public has accepted calling it "UNIX". As much as we'd like to change names to avoid confusion, It's seemingly not going to sway public opinion. Whatever. I'm still gonna call myself an aspiring UNIX hacker even though I don't use any UNIX systems nor do I break into these computers illegally.

Re:Call it Multics

[phfpht]

To truely avoid confusion: Bruce

Re:Call it Multics

[joto]

The same reason that it seems the term "Hacker" is forever doomed to be considered a person who breaks into a computer despite the protests of true hackers and english language etymologists..

Huh? I've never heard this claim from anyone but Eric Raymond, and wannabe hackers having read too much in that "dictionary" of his. Please tell me of a respectable english language etymologist with the same stubborn view.

It should be quite noticeable by now, that "hacker" has been used of computer criminals for at least 15 years, both in mainstream media, and lot's of other places. To insist that it really means something else, is as stupid as insisting that "mouse" does not mean that thingy you move the pointer around the screen with, but in reality is a small rodent.

But in fact it is really much more stupid. Because the rodent interpretation of "mouse" is much older, and therefore somewhat more "correct", if you insist on age as the only criterium, which is also absurd, considering the amoung of latin and greek words we misuse everyday ("idiot" being one example, it does not mean what you think it does, neither does for example "pedagog").

And furthermore, hack means a lot of other things, all of which are much more common in daily usage, than the computer-related interpretation. If you should insist on only one meaning of "hack", it should probably be to either remove vegetation, or chop at something.

Because the public has accepted calling it "UNIX". As much as we'd like to change names to avoid confusion,

I can't imagine anyone becoming less confused, if you started calling the unix-clone family/tradition of OS'es collectively as something besides unix, such as multics, polyx, donuts, or cheese. But if you really think so, go ahead, and ignore anyone that looks weirdly at you when you talk about hacking some new cheese features.

Re:Call it Multics

[akozakie]

1. Call it PolyX (How do you want to succeed if you dont capitalize the final X in your product's name?)
2. Use GNOME. Use C# a lot. The GNU compiler, of course.
3. Make a distro. Call it GNU/Mono/PolyX.
4. ???
5. Pro... OK, forget it.

Re:Call it Multics

[sql*kitten]

GNU/Polyx.

I wonder, why does RMS not call it "Gnunix" or something like that? It's snappier than "GNU/Linux", that's for sure. The domain name gnunix.org is still available too!

Re:Call it Multics

[statichead]

Call it ebonix.

Re:Call it Multics

[tetra103]

I guess we can use this arguement for why I still call it Linux and not GNU/Linux. Why should I change? The point is, you say UNIX and people know what you mean. You say Linux, and those in the know are aware that GNU utilitites come with Linux. Unfortunately, it also has the down turn in that when you say Windows, people immediately think Microsoft and not X11.

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm feeling pedantic today.

"...considering the amoung of latin and greek words we misuse..."
Count nouns take 'number of', not 'amount of'. This should be "...the number of latin and greek words...".

'..."idiot" being one example...'
'Idiot' stems from the latin idiota, or ignorant person, which in turn comes from the greek idiotes, meaning layman or ignorant person.

'...neither does for example "pedagog"'
A pedagogue is a teacher, especially a dull, pedantic one. This stems from the greek paidagOgos, meaning a slave who leads children to school.

All in all, none of these words' roots is surprising, as their current meaning is hardly removed from their roots at all.

Re:Call it Multics

[petong]

Huh? I've never heard this claim from anyone but Eric Raymond, and wannabe hackers having read too much in that "dictionary" of his. Please tell me of a respectable english language etymologist with the same stubborn view.

It should be quite noticeable by now, that "hacker" has been used of computer criminals for at least 15 years, both in mainstream media, and lot's of other places. To insist that it really means something else, is as stupid as insisting that "mouse" does not mean that thingy you move the pointer around the screen with, but in reality is a small rodent.

I believe you are mistaken. The term hacker has _always_ been defined as a computer expert or someone who is extremely adept at computer use. The derogatory term came about later. See below for actual definitions.

$ dict hacker
4 definitions found

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:

Hacker \Hack"er\, n.
One who, or that which, hacks. Specifically: A cutting
instrument for making notches; esp., one used for notching
pine trees in collecting turpentine; a hack.

From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:

hacker
n 1: someone who plays golf poorly
2: a programmer for whom computing is its own reward; may enjoy
the challenge of breaking into other computers
3: one who works hard at boring tasks [syn: {hack}, {drudge}]

From Jargon File (4.3.0, 30 APR 2001) [jargon]:

hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A
person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how
to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to
learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically
(even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing
about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating {hack value}. 4.
A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a
particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it;
as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and
people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind.
One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the
intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing
limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover
sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker',
`network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is {cracker}.

The term `hacker' also tends to connote membership in the global
community defined by the net (see {the network} and {Internet address}).
For discussion of some of the basics of this culture, see the How To
Become A Hacker (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html ) FAQ.
It also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some
version of the hacker ethic (see {hacker ethic}).

It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe
oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a
meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are
gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in
identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are
not, you'll quickly be labeled {bogus}). See also {geek}, {wannabee}.

This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by
the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a report
that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage radio hams
and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.

From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:

hacker

(Originally, someone

Re:Call it Multics

[dubious9]

Guess which definition is listed first over at Merriam Webster? In fact all the vast majority of all the 'hackers' I know are of the licit variety. If a population insists being called something else then its popular name then do it. We call eskimos Inuits. We call indians Native Americans.

If the majority of the population that considers themselves a hacker take the definition of "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer", the popular defintion is wrong and should be changed.

Re:Call it Multics

[b-baggins]

Language is defined by its usage in a population. Hackers are people who break into computer systems illegally. Society has defined the term through their usage of it. Get over it and make up some other name for yourself

Re:Call it Multics

[Asprin]

Hey, does anyone remember about 10 or 15 years ago when Apple introduced a campaign at one of their conferences to get everyone to change their pronunciation of the acronym SCSI from "scuzzy" to "sexy"?

That was a good one.

Re:Call it Multics

[pohl]

I wonder, why does RMS not call it "Gnunix" or something like that? It's snappier than "GNU/Linux"

Yeah, because you know RMS is all about snap, sizzle, and other marketroid buzzwords.

Re:Call it Multics

[joto]

I believe you are mistaken. The term hacker has _always_ been defined as a computer expert or someone who is extremely adept at computer use.

No, it hasn't always been defined as that. First and foremost, there has not always been computers.

The derogatory term came about later. See below for actual definitions.

As explained in my post, which came "first" is of little value. A "pedagog" is no longer considered a slave, for example (although they might consider the wage they get to be similar).

Besides, do you really think I would have problems coming up with examples going in the opposite direction. If this was so obvious to everybody, you wouldn't have to argue it.

From Jargon File (4.3.0, 30 APR 2001) [jargon]:

Yes, exactly, that's ESR's "dictionary" I was talking about.

Strangely enough the FOLDOC entry seems to be mainly lifted straight out of the jargon file (but so is a lot of stuff there, and this entry even admits it, at the end...). It also makes the computer criminal meaning of hacker "deprecated", something real dictionaries don't do.

Tell me last time you found out that something was "deprecated" when looking it up in e.g Webster... It might tell you that something is "archaic", meaning nobody has uttered that phrase in 100 years, but it has already been put inside the dictionary, and therefore will never be removed (since people sometimes needs to work with old books). But "deprecated" is not something you will find in a real dictionary.

Can you now get it into your thick skull, that the word hacker can be used legitimately both about clever programmers and about computer criminals, about bored and tired programmers, and even about bad programmers (the Maryland definition), (and carpenters, vegetation removers, sword-fighters/roleplayers, cooks, golfers, etc...).

It's almost implausible how many otherwise intelligent people who take anything in jargon.txt has the truth and nothing but the truth. But, even if ESR thinks hacker means something else than it does, doesn't make it so. Hacker means a number of things, and none of the computer related interpretations has any "right" to be preferred, other than what is common usage. Of course, subgroups of the population can define their own "slang", and that is what jargon.txt is all about. It is a book documenting word-usage of people who usually have in common that they prefer "hacker" to mean only one thing. As such, it is not a good source of information on what "hacker" means.

Re:Call it Multics

[joto]

Guess which definition is listed first over at Merriam Webster [m-w.com]?

Hmm, the ESR definition is at #3, and then the mainstream media at #4. Before those come everything non-computer-related. And this tells you what? That we should only use definition #3 and ignore #4?

In fact all the vast majority of all the 'hackers' I know are of the licit variety.

In fact, so are all mine. But we are not here discussing what kind of friends we have, but whether we should let ESR dictate our language usage.

If a population insists being called something else then its popular name then do it.

No, why should we? This is one of the stupidest ideas to ever have entered the mainstream. A negro is still a negro, no matter what you call him, and there is no reason to feel insulted by that. I can understand people feeling insulted by nigger, but no, if you get insulted by being negro, it is your own problem.

So instead we should call him/her: black (although they in reality are brown), coloured (as opposed to transparent?), or the stupidest of all, afro-american (so what do you call a negro who is not american, is he an afro-european, afro-asian, afro-australian, or simply african? and if you are white and from Africa, would you be a euro-african?)

We call eskimos Inuits. We call indians Native Americans.

No, we do not!

If the majority of the population that considers themselves a hacker take the definition of "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer", the popular defintion is wrong and should be changed.

May I suggest a bit of reality. The reason we (as a society) have put up with the crap about afro-americans and native americans is because of guilt. We have generally not been particulary nice to them, and felt the need to cut them some slack. But "hackers" (in M-W meaning #3) is not a group that the society cares enough for to be politically correct about it. And neither should it.

Re:Call it Multics

[Shimbo]

It should be quite noticeable by now, that "hacker" has been used of computer criminals for at least 15 years

I believe you are mistaken. The term hacker has _always_ been defined as a computer expert or someone who is extremely adept at computer use. The derogatory term came about later.

Always is a long time; the references say mid 60's, with some evidence of use earlier. 'Wargames' came out in 1983 by which time the derogatory usage of hacker was in widespread use.

So, the 'wrong' usage has at least 20 years of common use, so probably longer and certainly more widespread than the original meaning. Natural languages morph; trying to fight the change is futile. One might as well insist that you have to be ordained in order to manage a hierarchical filesystem.

Re:Call it Multics

[dubious9]

A negro is still a negro, no matter what you call him...So instead we should call him/her: black (although they in reality are brown)

Um, negro=black in spanish thus contradicting at least some of your statement.

If people want to be called by something, call them that. It's called respect. Also it's not for you to decide. If everybody started calling you "the insensitive wonder" would that change your name? Nope. You would still insist on being called what you thought you should be called. Why should 'hackers' be any different?

Re:Call it Multics

[joto]

Um, negro=black in spanish thus contradicting at least some of your statement.

No, it doesn't contradict it at all. You see, I was talking about the english language, not the spanish. But if you feel better about it, you can use the slightly more artificial "negroid". If people want to be called by something, call them that. It's called respect. Also it's not for you to decide. If everybody started calling you "the insensitive wonder" would that change your name? Nope.

And if you insisted on being called dubious9 I would not call you that, if I knew your real name. You might call it lack of respect. So would I, if you had known your real name, and you insisted that I'd call you that.

Why should 'hackers' be any different?

Because hackers are not a weak minority group that have been suppressed by white europeans through centuries, which has suddenly got some awareness about their situation.

If there was a large movement of cab-drivers that insisted on being called "private or small-group short-distance transportation engineers", nobody would have cared either. And if there was a group of highly trained shoe makers that used "pothead" as an emblem of pride, neither would society redefine their interpretation of pothead.

Re:Call it Multics

[coyote-san]

've never heard this claim from anyone but Eric Raymond, and wannabe hackers having read too much in that "dictionary" of his.

I remember the white hat definition of "hacker" being in use - exclusively at my university - 20 years ago. I remember it because it was a joke that I was the resident hacker on the grad CS computers even though I wasn't a grad CS student. (I was a grad math student nominally playing around with symbolic math.)

The black hat definition was also in use at the time, but the correct sense was normally clear in context even if we sometimes had the same effect. You were also much more likely to see the white hat definition in an academic environment, the black hat definition in a business environment. The black hat definition only began to dominate after some mainstream items appeared. The black hat definition is much easier for the average person to understand than the white hat one.

Re:Call it Multics

[zaxus]

Hear hear! Well spoken Bruce!

Re:Call it Multics

[joto]

Thanks, finally some sanity from someone who was old enough to be there. Thanks!

Re:Call it Multics

[Mike Schiraldi]

I see that "idiot" originally meant "layman" or "private", but pedagogue seems to come from the words for "child" and "leader", which seems to make perfect sense. What's the misuse of that word?

Re:Call it Multics

[MSG]

Hacker means a number of things, and none of the computer related interpretations has any "right" to be preferred, other than what is common usage.

When I was working in computer repair, I heard so many people refer to the computer (chassis and enclosed parts) as the "hard drive", that I'd call it common usage, as well. I will not, however, acknowledge that meaning of the term "hard drive" as legitimate.

Re:Call it Multics

[GrenDel Fuego]

When I was working in computer repair, I heard so many people refer to the computer (chassis and enclosed parts) as the "hard drive", that I'd call it common usage, as well. I will not, however, acknowledge that meaning of the term "hard drive" as legitimate.

