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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[UserGoogol]

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

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.

let's face it....

[andy666]

they really are just unix.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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"?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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: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!

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

[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.

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: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.....

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.

A *NIX by any other name

[Anonymous MadCoe]

would smell as sweet...

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

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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)...