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."
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.
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."
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.
[insert witty quote here]
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 ?
[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
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.
I don't actually exist.
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.
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.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
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!
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
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.
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.