The one I commonly heard was "CPU" referring to the entire computer. And that is often from people who work on helpdesks.

That is the nature of language though. It always falls to the lower common denominator. If everyone decides that a printer is called a "toaster" then that's what it'll become.

Re:Call it Multics

[joto]

Yes, the pedagog was the slave that took care of your children. In some cases this really meant education, in most cases, probably not, just as it is today... To see how the word has drifted in usage, I'm quite sure that you would not call a nanny a pedagog today, although it is probably closest to it's original meaning...

And you would hardly find a judge explaining that jurys are supposed to consist of idiots (well, at least publicly).

Re:Call it Multics

[Minna Kirai]

The two usages of the word "hacker" ("computer criminal" and "expert programmer") apparently both derive from the MIT definition of "hack", which I believe predates the spread of computers.

They present it as "someone who does some sort of interesting and creative work at a high intensity level", and specifically mention that it often includes pranks.

Another definition which fits well is "someone who operates a complex system in a manner inconsistent with its designer's intent".

Either of those two definitions can apply to either the popular usage, or ESR's description.

Re:Call it Multics

[Minna Kirai]

"Break in" isn't part of the popular defintion of "hacker". Many "hacker attacks" are denials-of-service, which don't involve any penetration of security. They can't be called a "break-in".

This is why the people who propose "cracker" in place of "hacker" for something the public can use to describe virus authors and DOSers is incorrect. "Crack" means to get access to secured materials, and it's just a subset of possible hacking.

Re:Call it Multics

[ipfwadm]

Well, first off we can toss out the definition from the Jargon File, because I (and probably most right-minded people) wouldn't consider that a definitive source regarding the English language. Likewise, we can toss out the Dictionary of Computing, since its entry is just copied from the jargon file.

So, that leaves your WordNet entry, which gives may enjoy the challenge of breaking into other computers as a definition. The Merriam Webster citation doesn't mention computers at all. So, what did you prove?

After doing my own dictionary look-ups, I came up with the following definitions:

From the American Heritage Dictionary at bartleby.com:
cracker: One who makes unauthorized use of a computer, especially to tamper with data or programs.
hacker: Informal 1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. [em. mine]
3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary at merriamwebster.com:
cracker: No computer-related definition found.
hacker: 1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity a tennis hacker
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system [em. mine]

From AskOxford.com, which claims to use the Oxford English Dictionary without charging me like oed.com does:
cracker: No computer-related definition found (though, to be fair, the computer-related definition of cracker appears on their list of words submitted during a 1999 Appeal for New Words, but nevertheless it doesn't appear in the dictionary).
hacker: noun colloquial 1. computer enthusiast.
2. person who gains unauthorized access to computer network. [em. mine]

It seems as though you and ESR are fighting an uphill battle.

Finally, regarding your claim that hacker has _always_ been defined as a computer expert, it's amusing that from what I can tell from the above sources, a hacker has always meant someone inept at something.

Re:Call it Multics

[ipfwadm]

Your post doesn't make any sense.

If a population insists being called something else then its popular name then do it.

We still call someone who is proficient at computers a hacker. My non-computer friends call me a hacker, knowing full well that I don't break into computer systems. So, the proficient computer users that wish to be called hackers are still called hackers.

Similarly, the mainstream population calls someone who breaks into a computer system a hacker. As far as I know, the e7eet hax0r d00dz don't wish to be called cracker, they wish to be called hacker (hence hax0r d00dz). So, the "bad" hackers that wish to be called hackers are called hackers.

It seems that everyone who wants to be called a hacker is called a hacker. Where's the problem?

If the majority of the population that considers themselves a hacker take the definition of "an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer", the popular defintion is wrong and should be changed.

This is just stupid.

Re:Call it Multics

[edbarrett]

But if you really think so, go ahead, and ignore anyone that looks weirdly at you when you talk about hacking some new cheese features.

Cutting some GNU/Cheese, eh?

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

Searched the web for hacker mitnick. Results 1 - 10 of about 41,700.
Searched the web for cracker mitnick. Results 1 - 10 of about 6,780.

Re:Call it Multics

[Doug-W]

I'm kind of curious how you make that statement, in each of the above definitions you provide, the ESR definition is prefered to your definition.

Re:Call it Multics

[HamNRye]

ESR and his damn "This word doesn't mean this" attitude has started more religious wars....

Did Raymond go to work for the White house coining phrases like the "Healthy Forest Initiative" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom"?? But I though "Healthy Forests" meant forests with trees?? No, it means a forest barren of trees, hence unable to be the starting point for a forest fire.

Besides, shouldn't computer criminals be considered Unix "Jackers"?? Illegally take control of a plane or car, and you are a Hijacker, or Carjacker. Why wouldn't we use Jacker for illegally taking control of a computer. I always thought that "Computer Cracker" sounded like a with a HDD full of Manilow. Or maybe just the beige box....

Re:Call it Multics

[Nucleon500]

The non-criminal meaning was first in all the definitions you cited.

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

'hack' comes from 'hacking into' computers, i.e. circumventing access control measures. 'Hackers' were people who liked to 'hack on' computers, but in the early days of computing, resources were scarce and fairly restricted, hence the necessity to 'hack into' the computer before you could 'hack on' it. So either way, the original hackers were circumventing access control measures. It turns out that that was at least half the fun of it. And historically, most 'hackers' became interested in computer internals either for the express purpose of becoming more successful 'hackers' or after having gained access to them, and gaining an appreciation for the 'non-hacking' aspects of 'hacking'

Re:Call it Multics

[jcast]

You're saying a population should allow its name to be hijacked. Most people disagree.

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

both of MITs definitions derive from the "evil" definition of hacker, and have very distinguishable marks of correctifying.

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

cracker is someone who 'cracks' codes (or safes.) You could consider gaining access to a computer system 'cracking' it's code, but the term was originally gained usage as a term of scorn by 'hackers' who felt that cracking video game copy-protection schemes was beneath them. The term 'hacker' originally gained (general) usage as a term of scorn by professional programmers who thought that breaking into and poking around with systems was beneath them. Because a 'hacker' was someone they thought could damage to codebase through inexperience.

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

A white hat hacker does the same thing as a black hat. They just don't break the law.

Re:Call it Multics

[ipfwadm]

I'm kind of curious how you make that statement, in each of the above definitions you provide, the ESR definition is prefered to your definition.

First off, you completely misunderstand my post. I am NOT suggesting that the term "hacker" shouldn't be used to describe a computer expert. I am merely saying that the term hacker MAY ALSO be used to describe someone who engages in malicious activities, a use which ESR claims is "deprecated" in preference of "cracker."

Second, I disagree that the ordering in which definitions are given in a dictionary implies preference. Let's look at the definition of radio from merriamwebster.com:
1 : of, relating to, or operated by radiant energy
2 : of or relating to electric currents or phenomena (as electromagnetic radiation ) of frequencies between about 15,000 and 1011 hertz
3 a : of, relating to, or used in radio or a radio set b : specializing in radio or associated with the radio industry c (1) : transmitted by radio (2) : making or participating in radio broadcasts d : controlled or directed by radio

All three definitions are equally valid, just as the multiple definitions of hacker are equally valid. By your statement, we should come up with a new term for the thing in our car we use to listen to music because other definitions of the word radio are "preferred."

Re:Call it Multics

[ipfwadm]

The non-criminal meaning was first in all the definitions you cited.

See my reply to Doug-W which basically replies to your comment as well.

Re:Call it Multics

[Fluid Truth]

Exactly. Sometimes, shit happens to a trademark. Now, if you'll excuse me, the airborne toner from the Xerox machine is making me cry. I'm going to go get a Kleenex and blow my nose. After that, I might just play with my Yo-Yo or my Frisbee.

Re:Call it Multics

[forgotmypassword]

No, it doesn't contradict it at all. You see, I was talking about the english language, not the spanish.

Well I was talking about Klingon! I WIN!

Congrats, that's the dumbest thing i've heard today.

Re:Call it Multics

[Mandoric]

> Please tell me of a respectable english language etymologist with the same stubborn view.

From the AP stylebook:
"hacker: A highly skilled computer enthusiast. In common usage, the term has evolved to mean one who uses those computer skills to unlawfully penetrate proprietary computer systems."
While common usage is by no means completely deprecated, the fact that the accurate definition continues to be mentioned means that those who insist on redefining 'hacker' to mean the malicious only are, roughly speaking, in the same boat as those who refer to any device designed to load multiple rounds into a gun as a 'clip'.

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

Gnu/Bollocks

Re:Call it Multics

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was a miner for subtle Python references (And I Am), I would dig here.

Well done!

I drink therefore I am.

Re:Call it Multics

[ebbomega]

Randal: Man, name brand word association is one of the more subtle threats to this nation's free trade. It gives the larger well-known companies an unfair advantage. I'm doing my part to keep the playing field level by weening people off refering to generic products with brand names.
Dante: Way to show some backbone.
Randal: No spine of JELLO here my friend.

Re:Call it Multics

[joto]

Well I was talking about Klingon! I WIN!

Before you start feeling too superior about it, take some time to consider this:

1. This is an english language discussion, in a forum for english speaking people (native or not).
2. No matter what word you are speaking about, surely there is a language where that word has a different meaning
3. Even if the word is borrowed from another language, it might mean something else in the other language
4. A word can mean more than one thing even in the same language (as discussed about with the regards to the word "hacker").
5. In english, negro is used to describe the race of people having origins in Africa (as opposed to, say, people from india or australian natives, who also have a brown skin-color, but are not negroes).
6. Another word with similar meaning is nauro, but then nobody would know what you are speaking about.
7. Thus, despite it's politicial incorrectness, it is also a useful word to describe a group of people. A black man can be from India, a negro can not (well, he or his family can of course have moved to India in recent times...)

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

I say I run unix. I in fact run Linux and FreeBSD. I don't care if *you* don't consider anything other than AT&T's code unix. It makes life easier to say "unix" when you mean "unix-like operating system" or "operating system that conforms to the single unix specification", etc.

What's especially funny is the BSD people who like to claim that BSD is unix based. Perhaps they forgot the whole point of 4.4BSD-lite and the AT&T lawsuits. The point was to get rid of all the original unix source. So stop being so high and mighty, you're not special.

Re:Agreed

[KeyserDK]

i believe you call the stuff a "*nix".. when spoken you say "a nix", when you actually mean

"unix-like operating system"

Ofcourse this isnt in any dictionary, yet! =)

Re:Agreed

[Surak]

No, but UN*X is. Maybe someone should mention this to esr, since you tend tosee *nix more than UN*X.

Re:Agreed

[GeorgeH]

I was under the impression that when AT&T started suing everyone in the 1980's for using the term "Unix" people responded by using the term "*nix", kind of like the way that polite people write f*ck instead of fuck.

Re:Agreed

[UserGoogol]

This is why ESR should set the Hacker Dictionary free and turn it into a Wiki.

Re:Agreed

[CoolVibe]

What's especially funny is the BSD people who like to claim that BSD is unix based. Perhaps they forgot the whole point of 4.4BSD-lite and the AT&T lawsuits. The point was to get rid of all the original unix source. So stop being so high and mighty, you're not special.

What's especially funny is the Linux people who like to claim that Everything is Linux, while they actually mean Unix-like/derived in 95% of the cases.

I agree with your view though... And yes, I'm one of BSD cult, although I know BSD doesn't have the UNIX brand anymore. I never claimed (nor will I ever) that BSD is UNIX. BSD is, well BSD :)

Re:Agreed

[garysears]

TEST: is it SVR4 compatible?
that's OPERANT compatibility

The premise of the article is look/feel.

Ahh. 530 plus command-line executables and a programmable shell in each and every distro. God, I love touch-typing!

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD stands for Bahamian Dollar.

How dare you call my currency 'lite'.

---

'You say Ukrane Weak!'

Stranger on the Subway with whom Kramer and Newman gets into a fight. (from Jerry Seinfeld)

Re:Agreed

[david duncan scott]

Actually, polite people write "make love" or "have sex" or maybe just change the subject. Candyass people write "f*ck", apparently to avoid AOL filters or something.

Me, when I mean "fuck" I write "fuck". It's not like Aunt Bea won't figure out (and be offended by) "f*ck" or "fsck", and at least my way doesn't insult her intelligence.

Re:Agreed

[pmz]

"unix-like operating system"

Actually, the Open Group's trademark guidelines consider "unix-like" to be inappropriate. They would probably prefer the phrase "a distinct system inspired by UNIX".

Re:Agreed

[jackdoodle]

Indeed, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, etc., may be considered 'UNICes', since they use the AT&T UNIX base software to some extent, but only those pieces of software explicitly deigned UNIX by Novell are technically UNIX (Novell holds the trademark, at the moment, not AT&T). Frankly, I don't see much Novell-Unix out in the real world, so to heack with them. Personally, I believe that if the vast bulk of the people concerned use a word in a particular way, then that use is the definition of the word - legalities notwithstanding. So, if most people using Unix-like operating systems (such as myself) want to say they're using Unix - to simplify matters - then more power to them. After all, those who are legally accurate in their use of Unix(TM) can be counted on one hand...

