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.
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.
[insert witty quote here]
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.
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!