Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
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
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.
> "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.
"GNU" is very different from "UNIX".
... well... in the best traditions of Christianity.
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
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.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
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.
All interpreted languages are abstractions over Lisp
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.
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
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.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
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.
Think, write, think, edit, think...then post.
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".
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.
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?
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.
Karma: Non-Heinous
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)...