Re:Agreed

[naarok]

I'm torn on this. At first it seemed like a brilliant idea, but then I started to think that without a strong editor at the helm, the S/N ratio in the Jargon file would quickly erode.

Re:Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

'Ukraine strong, like bull!'

Re:Agreed

[adashiel]

True, except for one detail. Novell isn't in the picture anymore because it delivered control of the trademark to X/Open (now the Open Group) after buying the System V IP from AT&T.

Re:Agreed

[jackdoodle]

Yeah, that's true - I didn't realize how out of date I was, though. (After your modification , I looked on the web - even Novell hasn't been involved in 8 years.) And, this gives that much more punch to my original point...people using Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Irix, etc. have that much less reason to throw stones.

Re:Agreed

[OneEyedApe]

What might work would be using a /. based mod system in a wiki. This could help seperate and filter out the noise, while leaving it in there for those who happen to be interested.

Re:Agreed

[naarok]

A slashdot based Jargon file. I can just see it now.

luser /loo'zr/ n.

A user; esp. one who is also a loser. ( luser and loser are pronounced identically.) ...

First Post
By AC

FIRST POST!!!!!

Re:Agreed

[usotsuki]

I use "*x" myself, but when I speak, I say "UNIX-class operating system".

-uso.
X Window, not X Windows!!!

Re:Agreed

[jcast]

It's not like Aunt Bea won't figure out (and be offended by) "f*ck" or "fsck"

Yeah, but the difference between fuck and fsck is fucks are usually pleasant...

Re:Agreed

[JonK]

The original authors believe this has already happened.

(go and check the Unix-Haters' archives - IIRC then somewhere in there there's a heated thread with ESR attempting to defend what he did to the original MIT JARGON, and the SAIL equivalent, to its original authors - basically ESR had rewritten all the jokes at Unix's expense so they became jokes at MS-DOS's expense, thus causing some to feel that he'd missed the point)

Re:Agreed

[tigga]

What's especially funny is the BSD people who like to claim that BSD is unix based. Perhaps they forgot the whole point of 4.4BSD-lite and the AT&T lawsuits. The point was to get rid of all the original unix source. So stop being so high and mighty, you're not special.

Take a look from the other side - all current Unixes contain some BSD code.So BSDs and Licensed Unixes have some common code.

Re:Agreed

[david duncan scott]

To*ché!

Over it

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the bollocks Chrysler started up after 4x4's became commonly known as a "jeep" (and after they relaunched the brand).

Sorry SCO - Unix is not a Trademark anymore. You didn't defend it vigorously, so you lost it.

Re:Over it

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Umm, when did SCO ever own the UNIX trademark?

Re:Over it

[idiotnot]

1. Jeep has operated continuously, albeit under different companies; Willys-Overland, Kaiser-Fraiser, American Motors, and Chrysler. Chrysler didn't relaunch the brand.

2. The SCO lawsuit has nothing to do with the Unix trademark, it has to do with System V intellectual property. For what it's worth, IBM calls Linux, umm.....Linux.

Moderators on crack once again.....

Re:Over it

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The laywers weren't unleashed until Chryslers "next generation" Jeeps came out several years ago. Eg, the TJ and Cheeroke of the same age which could compete with the Japanese stuff of the same era. The brand has certainly operated, but the Jeep(TM) crap was never an issue, *particularly in some overseas markets where the brand was in-fact re-launched* (hell, maybe even launched for the first time), until until Chrysler felt it might lose value on its new range of toys. The issue is not whether the brand operated, but whether the tradmark was strongly defended while it was operating. And it wasn't.

2) Never said it did. But it's about the "What Is Unix?" question. SCO is crying "It's mine" over System V, but why? Because they feel that System V is part of what defines the Unix trademark and therefore the "value" of their IP. If Linux is seen to BE Unix, then their precious IP is worthless, because the technology is already free.

Punters not understanding once again...

let's face it....

[andy666]

they really are just unix.

Re:let's face it....

[Anonymous Coward]

and you don't have to be the amazing kreskin (amazingkreskin.com) to know it!!

Re:let's face it....

[theGreater]

AHH!!! Who did that to them? Oh, wait a second.. u-nix, not eu-nu... nevermind.

-theGreater Halfwit.

Re:let's face it....

[poot_rootbeer]

GNU's not Unix...

Re:let's face it....

[pyrrho]

I like Unix for old-and-proprietary unix, and unix for everything (including the old proprietary Unix).

Andy666... and you got a 666xxx UID... holy shit I'm talking to the devil!

This is quite laughable

[NicotineAtNight]

With today's computers, the level of services that Unix-alikes provide are completely identical. To claim otherwise is to relegate yourself to the category of "people I strive to avoid in real life."

Re:This is quite laughable

[Anonymous Coward]

> "people I strive to avoid in real life."

Amen, Brother!

I remember when I finally made the jump from my old system (running PC-DOS with the "GNUish" tools... I had a lot of fun with that!) I indulged in some rejoicing along the lines of "now on to the real thing, Linux!" -- and some moron jumped down my throat: "Linux is not UNIX!"

(And all I'd meant, anyway, was "a real operating system" -- wasn't saying anything about UNIX at all!)

But had I meant that, I'd have been quite justified, I think.

In certain contexts, it'd be misleading to call Linux Unix; in others it'd be misleading _not_ to... And most of the time, we know what the other person means to say...

Some get a kick out of pretending they didn't know what you meant to say... that's known as Being A Prick.

Fuck 'em.

Re:This is quite laughable

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "level of services", but if you mean stuff you can do with the machine once you've installed the OS, then I don't think they're completely identical. For example, compare this:

$ cat /etc/slackware-version
Slackware 9.0.0
$ units
bash: units: command not found
$

with this:

$ uname -sr
SunOS 5.8
$ units
you have: meters / second
you want: furlongs / fortnight
* 6.012885e+03
/ 1.663095e-04
you have: ^D
$

And Slackware is supposed to be "the most Unix-like". That's why I installed it. Maybe I screwed something up during the install, but "units" is a standard progrma that comes as part of any real Unix I've used. Solaris has it, other Unixes have it, even NetBSD has it, but Slackware doesn't seem to.

And yes, I really do use it. That's how I discovered it -- I wanted to find out how many kilowatt-hours something will use in a month if it draws 100 watts. I was expecting to enter "100 watts" and "kilo watt hours / month". On the real Unix system, this works. On Linux (the version that I have), it doesn't.

Now, this isn't to say I couldn't go out and find source for "units" and install it myself. But hey, it just uses stdio and nothing Unix-specific, so I could install it on Windows too, couldn't I? Heck, with a little porting effort, I could build /bin/units for Palm OS.

Re:This is quite laughable

[BrokenHalo]

I sometimes find myself describing my home computer setup as a UNIX system (it is properly a Linux, er, OK, GNU/Linux system) when talking to people who may have heard of UNIX (e.g. on university login screens or ISP help-files) but are likely not to have any idea what Linux is.

I know it's lazy, but it just saves time when getting the general idea across to non-geeks. Let the details take care of themselves.

Re:This is quite laughable

[usotsuki]

*sigh*

I'll see if I can find something and try at least a DOS port, but I don't have access to a Linux box...

-uso.

The Unix Name

[tedrlord]

I don't really understand why some people get upset about using the world "Unix" to describe Unix-like operating systems. It's like asking for a Kleenex and someone getting angry because the box is actually just a generic brand of tissues. The only real reason to react like that is if you're part of the company that holds the trademark. For everyone else, it looks like Unix, it acts like Unix, it smells like Unix. It's Unix.

Re: The Unix Name

[TheRealRamone]

NU = "Not Unix" (.^l>

--TRR

Re:The Unix Name

[sql*kitten]

For everyone else, it looks like Unix, it acts like Unix, it smells like Unix. It's Unix.

It amazes me that Slashbots can criticize players like Microsoft for ignoring standards when it suits them, then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves. Standards exist and are worth protecting because they make everyone's lives easier. If an OS is UNIX98 or POSIX compliant, then if means if you want to port your software to that platform, you can make certain assumptions before you start work that will vastly increase your chances of success within time and budget. And what "looks and smells" like Unix covers a wide range of ground, even Minix "looks and smells" a lot like Unix, but it simply doesn't have the capability of Linux let alone Solaris. An OS like OpenVMS isn't Unix, but you can compile and run plenty of Unix software on it, because of its POSIX API. NT with Cygwin can "look and smell" like Unix, but under the hood it's totally different.

If anyone can come along and write an OS that has $ as its prompt and you can type ls to get a list of files, does that make it a Unix? No, there's more to it than that. And that's why the Unix(r) brand exists.

Re:The Unix Name

[You're All Wrong]

[VMS/NT/...] "but under the hood it's totally different."

However, _under the hood_, Linux looks and smells like Unix, surely?

YAW.

Re:The Unix Name

[curne]

There is an old saying that one should call a shovel a shovel and a spade a spade.

I think it is fine that people, who know what Unix(tm) is to call everything "Unix" but it gets confusing for those not well-versed in computer science history. Personally, I like calling things by their actual names. For instance, MacOS X does not smell a whole lot like Mandrake to me.

Re:The Unix Name

[tedrlord]

You're taking me a little too literally here. I'm talking about Linux, BSD, and MacOS X, as is the article. They follow most Unix standards, their aim is to be as much like the official Unix as possible, and in the case of BSD, they have as much or even more influence on Unix culture than the official licensed UNIX(tm) itself. They're enough like Unix that they might as well be, and stepping around the term is just awkward and unnecessary in most usage.

Re:The Unix Name

[sql*kitten]

However, _under the hood_, Linux looks and smells like Unix, surely?

It's not as simple as that. Consider: Solaris(tm) is UNIX(tm) and its scheduler (for example) works a certain way. Whether this is the best way to do it is a matter of debate. Linux' scheduler works a different way, so is it the same under the hood, even tho' all the programmer sees is fork(), nice and all the rest?

That's why Open Group exists - to make these kinds of decisions of what's UNIX(tm) and what's not. Interestingly, Linux per se will never be UNIX(tm), it will have to be certified as individual distributions, for example Red Hat might get certified while SuSE doesn't. That is because POSIX includes criteria about the shell, libc and all the stuff outside the kernel too.

Re: The Unix Name

[pAnkRat]

Better yet:

X.I.N.U

Xinu
Is
Not
Unix

Halb

Re:The Unix Name

[nicky_d]

It amazes me that Slashbots can criticize players like Microsoft for ignoring standards when it suits them, then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves.

But at the same time, don't assume that every poster has an identical anti-MS, pro-liberal-use-of-the-term-Unix stance. Nothing in the parent post mentions Microsoft and standards, so while your point about standards is well made, throwing in the term 'Slashbots' hardly works toward establishing the rational and reasoned Slashdot I'm sure you (and most of us) would prefer. Though rereading the latter half of that sentence does make me wonder if I might be delerious this morning.

Re:The Unix Name

[intermodal]

Standards exist and are worth protecting because they make everyone's lives easier.

True to a point, but only if those standards are good. I certainly wouldn't want every linux built upon the Linux Standard Base, for example, because it entails usage of RPM, which is fine for many but doesn't suit my preferences. There is a difference between useful standards and standards which are constructed for easy migration from the status quo. (IPV4 vs IPV6, for example.)

However, to clarify, I don't disagree with you. Unix and looking and smelling like unix are different. But Unix and Unix-esque are tough to separate these days in conversation. There isn't a pronunciation for *nix, and nobody is going to say "unix-style operating system* as a general conversation term, especially in conversations utilizing the word/phrase repeatedly.

Re:The Unix Name

[sql*kitten]

They're enough like Unix that they might as well be

Well, I don't know how much certification costs, but I'm sure Apple or IBM could afford it. IBM probably will do so in the post-AIX5 era, just to reassure the corporates that their in-house AIX apps can be recompiled without too much trauma. Apple probably don't care right now, but if they want to sell to the US govt they'll need FIPS, and they might do UNIX at the same time.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

*nix = starnix?

Well it could, at least until someone realeses a Starnix operating system.

Re:The Unix Name

[Ed Avis]

Minix tries to be like UNIX Seventh Edition, from the _user's_ point of view it counts as Unix - unless you're willing to say that V7 UNIX is not Unix. Of course, the kernel is very different and all the userland programs have been rewritten (though maybe not that different).

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's why the Unix(r) brand exists.

"Unix" is not a trademark, it's a colloquialism for a UNIX-like OS.

"UNIX" is the brand that's trademarked, and I doubt you'll find anyone reputable claiming "we're UNIX" without first licensing that right.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple do exactly that.

Re:The Unix Name

[chthon]

The problem is indeed in the companies holding the brand names.

E.g. in the past there has been a problem between Rank Xerox and some people, because in work they referred to a paper copy of something as a xerox.

I think that there can be more of such cases, where someone refers to something generic by a well known brandname. Here in Belgian Dutch dialect e.g. people refer to a camera as a kodak. I think that most regions can bring up such examples.

Re:The Unix Name

[AtrN]

Whenever something like this comes I like to refer people to this excellent USENET posting (I guess I should point to google's archive but...)

From: o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s (david parsons)
Subject: Re: NT causes $10M loss [Was Uptime Discussion]
Date: 14 Apr 1998 13:22:18 -0700
Organization: Department of Atomic Test Units
Lines: 12

In article ,
Kaz Kylheku wrote:

>In any case, I doubt that V7 UNIX could actually pass today's
>UNIX branding. It's only called UNIX for historical reasons.
>Strictly speaking, it's an operating system formerly known as UNIX. :)

I think the phrase you're looking for is `Posix can go fuck itself'.

____
david parsons \bi/ Standardization run amuk.
\/

Re:The Unix Name

[BJH]

Please note that the definition of UNIX(tm) (whether POSIX, UNIX98 or whatever other standard is in current usage) makes no particular claims about the internal workings of the kernel - only the API that the kernel exposes. Thus, you can have whatever damn scheduler you like and still be UNIX(tm)-compliant.

Re:The Unix Name

[Ian Bicking]

It amazes me that Slashbots can criticize players like Microsoft for ignoring standards when it suits them, then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves.

Open Source code is its own standard. Standards are for secretive companies, for companies that don't trust each other, and for monopolists. Standards are a poor surrogate for an open implementation, but in the proprietary world that's all you get. But we don't need them, the implementation is the standard, and it's almost always a more complete and completely specified standard than any paper standard.

There hasn't been much movement on formal standards, at least among Unices. FHS is the closest thing I can think of recently. I think that's because the only Unices that have any significant forward movement are Open Source/Free Software. There are de facto standards being created, some intentionally, some may only be recognizable as standards after the fact. But there's little need for formality, trademarks, committees, or certifications.

Re:The Unix Name

[sql*kitten]

Thus, you can have whatever damn scheduler you like and still be UNIX(tm)-compliant.

By that argument, NT is more UNIX than Linux is, because NT has POSIX!

That is why I say that the definition of what is Unix and what is not is complex, and that's why a standards body exists to make the decision.

Re:The Unix Name

[afidel]

Linux as a platform can never be certified as UNIX because there is too much you can change that would break the compatibility. A specific distro with a specific kernal might be, but with the testing and liscensing costs in the 5 figure range I can't see IBM doing it unless a major client says it is a hold item on a contract.

Re:The Unix Name

[sql*kitten]

Open Source code is its own standard. Standards are for secretive companies, for companies that don't trust each other, and for monopolists.

Uhh, right. Let's take something simple, like SMTP or POP3. There are multiple implementations of these standards, from sendmail/popper to Exchange. If they don't conform to the same standard, no-one gets their email. But since they do, not only can email get from A to B, but you can feasibly replace one with the other. How does that benefit a monopolist in any way? You want to talk open source, what if sendmail and qmail don't use the same SMTP standard? What if Apache and Mozilla don't use the same HTTP standard? See, saying "the code is the standard" only works if there is only one implementation. For everything else, you need a neutral third party to make sure everyone plays by the rules.

There hasn't been much movement on formal standards, at least among Unices.

POSIX, NFS, DCE, CDE/Motif, X11, Kerberos, etc etc etc. How can you not have heard of these?

Re:The Unix Name

[Ian Bicking]

First, to clarify: standards help mitigate the problems with monopolists, they do not help monopolists.

Documentation is certainly important at a certain stage. The useful standards you do note are all fairly informal, embodied in RFCs, a process that encourages (demands?) implementation before specification, and the process does not look anything the formalism of, say, Posix.

POSIX, NFS, DCE, CDE/Motif, X11, Kerberos, etc etc etc. How can you not have heard of these?

Yes, and since proprietary Unices have faded away all these standards have become stagnant or even dead (e.g., CDE). That was my point.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

By that argument, NT is more UNIX than Linux is, because NT has POSIX!

How do you figure that? Linux is also POSIX complient, so how does that make NT "more Unix" than Linux? Not only that, but the grandparent poster is right, and you apparently do not know much about POSIX. POSIX only defines the API's and the most minimal implementation details required[1] but does not detail how those API's should be implemented. It doesn't matter how you implement the scheduler as long as you expose the POSIX API's.

Besides which, Linux is also UNIX98 complient. So now by your own criteria, Linux is actually "more Unix" than NT anyway!

[1]: E.g. the POSIX Threads API details two forms of scheduling policy and assumes that the underlying implementation will have some form of scheduling priority. That is not stricly an API definition, but it is a resonable assumption and required in order to keep the API sensible and useful.

Re:The Unix Name

[more fool you]

the good thing about standards is that there's so many to choose from

seen in a fortune

standards are nice, but have you ever wondered why the HURD is taking so long?

Re:The Unix Name

[sql*kitten]

POSIX only defines the API's and the most minimal implementation details required[1] but does not detail how those API's should be implemented. It doesn't matter how you implement the scheduler as long as you expose the POSIX API's.

My point was, the definition of what is Unix and what isn't isn't straightforward. You cannot say "it has this API so it is Unix" nor "it has this shell so it is Unix" and so on. If the term "Unix" is to be meaningful at all (as distinct from "Unix-like") then a decision has to be made, is this Unix or isn't it? That's what the standards body is for.

There's nothing wrong with being "Unix-like" of course, but that's what a Unix-like product should call itself, not Unix.

Re:The Unix Name

[Gordonjcp]

hmmm, *kind* of. So you open the bonnet, and it might be a petrol or diesel engine. It's a little different but works in much the same way. I think the gist of it is, is that you don't pop the bonnet and go "Fuck me, it's a gas turbine!" (like BeOS)

Re:The Unix Name

[MrLint]

And yet no one who knows 'unix' would ever ever confuse OpenVMS or MS windows for unix.

Re:The Unix Name

[joto]

It amuses me that you got 5 insightful on this one. It thought it would have to be a troll...

It amazes me that Slashbots can criticize players like Microsoft for ignoring standards when it suits them, then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves.

It isn't necessarily the same people writing both kinds of complaints. Besides, this discussion isn't about standards, so you might try to understand the subject before you complain about not understanding the debatants... Get it? Done! Over to the real stuff...

If an OS is UNIX98 or POSIX compliant,

We aren't talking about unix98 or posix compliance, we are talking about using a registered trademark known as unix as a generic term for products that looks like it. Much as we use xerox for copiers, coke for pepsi, q-tips for any kind of short thingy with cotton at it ends, kleenex for any kind of paper-tissue, or refrigerator for cooling cabinets.

And what "looks and smells" like Unix covers a wide range of ground, even Minix "looks and smells" a lot like Unix, but it simply doesn't have the capability of Linux let alone Solaris.

Read my lips: we are not talking about capabilities, we are talking about whether we should call things unix, despite the trademark. On the subject of capabilities, trust me, the original unix wasn't very powerful compared to minix either.

If anyone can come along and write an OS that has $ as its prompt and you can type ls to get a list of files, does that make it a Unix? No, there's more to it than that. And that's why the Unix(r) brand exists.

Yes, it takes more than that. No, that's not why the unix brand exists, and it is not why it's possible to trademark things in the first place.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what you mean. I get soooo angry when people refer to other soft drinks as a "coke". Ooooh, I could just spit.

Re: The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

There was actually a distribution called "Mt. Xinu" (I'm not quite sure about the capitalization), from the days when the (tm) was included with every Unix reference (and when *NIX became popular).

Re: The Unix Name

[taff^2]

There is actually already an operating system called XINU.

"Xinu is a small, elegant, multitasking Operating System supporting the following features:
Concurrent Processing
Message Passing
Ports
Semaphores
Memory Management
Buffer Pools
Uniform Device I/O
Shell
Tcl
TCP/IP
Xinu was originally designed as a vehicle for teaching Operating System design concepts and is used by many educational institutions for this purpose. Later versions supported TCP/IP, these versions are often used in Data Communications courses."

More info at http://public.ise.canberra.edu.au/~chrisc/xinu.htm l

Haven't played with it myself, but I thought I remembered seeign it before.

Re: The Unix Name

[Tackhead]

> X.I.N.U
> Xinu
> Is
> Not
> Unix

WASHINGTON, APRIL 1, 2007 (GNUP): Santa Cruz, CA and Occupied Clearwater, FL are targeted with orbital-based virtual pair induction beams in a desperate attempt to prevent a planetwide disaster as armies of lawyers from the Cult of Scientology and the Santa Cruz Operation deliver so many subpoenas to each other that both cities are threatened with imminent gravitational collapse.

President Stallman, in an emergency press conference, announced that he regrets the loss of civilian life, but that he "told y'all you should have been calling it GNU/Linux all along, but did anybody listen? Noooooooooo!"

Re: The Unix Name

[tetra103]

That's a witty word play, but just like the name GNU...it's dumb. I've often thought of the witty play on GNU and just how ironic it is. Here you have a bunch of guys writing knock off utilities to look and play just like the original....yet they have the audacity to cut down their roots by having a slogan for "We're not YOU". It's irony and it's stupid. Imagine if everyone was as petty as the GNU mentality. For every great product, you'ld have a GN{trademark} product or {trademard backwards} product as well. No, most competitors are strong enough to establish their own brand name without the crutch of using another. So tell me GNU...Is the UNIX crutch not good enough anymore and do you need a GNU/Linux crutch now? Tell you what...how about a new slogan. Instead of calling them GNU utilities or GNU/Linux....let's call them GNL for "GNL is not Linux" utilities. So in that light, does XINU still sound like a good name, or is it just another brand name crutch?

Re: The Unix Name

[BrokenHalo]

That's a witty word play, but just like the name GNU...it's dumb.

But nowhere near as dumb as Herd. That's so dumb, I can't even be bothered even looking it up to remind myself what it stands for :-)

Re: The Unix Name

[BrokenHalo]

Damn, that should have been Hurd. My bad.

And since I'm in the mood for self-flagellation, here's the definition anyway:'Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for "`Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms."

See what I mean?

Re:The Unix Name

[jweatherley]

Apple claim that OS X is 'UNIX based' and that it can run UNIX applications. They don't say OS X is UNIX just that it does everything that UNIX should.

Re:The Unix Name

[BrokenHalo]

MacOS X does not smell a whole lot like Mandrake to me

No, it smells more like a

er, ahem, sorry. Wrong thread. Carry on...

Re:The Unix Name

[Alien Being]

"There isn't a pronunciation for *nix"

Make quotation marks in the air with your fingers and, in your best Dr. Evil voice, say "u-nix".

Re:The Unix Name

[Aidtopia]

Since you mentioned VMS, I thought I'd throw in this tidbit. I went to a DECUS symposium in 1989 (maybe '90 or '91) given by two VMS engineers. They claimed VMS beat all of the Unix-derived OSes and was the first OS to be certified POSIX-compliant (API and shell). They also pointed out that the official validation suite required several command line tools that the spec didn't, so actually they had to implement more than the spec itself required.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

> I certainly wouldn't want every linux built upon the Linux Standard Base, for example, because it entails usage of RPM, which is fine for many but doesn't suit my preferences.

AGAIN, for the 10,433rd time, the LSB says only that you must support use of RPM, *not* that RPM is the only package tool to be supported.

Debian and Slackware, for example, can both use alien to fulfill support for RPM-based packages without doing ANYTHING about their native package support.

Re:The Unix Name

[andyross]

See, saying "the code is the standard" only works if there is only one implementation. For everything else, you need a neutral third party to make sure everyone plays by the rules.

This is simply wrong. Both of your examples (SMTP and HTTP) were ad-hoc standards. The implementation existed before the standard did. Indeed, the code was the standard.

The standardization process took over from there: cleaning up ambiguities, fixing feature goofs that slipped through in the first cut, etc... In no way does the standards process drive the implementation. Successful standards codify existing practice, always.

POSIX, NFS, DCE, CDE/Motif, X11, Kerberos, etc etc etc. How can you not have heard of these?

And again, EVERY ONE (except perhaps DCE) of these is an ad-hoc standard preceded by a working implementation. In the case of NFS, the "neutral third party" you talk about is a proprietary company with its own implementation -- hardly "neutral" in my mind. Yet NFS works just fine. Why? Because it is useful, and because there is benefit in writing compatible implementations. Certainly not because Sun deigned to write a standards document.

Re:The Unix Name

[Fillup]

You want to talk open source, what if sendmail and qmail don't use the same SMTP standard?

Turning off my bonus and picking a nit here....since when is qmail open source? In fact it frustrates me a great deal that, while his code is the fastest, Dan Bernstein appears to be a royal asshole who insists on doing everything but the protocol in a non-standard fashion, and if you change the way he does it, you cannot redistribute.

Source-available is NOT open source.

Re:The Unix Name

[Black Copter Control]

It amazes me that Slashbots can criticize players like Microsoft for ignoring standards when it suits them, then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves.

As someone who's pretty much grown up on Unix (my first root prompt was on the first Radio Shack Model 16 delivered into Edmonton), I've admined just about every major brand of Unix. For me, Linux and BSD look, feel, smell and taste like UNIX. This isn't like NT or OpenVMS which are completely different animals with a posix compliant skin. These boxes were designed to be UNIX(TM) and they've done a pretty good job of it.

In my world, the leasst complient Unix I've played with would be AIX (last messed with circa '93) -- it's config files and admin approach are so un-UNIX(TM) like that cross-platform admin tools almost always have to special-case it. I haven't played with Open-VMS, but if it's anything like VMS, then it's probably worse than AIX in that regard. NT starts with a different text file format snd goes downhill from there.

As far as I'm concerned, just being first-level POSIX compliant doesn't make an OS UNIX any more than speaking (heavily accented) English makes one British. It is, however, a reasonable first step.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

"POSIX, NFS, DCE, CDE/Motif, X11, Kerberos"
"all these standards have become stagnant or even dead "

Not one of those standards is stangant or dead.

Posix is dead? Funny, last time I checked maintaining POSIX compliance was a key goal of most *nix. Even MS makes attempts at becoming more and more POSIX compliant every release.

DCE is used heavily throughout MS Exchange.

NFS isn't dead either. You obviously have been using CIFS/SMB for way too long. I don't need that slow crap on my *nix network.

CDE/Motif is still used by several commercian Unix variants.

X11 is under CONSTANT development, and I can't see how the hell you could mistake X11 for being stagnant or dead.

Kerberos is widely used and developed. Amazing you'd include that, but after the X11 deal, not suprising at all.

Proprietary Unices haven't faded away, son. Perhaps you've heard of Solaris? No? Well look it up then.

All in all your post was a weak recoil from getting your ass handed to you on a plate for making dumb comments. YOU FAIL IT!

Re:The Unix Name

[that _evil _gleek]

Let me dig into you metaphor... :-]
Shovels can have many types of blades. There's the flat type, There's the flat-scoop ( don't know the name ) and then there's one that looks like a spade.
Working outside, you might save you're beath and say "Hand me that shovel --- no, not that one, the spade shovel"
Then again, if you need to dig a hole, think you want that "spade shovel" again,
and say you want a "spade", you'll get the wrong thing.
What I'm saying is that in industry you might want to say something like:
This would be easy to solve if we had unix. Just like this would be easy to dig
if "we had shovel"...
It would be harder, and more tedious to tell those "not well-versed" in computer science what features of .*nix you'd use, that would make the job a snap.
Kind of like describing a shovel instead of just saying "shovel ".
I remember one situtation, where the problem would have a snap to solve if we using 'nix , but I knew the that politics of the company there would be no linux.
I made a mistake and said "unix" thinking to steer to a BSD, that thread was hijacked and forked into 2 threads: 1. UNIX is a registered trademark. 2. I should say Linux. But, I didn't mean Linux ( though I love linux) because it would lose.
So, it took 2 weeks instead.
But, I understand your point.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

See, saying "the code is the standard" only works if there is only one implementation.

Though there is merit in writing a reference implementation to accompany the standards process.

Re: The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

X.I.N.U

Then we would eventually have GNU/XINU...just thinking about it reminds me of staring endlessly at a lava lamp.

Re:The Unix Name

[Anonymous Coward]

X11? I don't think so.

Re:The Unix Name

[usotsuki]

I thought the TRS-80 Model 16 (68K/Z80 based) ran M$ MINIX. Well, yeah, it's V7 derived...

I'd die if someone got bash or some other open source shell up and running on an 8086 under M$-DOS, using Borland's compiler tools or OpenWatcom. Been working on it, but no luck. Tried first back in '00.

-uso.

Re:The Unix Name

[Badanov]

By scheduler you mean cron, right?

Re:The Unix Name

[intermodal]

While you are correct, I was simply showing that the "standards" are not always standards because they are a good way of doing things, but rather because they are easier for the people in current positions of leadership than switching to a better method.

Re:The Unix Name

[pyrrho]

>If anyone can come along and write an OS that has $ as its prompt and you can type ls to get a list of files, does that make it a Unix? No, there's more to it than that. And that's why the Unix(r) brand exists.

now that's just ridiculous! You need grep and awk too, then it's unix.

Re:The Unix Name

[sql*kitten]

By scheduler you mean cron, right?

No, the thing that decides which process gets CPU time next.

Re:The Unix Name

[Ian Bicking]

You're dense. The technologies may live on, but the standards process for these technologies is dead -- which is the topic for this thread. Even Posix, certainly the most important of the given standards, is hardly a lively and active standard.

Nice strawman -- the standard of someone who is good at arguing, but bad at reading.

Re: The Unix Name

[wing.app]

The only reason that GNU is named that way is because Stallman's point for starting GNU is to create a complete free UNIX-like OS. He also wanted to extend the OS... Therefore GNU could be read like this as well, Gnu is not Unix, but something different

A quick history lesson...

[ites]

One of the signs that a product has become a commodity is the use of a brandname as a generic description. Calling all modern, stable, portable, everything-is-a-file, my-great-grandfather-ran-on-32k-words-on-a-PDP-11 operating systems "UNIX" is technically inaccurate but culturally accurate.

Re:A quick history lesson...

[inode_buddha]

Bingo, you just hit the nail on the head! I'd even go a bit further and say that this (becoming commoditized) represents a great success - your product is everywhere. The downside is that it may not be the kind of success you want.

I'm *really* questioning SCO's IP claims in that way, even though they claim literal plagarism/infringement.

Re:A quick history lesson...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean you accept that hacker == cracker because they have technical difference, but not cultural one?

Re:A quick history lesson...

[N3WBI3]

Actually in this case the technical difference is a cultural one but your point is well taken.

Re:A quick history lesson...

[rfmobile]

>> my-great-grandfather-ran-on-32k-words-on-a-PDP-11 That's PDP-8 to you grandson!

Re:A quick history lesson...

[Minna Kirai]

The use of "UNIX" for Linux et al is only legally inaccurate, as it's a trademark violation. It's correct both culturally and technically.

Generic brands

[Anonymous Coward]

same goes for these brands... (at least in the uk)
Ketchup
Coke
Selotape
Hoover
Tampax

Crafty intellectual property

[DaedalusLogic]

Before I go the the fridge and get a "Coke", which in the south is synonamous with any carbonated beverage... The people that usually don't want a brand name to become a generic term are the trademark holders... If Xerox becomes part of the common language for a photocopier... Anyone can put Xerox on their brand photocopier. Capitalize on the Xerox name etc...

Also for the very good reason you mention that people do want to get the name out when their product is mentioned... Hence the KFC cashier correcting your request for Coke with Pepsi...

"Keep that popcorn chicken coming colonel" - God, from The Simpsons

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[T-Ranger]

Xerox is not a good example. All photocopiers are xerox machines.. The 'science' of photocopiers is xerography.

But then agian, Xerox Corp is one of the best out there in defending its copyrights..

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[Jonathan]

Xerox is not a good example. All photocopiers are xerox machines.. The 'science' of photocopiers is xerography.

No, generic photocopiers are "xerography machines", not "xerox machines". Yes, the name "Xerox" is derived from "xerography", just like the name "Kleenex" is presumably derived from "clean". That doesn't mean they aren't valid trademarks.

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[NonSequor]

Coke can be used to refer to any carbonated beverage? In all of my life in Georgia I've never encountered an incidence of Coke being used to refer to Pepsi, RC Cola, Sprite, tonic water, or anything other than Coca Cola. Are you sure you should generalize the peculiarities of the place where you live to a significantly larger region?

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

In all of my life in Georgia I've never encountered an incidence of Coke being used to refer to ... anything other than Coca Cola. Are you sure you should generalize the peculiarities of the place where you live to a significantly larger region?

By "the south" he apparently meant "Texas" (which is AFAIK, where it's commonly used.)

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[david duncan scott]

Really? Nobody's ever said, "Hey, is there a Coke machine around here"?

Oh, wait a minute. You're in Georgia. Do they even allow other beverages in the state? Aren't the faucets labelled "Cherry" and "Classic"?

I'm in Maryland (south of the M-D line, former slave state), and that's very common usage. People also say "soda machine" or occasionally "Pepsi machine", but of course anybody who says "pop machine" is immediately stoned in the public square. We're decent people around here.

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[envelope]

I grew up in Memphis, TN, and in Greensboro, NC. My parents were from SC. All my life I've used "Coke" as a generic term for "soft drink".
My wife is from CT so now I am becoming accustomed to the term "soda".

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[lamz]

anybody who says "pop machine" is immediately stoned in the public square

If you don't have pop machines, then from where are you getting your pop?

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[david duncan scott]

My mom met him in Rome, I believe, although they later met again in California.

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Texas, and nobody around here uses 'coke' to generically refer to carbonated beverages, unless they came from Georgia. Now, you don't call it 'pop' like where I used to live... the generally accepted generic term around here is 'soda'. Also the preferred soda by a large percentage of locals is Dr Pepper...

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[dameron]

A conversation that has happened everywhere from New Mexico to Missouri to Alabama (at least):

Person 1: "I'm gonna go to the store, you wanna coke?"

Person 2: "Yeah."

Person 1: "What kind."

Person 2: "Uh, Seven-Up."

Everywhere I've traveled/lived in the South (AL, LA, MS, TN, AR, TX) this usage as been the norm, and friends from places further afield have verified this usage in other southern and southwestern states.

The development of differnet kinds of Coke (Diet, Cherry, Vanilla, etc.) has probably blunted this usage in the recent past as it now becomes necessary to specify not only what kind of "coke" one wants (i.e. Dr. Pepper) but what kind of "Coke" (i.e. Caffeine Free, Diet).

But who knows? I only noticed it when in college someone called a Coke a "pop" and I almost fell out of my chair. Communists must drink "pop". :)

-dameron

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

A company certainly cannot put 'Xerox' on their photocopiers if that company is not Xerox. That would be the same as Compaq putting 'IBM' on their PCs.

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[NonSequor]

Oh, wait a minute. You're in Georgia. Do they even allow other beverages in the state? Aren't the faucets labelled "Cherry" and "Classic"?

Well there is Royal Crown Cola, or more simply RC. I'm pretty sure its main selling point is that it's cheaper than Coke or Pepsi. At one point RC also made many store brands for supermarkets and such, but I'm no sure if they do that any more.

I don't see RC around as much as I did when I was younger. It used to be common in drink machines owned by small businesses, soda fountains in small restaurants, and other places run by people too cheap to get a better cola. RC isn't bad, but I wouldn't say it's good either.

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[J053]

Well there is Royal Crown Cola, or more simply RC. I'm pretty sure its main selling point is that it's cheaper than Coke or Pepsi. At one point RC also made many store brands for supermarkets and such, but I'm no sure if they do that any more.

I remember from growing up in SC, people referring to an "RC Cocacola" a a generic name for a cola drink.

Mmmm...RC and Moon Pies...

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[usotsuki]

My landlord, she always orders "Pepsi" even if the place only offers Coke (!).

-uso.

Re:Crafty intellectual property

[david duncan scott]

Actually I'm quite fond of RC. I was referring more to the fact that Coca Cola's HQ is, of course, in Atlanta and that they are one of the largest corporations in the state.

It's sort of like the way that I refer to Delaware as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dupont-Nemuours.

Unix is not the correct name...

[kinnell]

The correct name is GNU/Unix. And don't you forget it.

Re:Unix is not the correct name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this is Slashdot, so reading the article is optional, but at least bother to read the story.
Thanks.

Re:Unix is not the correct name...

[slux]

so... GNU's Not Unix/Unix?

Heh, seems a little contradictory.

Would that become "GNU's Not One"?

Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[MickLinux]

"GNU" is very different from "UNIX".

For you to say "the best traditions", you are imposing your specific tastes and selection on what is "all the traditions, rules, profitability, service, and more" of UNIX.

That's kindof like picking "love your neighbor" as "the best traditions of Christianity" and thinking that therefore any Christian who doesn't support porn or homosexuality isn't ... well... in the best traditions of Christianity.

Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".

The sum is more than the parts. If you have your own viewpoint, well, okay, just don't call it by the original name.

Because it isn't.

And for a deeply religious subject like UNIX vs. Linux vs. BSD, I have to say: the sum is more than the parts. You can't really break it up, and keep the same name.

So say "Linux" or "BSD". It'll help keep things clear.

And if you think about it, that too is in the best traditions of open source software: you don't like something, you can change it. And if the developers like the change you submit, they can incorporate it. But if they don't, you can distribute your own source code: just keep the same license (GNU) or not (BSD) as the case may be, and *give it your own name so that people don't get confused*.

Deception is not encouraged.

Getting the history of the names straight

[Anonymous Coward]

the origin of the unix name is an obscure comic book by robert crumb from the 60's called "unochs" that richie kernighan, the inventor of unix, loved. the word "unix" in dutch literally means "tree based operating system". so why not call all those things unix ?

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[vrt3]

the word "unix" in dutch literally means "tree based operating system".

Wow, Dutch must be the only language that has a word for "tree based operating system". Strange though that I hadn't heard of it before, since I use both the language and a tree based operating system every day. It's not in the dictionary either.

Or is there another kind of Dutch that I'm not aware of?

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[andy666]

Oh he means whaling dutch, the dialect spoken by dutch whalers largely before the 19th century. that's why you've never seen it before. it was crucial to the operations of all whaleships in fact to have a tree based operating system.

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is there another kind of Dutch that I'm not aware of?

Yes, a dialect called Trolkrapp It is spoken only on Slashdot, and in some seedier bars in parts of Belgium.

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[joto]

the origin of the unix name is an obscure comic book by robert crumb from the 60's called "unochs" that richie kernighan, the inventor of unix, loved. the word "unix" in dutch literally means "tree based operating system". so why not call all those things unix ?

Please go on... It should teach people to stay skeptical at stuff they read on the Internet.

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[schon]

It should teach people to stay skeptical at stuff they read on the Internet.

Just think, the guy who posted that might have just started a new Urban Legend.. I can see the two people who modded it "interesting" propagating it to all their friends, until a year from now, USA Today lists it in a sidebar on a computing article..

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[Anonymous Coward]

the guy who posted that might have just started a new Urban Legend.. I can see the two people who modded it "interesting" propagating it to all their friends, until a year from now, USA Today lists it in a sidebar on a computing article..

You are more correct than you will ever know.

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm... I've spoken Dutch for years, and there sure exists a word unix (pronounced ü-nix, not you-nix, like in English). But I have personally never experienced it as anything else but the equivalent of the English word that's spelt the same. Anyone got a Van Dale at hand? I never bothered to take mine along to California ;-)

Re:Getting the history of the names straight

[andy666]

what's really funny is that no one has mentioned this "ritchie kernighan" person who invented unix. i wonder how kernighan & ritchie will feel about being merged....

A request

[Anonymous Coward]

Please crapflood the forums on gnomercy.net, especially with the images from tubgirl. Thanks, in advance.

UNIX is a philosophy

[Alain Williams]

UNIX is a philosophy as more than a piece of code. It grew into a community where people shared and helped each other. MULTICS was one of the roots, another (of many) was the software tools idea of Kernighan and Plauger.

GNU/Linux is an embodyment of that philosophy, and the one that is currently the most vigorous. The original AT&T codebase was strangled by the lawyers who so wanted to protect what they saw was theirs that they starved it of the oxygen of new ideas and code.

UNIX Trademark???

[canning]

It's not even a trademark in the real sense -- do you even know who owns the word now? Nobody cares. For the record, the Unix trademark is owned by The Open Group (opengroup.org).

I here I was thinking SCO owned UNIX.

They told me they did!!

Re:UNIX Trademark???

[afidel]

When Novell sold off Unix they gave the trademark to the Open Group, sold the code to SCO, and sold the labs to HP (which ran them into the ground like nearly everything they've done in the last 10 years or so outside of printing). So technically SCO DOES own Unix from the code perspective and they are of course a registered Unix vendor with the Open Group.

UNIX is the model

[WebfishUK]

I have long since taken the attitude that UNIX now stands as a model for an OS. Linux, openBSD, netBSD, Solaris and OSX are all implementations of that model. Each one has its differences and perculiarities, but they are all based on the UNIX model. The great thing about this is that once you understand the model, moving from between the different implementations is easy. And for every from of hardware there is a UNIX model OS. So you can UNIX anywhere.

One of the essential aspects of the UNIX model is 'openness', which promote clarity and understanding.

Re:UNIX is the model

[VValdo]

Linux, openBSD, netBSD, Solaris and OSX are all implementations of that model.

OS X in particular is explicitly advertised as offering "the power of UNIX" and being "The most widely-distributed UNIX-based operating system."

W

Re:UNIX is the model

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix isn't just the model, it's the supermodel.

Re:UNIX is the model

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because it was based on FreeBSD

You forgot to mention Linux

[andy666]

The origin of the name Linux - "line Unix", because it introduced the terminal concepts and the notion of command line. This allowed powerful commands like 'ls' and 'cd'. Prior to that Unix was all clicking on icons, and hence quite easy to use.

We have the way out.

[Akai]

I just thought it was funny that at least when I viewed the article, the ad at the bottom was one of the Unisys + Microsoft "We have the way out" ads.

I think the "way out" was clearly indiated by the article itself.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[keller]

"GNU" is very different from "UNIX"

Actually: GNU is Not Unix!

History

[FFtrDale]

And that "culture" includes ways of thinking, problem solving and interacting with others that are congruent with the academic openness and idea-sharing that were exemplified by those intellectual ancestors such as the Tech Model Railroad Club, SAIL, the ARPANET wizards of yore, and Ham radio operators everywhere. These have always been the antitheses of such cultures as the old IBM, real railroads, and heavy industries such as steel and coal mining.

Why? If you give away your coal, you don't have it any more. If you share a new idea, and we all follow your habit, then we all have so much more that the increase becomes qualitative rather than just quantitative, and we get the sort of emergent phenomena that have turned the market's paradigms upside-down.

"Unix" has come to mean more than the trademarked code of its current ownership corporation, and more than the trademarked code of its parent corporation. That change in meaning has occurred because of the way the the term has been used by the call-them-"generations" of programmers whose efforts and dedication to specific, commercially-unorthodox principles have been the direct cause of its dominance.

It's become a philosophy. Of course, the name of the philosophy is an old AT&T / Bell Labs, then Berkeley product name, but the right to control that trademark was lost when the companies that had the rights to the name in days long past made use of the genius of those for whom it became a philosophy. They got paid for their investment! They profited by letting it happen, and that's good. It's too late now to turn back the clock, and if they (AT&T, et al.) had kept "Unix" under lock and key as closely as a coal company must keep control of its coal, they would never have seen their brainchild become the core of much of the world's commerce and communication.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

hey would never have seen their brainchild become the core of much of the world's commerce and commication.

Uhhh I agree with most of your post but really have to take issue with this claim. Currently MacOSX is THE biggest shipping unix(ish) OS in existence, and even it counts for only a piece of Apple's 1.9% market share. Combine the next '5' bit unices and you're still not going to be kicking over 10%, if that. It's a Windows World now.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't think "commerce and communication" was supposed to mean desktops....

Re:History

[FFtrDale]

Cool; I had tunnel vision and was thinking about the servers running it over the past several years of Net history. Good point; TNX.

Re:History

[ddimas]

I would argue that the name Unix properly belongs to the hacker communities that have created Open Source/Free Software. After all Unix was released to the academic community by AT&T because it was just a "toy" OS. It took a decade's worth of hard work by the academic community to turn it into a premire OS. At which point AT&T which had left the possibility of taking all that code for itself in its EULA, did so. Fundementally, the proprietary Unices are based on legal theft.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

Money has never represented material wealth. It is a measure of time. Some people's time is just considered more valuable than others'. There hasn't yet been the man who would trade his last second alive for gold.

Developer laments: What Killed FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

The End of FreeBSD

[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]

When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.

Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.

FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.

It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.

So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.

Discussion

I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.

From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.

There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.

Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.

Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?

Shouts

To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.

To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It

Re:Developer laments: What Killed FreeBSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha.. who were the retards who moderated this old troll up?

Re:Developer laments: What Killed FreeBSD

[usotsuki]

Interesting?!

This is an oft-repeated troll on bsd.slashdot.org, I've seen it so far about 7 times. Every time, it has been properly modded down (usu. "Off-Topic").

I fail to see how this post was modded Interesting.

-uso.

Unix in spirit or name never both

[Felinoid]

For simplicity I use the term *nix becouse this is the term used when I came on the Internet as all the Unix and Unix clones all were ___ix or ___nix.

Most *nix systems are eather Unix in name or in spirit some are nither but it's impossable to be both.

The old AT&T 3B2 user manual would talk about the Unix community. How it evolved by people freely adding something to Unix.
This seams ironic considering the 3B2 was made under AT&Ts new Unix liccens instead of the original one.
The original liccens was more "free" (as in speach and beer).
After the break up AT&T was free to compete with other companys and changed over to a new restrictive liccens that gave AT&T control over Unix it never had before.

Unix grew up as a almost-free operating system and the Unix community was happy to help it grow.
But when Unix transformed into a commertal product from AT&T with a restrictive liccens this came to an end.

But BSD remained true to the spirit of Unix as did the never quite complete GNU system.

Today most people consider Gnu/Linux[1] to be the home of the free software world. The heart and soul of the old Unix lives here.

While SCO has the soulless body of Unix. Actually suing IBM simply becouse they added code to Linux.

I've always felt that it wasn't Unix if you didn't include a C compiler yet many Unix venders did just that. Offering the compiler sepretly.

The idea that being able to modify the operating system was important is lost on todays Unixes.
But it's not lost on BSD and Gnu/Linux[1].

[1] Normally I just call it Linux but for the function of the point the title Gnu/Linux just works better.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Det tror jeg nok. Dansk, right? Drikk en kald en for meg!

Yeah, but ...

[YetAnotherName]

... does Unix run Linux?

(I know, I know, too easy. Mod me down.)

Re:Yeah, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude ... put some creamer in your coffee ... you're way too bitter.

Re:Yeah, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is...will it play Ogg?

Re:Yeah, but ...

[tigga]

... does Unix run Linux?

Yes, BSD's have Linux emulation ;))

UNIX is a sexual orientation

[Anonymous Coward]

... and a lifestyle. No one can "cure you" of enjoying Unix.

everything is a file is the best legacy

[DrSkwid]

when taken to a conclusion

Offtopic

[FFtrDale]

I promise that I was already typing my 4:43 reply to "A Quick History Lesson" when you posted this. Yours is a lot more concise.

Not Unix?

[sco08y]

The Unix trademark, from what I gather, is mostly about compatibility which allows you to guarantee people that their apps will run.

The Unix tradition, from what I gathered, was making something that was solid and reliable, a foundation on which people could build things.

So both are similar ideas... one is an economic foundation, another is a technical foundation.

Linux and BSD make a lot of improvements, but after sifting through the Unix Hater's Handbook, I'm thinking they *still* make a lot of the old mistakes.

If they're not sticking to the trademark, and their not keeping the tradition alive, maybe we shouldn't call them Unix after all.

In their defense, they've popularized a new tradition (along with a license instead of a trademark) in open source and free software. But Unix was about a huge and very original innovation, not just writing another kernel. I just think things ought to stay in perspective.

Re:Not Unix?

[sco08y]

"trademark, and their not"

Sorry, should be they're.

Vasoline

[tbradshaw]

Like, duh. Of course they are all Unix. I suppose we're supposed to say, "petroleum jelly", as well?

Re:Vasoline

[Kurt Russell]

" I suppose we're supposed to say, "petroleum jelly", as well?"

Beep Beep Beep.. Like, dude think different!

Use the new I-KY Jelly!

Elegy for *BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Elegy For *BSD

I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.

Re:A request

[Anonymous Coward]

You know in the time you've spent crapflooding your request here on Slashdot you could have been crapflooding gnomercy.net like crazy.

Supporting unix ideals...

[Tyreth]

...with an advertisement at the bottom of the article: --- Unisys Wehavethewayout.com join the escape from unix. the windows datacenter is here. JOIN US.> --- As if.

Re:A request

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, in the time you've spent crapflooding your request here on Slashdot you could have been crapflooding gnomercy.net yourself like crazy.

Wrong perception

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny. I always thought of referring as Linux/BSD to unix as silly, since latter both are far superior.
I never got, why especially the (vocal) BSD crowd is so proud of being a "real Unix(tm)".
Ever looked at the catastrophy a solaris or tru64 creates on your harddrive ?
No visible concept of where to put files at all - files are everwhere and linkorgies provide backwards compatibility and make a thought for a decent, modern filesystem-layout unessecary.
Sure, there seem to have been some guideline at sometime in past, you sure can see reminders of what etc was once ment for.
Other than that, its just rank growth.

Now look at the beauty of a slackware or FreeBSD. How cleanly arranged and consice a "Unix" can be.
Sure, mess wise, the commercial Linux-Players catch up with "real Unices(tm)", still, even a Red Hat seems well thought out compared to Irix.

Hey, and stability wise, any free BSD does not have to hide before the "real" Unices. At least, on those boxes they run. Sure, they do not run on 32+ CPUs, but neither do they by constant claiming of being a "real Unix".

Re:Wrong perception

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S.: Not to say, that the latest trend of linux to blindy put _everything_ into /usr is really a wise idea, IMHO it's completely demented, but still there is at least a concept and more of all consistency.

Re:Wrong perception

[Anonymous Coward]

No visible concept of where to put files at all - files are everwhere and linkorgies provide backwards compatibility and make a thought for a decent, modern filesystem-layout unessecary

Yeah, everything in /usr/local/bin is much better. C:/Program Files anyone?

Sure, there seem to have been some guideline at sometime in past, you sure can see reminders of what etc was once ment for.

I see what it was once meant for and what it is as two different things. In Solaris, '/etc' == 'configuration files' and '/var' == 'logs'. So for the bundled Apache, for instance, the config files are in /etc/apache and the log files are in /var/apache. That's so messy and confusing.
I think it's more what one is use to. After looking at Solaris all day at work, Linux / FreeBSD / etc look messy. In fact, I was hoping Sun's abandoned Sun Linux would be a Linux distro organized like Solaris.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[EnderWiggin99]

Awww, fuck. This is gonna turn into another GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux/Emacs, GNU/Linux/X11/X/QT/KDE bullshit debate, isn't it? Way to go. And on top of that, you've brought the Christians into it. Are you Republican, or dumb, or both?

Kleenex?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might feel different if your name was Kleenus Torvalds.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[EnderWiggin99]

Awww, doubleshit. Politics now. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him use the preview button...

I think I'm gonna move to China. Things are much simpler there. :)

Agree

[Anonymous Coward]

The name 'UNIX' can not be associated with systems that are 'unix like'.

Take the GNU operating system that we all use as an example. GNU stand for 'GNU's Not Unix'. This acronym was chosen to show that GNU is not UNIX but looks like, works like and is upward compatible with UNIX.

We should thus refer to GNU, FreeBSD etc as UNIX like.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[TobascoKid]

Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".

The sum is more than the parts. If you have your own viewpoint, well, okay, just don't call it by the original name.

So if you can't 'reinterperate' christianity then how come there are so many different brands of it (anglican, methodist, prebyterian etc.)? Seeing as people have been 'reinterpreting' what it means to be christian for about as long as christianity has been around (and even more so since Martin Luther), all with various differences, some minor, some major, I think you can 'break the wholde thing up' and still call it christianity.

In the same vain you can look at linux, *BSD, Solaris etc as Unix - they all have there various differences from one other but they all share very similar 'beliefs', and it's a lot easier when talking about the entire group of them to say unix just as it's easier to say christians as oppossed to 'anglican, methodist and other christ based religions' (especially for Windows using pagans :-)

Tk

Unix =~ castrated Multics

[Black Copter Control]

That's the wordplay (AFIK) that spawned (if you'll excuse the pun) the UNIX name.

Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics

[BrokenHalo]

I can't even remember what MULTICS was originally meant to stand for.

All I remember is the pseudo-definition attributed to certain AT&T hackers: Many Unnecessarily Large Tables In Core Simultaneously.

Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics

[bluethundr]

That's the wordplay (AFIK) that spawned (if you'll excuse the pun) the UNIX name.

And then Asimov went the opposite direction in wordplay when creating the fictional Multivac. Wonder if he got that idea from the transition from Multics to Unix?

Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics

[david duncan scott]

Well, considering he wrote that story in 1956, nine years before the Multics project started (never mind UNIX), I'm thinking he worked it out on his own, based on UNIVAC.

Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics

[david duncan scott]

Multiplexed Information and Computing Service

Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics

[Black Copter Control]

Well, considering he [Asimov] wrote that story in 1956, nine years before the Multics project started (never mind UNIX), I'm thinking he worked it [Multivac] out on his own, based on UNIVAC.

I'm now wondering if the Multics name came from Asimov's Multivac.

Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics

[MrResistor]

Actually, it came from Unified Multics. When Ken Thomson came up with the name he went and told his good friend Denis Richie, who made the joke you are refering to.

Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics

[davecb]

Er, it was initially spelled unics, for single-user multics... which in turn was a portmanteau word, a play on "multi-user".

We kept using the term for years at Honeywell, notably for a valiant effort to build a good DPS-6.

--dave (formerly DRBrown.TSDC@HI-Multics.ARPA) c-b

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[popeyethesailor]

Just say Linux/BSD

Ah man , already we have a nut running around calling everything GNU/foobar.

Now I have to call my BSD box Linux/BSD ?

NO FRICKEN WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Explained.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone should read this.
Applies to Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/Darwin/Others as well as NetBSD.

A good and interesting read about UNIX history

[yehim1]

There's a very detailed and interesting story, hosted in Oreilly which describes the history of UNIX.

"Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix- From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable " remembers how UNIX evolved from it's early days as a proprietary software owned by AT&T; branching over to the educational field as BSD (Berkeley System Distribution), and finally ending up as various flavors of SysV and BSD's both proprietary, and freely-redistributable.

The link: here!

it's up to the people who created it

[g4dget]

UNIX was created by a group of people at Bell Labs. Ultimately, it should be up to them what constitutes UNIX.

Research versions of UNIX were based on bits and pieces from BSD, but they involved removing a lot of functionality, so by looking at the documentation as well as their follow-on, Plan 9, you can get a pretty good idea of what they considered good and bad.

Based on conversations I have had with the Bell Labs folks over Plan 9, I suspect that they probably wouldn't want to take responsibility for the OS X kernel.

Re:it's up to the people who created it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Based on conversations I have had with the Bell Labs folks over Plan 9, I suspect that they probably wouldn't want to take responsibility for the OS X kernel. "

Can you expand on that? Plllllllllleeeeeaaaaasssseeeee

speed of unix vs. linux vs. *bsd

[Anonymous Coward]

which is faster, unix, linux or *bsd ?

Re:speed of unix vs. linux vs. *bsd

[Anonymous Coward]

Plan9

This is a contextual problem - don't forget that.

[Big Nothing]

I'm working with OpenBSD. This is obviously an important fact when coding and developing SW. It has to be - I have to conform to standards. It might be important in /. polls, and It's obviously an important fact for a lot of zealots in this place. But in every other context this is simply semantics - referring to the OS as Unix WILL SUFFICE! When taking to my co-workers, I might refer to it as Unix, *nix, Unix-based OS or even OpenBSD - depending on the technical knowledge of that co-worker - and the context of the conversation. To my manager, I will always refer to the OS as Unix. When speaking to my mother I'm working with computers.

better not tell this loon

[Anonymous Coward]

Rev. Don Kool

Hey !

[jalet]

Just call it GNU !

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an answer that you probably won't understand, but it is true nonetheless. There is still only one Bible, and only one Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit guides, interprets, has His own will, and for those who follow His will, empowers. So despite all of those different little interpretations, most of which will be wrong by mathematical necessity, there is still only one Christianity. Your chances of following it are better if you are following the Holy Spirit and the Bible. And you won't get it perfectly, but you will get it "well enough" if you are doing that. But since you refer to GNU/Linux, you could refer to Christianity/Catholicism . Some of the /* denominations get the Christianity bit pretty well. Others, get it just plain lousy, and really should be classified under a different license, if you get my drift. Anyhow, there's a reply.

GNU system?

[eMilkshake]

Several people have mentioned that they enter the system and expect a common set of tools, but aren't most of the commonalities GNU (or just open source software) and most of what's different part of the proprietariness?

So, maybe we should just call our systems GNU systems or for the folks running KDE who would object, refer to them as "open source environments." After all, running cygwin on windows gives me same look/feel, and I could call it an OSE. Notice the word environment implies it sits on top of something proprietary, so we aren't claiming it's an open source system.

And, GNU advocates could call it the GOSE (need to figure out how to put another O in there).

Re:GNU system?

[Dave2 Wickham]

How about GNU Opensource And Trusted System Environment?

Sorry :/

A *NIX by any other name

[Anonymous MadCoe]

would smell as sweet...

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[GypC]

Does anyone know why the lameness filter keeps triggering on my name?

Perhaps the lameness filter is set to trigger on a combination of "Linux" with one of a list of "dirty words", and "mick", being sometimes used as an ethnic slur, is on that list?

GNU's Not One

[NoOneInParticular]

Not for all possible values of Unix. For Unix equals zero we would get "GNU's Not Indeterminate", or "GNU's Not Not A Number", depending on your floating point support.

Hmm, given all these results, we might conclude that GNU is not One, and if Unix is Zero, GNU is determinate and a number. Thus GNU's a determinate number, eventhough that number still needs to be determined.

Re:GNU's Not One

[forrestt]

Actually, you would get:

(Gnu's Not Unix)/Unix

Which after simplification would be

Gnu's Not

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the bible has been reinterpreted a couple of times too.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[joto]

And for a deeply religious subject like UNIX vs. Linux vs. BSD, I have to say: the sum is more than the parts. You can't really break it up, and keep the same name.

Except for the fact that there is no such issue. There exists nothing that today can reasonably be called unix. Now, there might be a Linux vs BSD, but there certainly does not exist a Unix vs either of them.

Wrong again!

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD, Darwin continue what Unix started. Linux is way in left field.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[joto]

Awww, fuck. This is gonna turn into another GNU/Linux, GNU/Linux/Emacs, GNU/Linux/X11/X/QT/KDE bullshit debate, isn't it? Way to go. And on top of that, you've brought the Christians into it. Are you Republican, or dumb, or both?

At least we still have homosexuality, prostitution, third-world problems, racism, pollution, womens issues, unions, and why Donald Duck needs a bathing suit when he is always naked at the bottom anyway, to discuss, before Goodwins law ends it.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[mufasio]

So despite all of those different little interpretations, most of which will be wrong by mathematical necessity, there is still only one Christianity.

I grew up in a Christian home and my dad has even preached in a couple of different churches. Every church I have been to have encouraged interpreting what the Bible says for yourself and determining what it means to be a Christian. The only requirement to being called a Christian that I have seen is accepting Jesus Christ as your savior.

In the same respect in order to be Unix compliant all you have to do is to follow the POSIX standards, so why not call Linux/BSD/etc. Unix as long as they follow those standards. Just as following the standards of Christianity(accepting Jesus) makes you a Christian.

Having said that, I use the specific name Linux, BSD, etc. when refering to a specific system but I tend to call it Unix when refering to the toolset and general philosophy of these systems.

About Apple and Unix Certification...

[Qwerpafw]

Apple got certified. It was worth it for them to shell out the cash so they can use that fancy "unix" logo in their advertising.

Re:About Apple and Unix Certification...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unix is a trademark, not a certification process.

You insensitive clod!

[ArsSineArtificio]

if you insist on age as the only criterium

The singular of 'criteria' is 'criterion'.

Re:You insensitive clod!

[jpetts]

The singular of 'criteria' is 'criterion'.

Actually, 'criterium' as an alternate singluar form of criteria is accepted by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, though 'criterion' is certainly more common. I don't currently have access to the full OED, so I am not able to say whether it is now deprecated or not.

Real UNIX

[black mariah]

What's the difference between AIX and Redhat? Between Solaris and Suse? What is so damned different that it's worth all this pointless bitching? Don't give me the maturity bullshit. That means nothing. Whether the code is two months old or 20 years old, the important thing is how well it is written. Does code suddenly get better after just sitting around a few years? I didn't think so. Stability? Don't think so either. 60% of the internet that runs Linux along with Apache might not agree.

IMO, the only difference is that it's just another thing for stuck-up assholes to whine like little girls about. Get the fuck over it.

Re:Real UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

"60% of the internet that runs Linux along with Apache..."

Did you have to go to college to learn such absolute tripe like that?

Re:Real UNIX

[black mariah]

No, dipshit, it is a well known FACT that 60% of the web servers out there run Apache on Linux.

Re:Real UNIX

[Anonymous Coward]

And, fucktard, it's an equally well know fact that the World-Wide Web *is* the Internet

Jeez - every day they get stupider...

Sorry, you're 19 years too late.

[edw]

Douglas Comer started a company named Mt Xinu (read it backwards) that put out a Unix-like OS a long, long time ago . It was a companion to the book Operating System Design: The Xinu Approach, published my Prentice Hall in 1984.

Xinu Home Page

Re:Sorry, you're 19 years too late.

[SoftwareJanitor]

The college I went to used that book in its OS course... XINU was running on these awful, crufty old LSI-11 (single chip PDP-11 implementation) based machines made by Terak.

Lignux!

[raulmazda]

See groups.google.com... rms changed the OS detection in emacs to spit out lignux or something...

Re:Lignux!

[Anonymous Coward]

linux isn't gnu's not unix x?

Cause Unix is a POS compared to Multics, Sparky

[Anonymous Coward]

You should first learn how to spell it

[dorfsmay]

All those comments about the proper and/or incorrect use of the word UNIX, yet not one spelling it properlly.

"UNIX® is a registered trademark" and should be spelled in all caps.

Thank you ;-)

Re:You should first learn how to spell it

[lamz]

That's exactly why the generic term should be spelled "unix".

Double good agree

[Anonymous Coward]

The one thing I have noticed with making the "sell" for Linux to upper management, is that it *IS* UNIX, so its an easy fit: same talent, same support processes, etc..

The short-sighted folks who keep saying Linux is not UNIX, and the like, make the suits suspicious.

Re:Double good agree

[usotsuki]

Is Linux UNIX?

Does Linux have X/Open certification? Has someone paid X/Open for a UNIX trademark license?

No?

Sorry, but Linux is not UNIX. Neither is FreeBSD.

-uso.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's one individual's opinion... Who's to say that your opinion (following the Bible literally) is correct, versus personal interpretation? What divine authority has granted you this gift to make this absolute proclamation?

As far as I'm concerned BSD=="real" UNIX

[HighOrbit]

All (and I mean *ALL*, even SysV derived) Unix(tm) systems contain code from the BSD-Berkley Research Unix. Before AT&T turned Unix over to Berkley for development, Unix was low-feature (but high future potential) and sutiable only for the limited internal use of AT&T. BSD made Unix into a usable system by adding many many features and re-writing large portions of AT&T's work. These enhancements were rolled back into the "official" Unix. There is not a single Unix system on the planet today that does not include BSD code and enhancements. The post-lawsuit 4.4BSD-lite was only 6 files short. Six files out of hundreds. The only thing that keeps BSD from calling itself "Unix" is a trademark issue.

IBM and Linux

[vorpal22]

Since IBM apparently unleashed a torrent of UNIX code into Linux, doesn't that make Linux an official UNIX? :-)

Re:IBM and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they unleash a bittorrent? Mirror, anyone? Plz? PLz!?!?

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[michaelggreer]

Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".

Tell that to Martin Luther.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry Mick, nobody agrees with you.

Tom

Re:What is unix today?

[N3WBI3]

MacOSX doesn't use X Window system by default

What does X-Windows have to do with something being a 'pure' UNIX?is this to say that if I take by your definition the purest Unix (linux) and dont put X on it (say for an FTP server) its no longer a pure Unix?

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Grizzlysmit]

Unfortunately, the bible has been reinterpreted a couple of times to.

Well acctually no it hasn't thats just a lie put about by our enimies.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Grizzlysmit]

Whooo hooooo

The OS wars live again, this will sure be fun to whatch.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[MasonMcD]

Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".

No they wouldn't. Hopefully, any orthodox Christian (what does that mean, anyway? Catholic?) would say, in the spirit of the Church Fathers if nothing else, that Christianity is, and should always be reinterpreted. By whom, is the question. The pope? The bishops? Billy Graham? Or the girl's boyfriend who says wearing panties makes baby Jesus cry?

Besides, how do they sell new catechism books at Barnes and Noble if the religion is static?

So bottom line, if we can reinterpret Christ, I hope that's precedent for reinterpreting the term "UNIX."

But maybe some people need more data points.

Differentiate between 'spoken' and 'branded' ---

[Lodragandraoidh]

To quote from the Open Group:

"From February 1995, computer systems have carried the UNIX brand if:


They guarantee to support the services specified in the Single UNIX Specification.


Customers can identify UNIX certified products by the Open Brand logo and the mandatory attribution declaring to which version of the specification the product complies:
UNIX 93 applies to UNIX system products which pre-date the Single UNIX Specification.

UNIX 95 applies to UNIX system products which conform to the Single UNIX Specification.

UNIX 98 applies to UNIX system products which conform to the Single UNIX Specification , Version 2.

The mark to be associated with the Single UNIX Specification, Version 3 is under development, see the platform pages for the latest information.

In licensing the UNIX brand a vendor warrants and represents that every certified product:


Conforms to the specification.
Meets The Open Group's test and certification requirements.
Will continue to conform to the specification.
Will be rectified within an agreed time should it be found to be non-conformant.

UNIX certification is widely recognized as the international symbol of assurance in open systems. By the end of 2001, the value of procurements of open systems referencing the brand had exceeded $25 billion. "

So, from a technical standpoint you can see that if it meets the standards (UNIX98, UNIX95, UNIX93, or a soon to be updated standard) LINUX, FREEBSD, or any other OS can be branded 'UNIX' legally.

However, in spoken discourse (and by spoken I mean not only verbal, but written words attributed to journal, informal, or fiction genres) I think it perfectly acceptable to say 'unix' when it would be more accurate to say 'Linux', or 'FreeBSD', as mentioned previously in the example of 'Kleenex' becoming a generic term for 'tissue'. The verbal lexicon will continue to change and reflect our understandings of the effective reality (Linux contains many of the standards contained in UNIX98 for example, and for all intents and purposes is indistenguishable from a branded UNIX to an end user)

Unix keepers of the flame should not find issue with this usage, since it really serves to pay homage to the roots of all Posix compliant operating systems - UNIX. Without the brainchild of AT&T Labs, we would not be here discussing this subject. Just as well, as the article cited at the head of this thread indicates, the tradition of brainstorming inovation across a free community will continue to drive changes which will find their way into the standard whether the UNIX purists like it or not. As Bruce Lee stressed: internalize what works - and the unix paradigm of open development works.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Jerf]

Tell that to Martin Luther.

Probably not the best example. Summarizing the Reformation as people claiming "You can't reinterpret the Bible as you choose and call it Christianity" (slight word change) is a reasonably accurate, though detail-free, overview.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[ddimas]

The Heretic?

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Words change meaning with every generation. Even the orthodox aren't following the origional traditions. It's a fact of life. It's funny how you view the UNIX tradition as different from Linux and BSD. It's hard to explain how narrow a viewpoint that seems to me. In a decade, no one will think of them as different.

I don't know why you brought religion into this, but those who preached right after Jesus left each had his own form of christianity. Yet no one says, I follow Paul's christianity, but not Mathew's.

It drives me nuts when the cathalics claim they the only direct church from Jesus.

It's all UNIX to me. Even Windows is starting to look like UNIX.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[ddimas]

Try this. www.goarch.org

I think a more important matter...

[Tokerat]

...would to be to decide how "GIF" is really supposed to be pronounced. (I still say "JIFF" is a peanut butter, "GIF" is a graphic)

Re:I think a more important matter...

[bigdavex]

I used to pronounce it like the peanut butter, but there's a potential confusion with the JPEG File Interchange Format dos entesion .JIF.

So, I agree and use the hard G now when pronouncing GIF.

Re:I think a more important matter...

[sbszine]

In this situation look to Colonel Klink for guidance.

"Hooooo-gan! Gif me back my monocle!"

Yeah. Like that.

We oughta have a roll call...

[Zeriel]

...of slashdotters and unix/linux users with fiancees/spouses. =P

Especially if said fiancee/spouse requests Linux on her computer after seeing you use it.

History -- how the FCC screwed up Unix!

[Anonymous Coward]

No discussion of the history of AT&T Unix would be complete without a side look at the environment in which it spawned, and the number of nosy-parkers who put their oar into it.

First, Unix was spawned in The Bell System. Most youngsters, coming of age after the Great Disaster of 1984 (The break-up of AT&T), don't have a feel for the power of those three little words. In short, UNIX was a distruptive technology within the hallowed halls of The Telephone Company. The Telephone Company was a heavily-regulated entity, with at least 51 masters -- the FCC, and each state's public utility commission. People in AT&T didn't sneeze without the permission of these 51 committees.

The birth of UNIX has been documented many times on SlashDot, and the recent article about the Unix Hater's Handbook exposed much of the technical story. (I loved that book, while agreeing with many of its assertions.) The story you don't hear, unless you dig for it, is how UNIX became a thorn in the side of AT&T in its relation to those 51 committees.

A regulated utility is supposed to provide a specific service. Just that. Bell Labs had as its primary charter research into how to make telephone service better. (The tap-dancing that AT&T had to do about the apparently non-telephone research streaming out of the place was interesting, but justifiable based on the telephone advances that did some out.) Western Electric was supposed to make telephone and associated equipment. And so forth.

So along comes UNIX, which proves to be an interesting toolkit for the computing community. BUT IT ISN'T TELEPHONE SERVICE. What do they do with this unwanted problem?

Go back to the FCC Computer I decision and see. It's funny, laugh.

Giving it away to universities didn't solve the problem, by the way -- in some respects, it made the problem worse, especially when the bright boys at Berkeley started doing all those interesting things with it. Because of the give-away, AT&T couoldn't just split off a new company to take care of it, although I don't quite understand all the reasons why.

Maybe it was because AT&T management was geared to regulated business, and didn't like this upstart THING upsetting the apple cart. It was about as welcome by management as a baby from a rape.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[rifter]

Well acctually no it hasn't thats just a lie put about by our enimies.

That's right. The bible was written originally in God's Language -- English! :)

Re:A request

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps he's banned and is after vengeance? Don't indulge him [generally speaking, that is).

it does not mean what you think it does

[Anonymous Coward]

That word you keep using: I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hey Kreskin - what else don't I know?

Jackass.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the other version better. If God had meant computer users to boot *nix, he would've given them brains.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[TobascoKid]

There is still only one Bible

Really? then why is there a New International Version, a New American Standard Version, a New King James Version, to name but a few. There are loads of different bibles, sometimes with distinct differences in content.

Seeing as the bible is a compilation of various texts which have been added or exluded at the whim of various editors over history and seeing as most people will be reading translated versions leaving them at the mercy of various language interpreters I would be somewhat worried if I it to be the considered the sole literary foundation of my belief system.

Tk

youre a prick

[jonnyfivealive]

i cant argue with you at all because youre right and are far more informed than i, but youre a prick nonetheless.

internals

[Anonymous Coward]

a proper thread model
an efficient vm model
load times of executables
reentrancy
a decent smp model
not designed for 32bit peecees

and on and on and on and on and on.
There are significant differences between (solaris or irix or tru64) and a linux.

There are fucking TONS of differences. It isn't pointless bitching. There are many cases the differences matter.

... can be used legitimately both about ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, also consider the related slang "hack" [i.e. a person], connotating a possibly overworked, and probably less than artistically brilliant novelist or writer.

Re:... can be used legitimately both about ...

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, why is anyone trying to save this term?

when I think hack, or "original" meaning regarding "hack", I think of mindless uncreative journalists and pulp novelists...

to a degree it's mindless cut and paster typing in code sample monkey script kiddies that want the term that appropriately fits them, "hacker", to mean something good. Kind of like calling the chicken-wire run I built for my puppy "architecture", or better, wanting "piece of shit" to mean "architecture".

-anonymous so you won't know I have a puppy.

f*cking *nix

[multipartmixed]

Close, but cigar.

People use *nix where the asterix is attached to the suffix 'nix' in a glob expression.

People use f*ck to get around anti-swear word filters on BBSes and such.

& X.E.N.I.X.

[TheRealRamone]

Xenix
Is
Not
Exactly
Xenix . . .

--TRR

Re:& X.E.N.I.X.

[Anonymous Coward]

WINDOWS
Is
Not
Descriptive
Of
Working
Softwa re

golf

[TheRealRamone]

hacker n 1: someone who plays golf poorly

related definitions:

manager n: someone who is ok at golf salesexec n: someone who plays golf quite well

--TRR

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".

Tell that to Martin Luther.

Not to mention the leaders of any of the 10,000 different Protestant religions out there...

Re:Call it Eunuchs

[DickBreath]

Call it Multics

Call it Eunuchs. Get a trademark. Create a compliance certification test.

Hackneyed media

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the definition of the words hack & hackneyed and then look at hacker. If you were to mention to my grandfather (an ex-horse breaker) that you were a hacker, he wold write you off for being worthless. He understands "cracker" as in a "bank robber", and hacker as in "someone (a horse) worn out in service".

Kinda interesting how words change meanings, like how faggot used to mean a bundel of sticks, or the piece of metal ontop of an exaust stack to keep rain out of a diesel engine.

Call it Matrix

[axxackall]

why not call it Multics? After all, that's where it started

Better call it Matrix:

Neo: I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world....without you. A world without rules and controls. Without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there, is a choice I leave to you. (Music plays)

the cpu or harddrive...

[joto]

Yes, both harddrive and CPU are good favourites used to describe a PC by idiots. And also, what is the capacity of the computer? As if you could just take some numbers, say, clock frequency, harddrive size, harddrive platter speed, ram size, CD-rom speed, and watt-usage, add them together, and get a meaningful capacity. I've always wondered why marketers haven't caught onto it...

But then again, if you are one of those who will call whatever is under the hood of a car the engine you are just as bad (since I am aware of it, I am only almost as bad)...

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[usotsuki]

Get lost, Ruckmanite *g*

The fact of the matter is I have yet to see a reliable English version of the Bible. Not even a modern-spelling edition of Laurence Tomson's 1576 NT plus portions of the Geneva Bible comes as close as I'd like.

But let's say this out for example, IMHO,

Catholic:Lutheran::UNIX:BSD
Catholic:Episcopal: :UNIX:Solaris
Catholic:Methodist::UNIX:Linux
Cat holic:Mormon::UNIX:Windows XP

-uso.

loose

[SeanAhern]

I think the slashdot version would be:

luser /loo'zr/ n.
A user; esp. one who is also a looser. (luser and looser are pronounced identically.) ...

The Unix Trademark Is Owned By The Open Group

[Taco Cowboy]

Say what you want, the Unix trademark is owned by The Open Group.


The suit by SCO against IBM, if it involved Unix, then The Open Group has the final say.

Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc.

[rifter]

Catholic:Mormon::UNIX:Windows XP

Those poor mormons, getting associated with Windows XP.. How dare you! :)

You may as well have called them stupid satan-worshippers. Then again, perhaps that would have been better. ;)

Call it Pedantix

[shking]

pedantic

adj. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

pedantically adv.

Synonyms: pedantic, academic, bookish, donnish, scholastic
These adjectives mean marked by a narrow, often tiresome focus on or display of learning and especially its trivial aspects: a pedantic writing style; an academic insistence on precision; a bookish vocabulary; donnish refinement of speech; scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning.

Read more

Forget this "spirit" BS -- it's just a trademark

[fm6]

Don't be silly. The only reason not to call your USS-compliant OS "UNIX" is to avoid receiving a C&D letter from The Open Group, which currently owns the trademark. It's technically accurate to call such an OS Unix, because it does everything Unix does, and does it the same way.

So in your official literature you say "Unix-like", and everywhere else you just say "Unix", 'cause the Open Group has no hope of hassling every Slashdot or Usenet poster. The "*nix" thing is dumb-looking and redundant.

For further details, see my previous rant.

The whole thing is just a trademark issue. Comparable to the common habit of saying "Xerox" when you mean "photocopy" and "Kleenex" when you mean "facial tissue". If a lawyer tells you to stop doing it, you stop doing it until he goes away. Otherwise, you just don't worry about it.

Hey, anybody ever notice that American doctors say "epinephrine" to refer to a hormone that everybody else (including doctors in other countries) calls "adrenaline"? That's because in the U.S., and nowhere else, "Adrenaline" a trademark.