On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 02:04:36PM +0200, John L Fjellstad wrote: > Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > John L Fjellstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> I was wondering if Linux can be considered Unix?
For me the term "Unix" can mean three different things. First there was the "original Unix" system from AT&T and all the systems that evolved from it by modifying and extending the original source code. The second meaning is that an operating system vendor is allowed to officially call it's product "Unix" (as a trademark) by having passed a certification program of the Open Group. The third and most commonly used meaning specifies an operating system that works mostly like... hum... UNIX! :) I mean, a multitasking multiuser kernel with init, gettys, shells, all the basic file- and text-utilities etc. And of course the system programming interface! I use the term "Unix" when it doesn't matter wheter it's FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, Solaris etc. In this respect GNU/Linux can be considered Unix in sense three but not in sense one and two. > I'm just thinking of the statement, GNU's Not Unix. This is a pun because in fact it *is* Unix (sense three) but they're not allowed to call it Unix. It's probably intended to emphasize the difference in it's free'ness to other Unices too. > Does that mean that GNU/Linux is a OS with unix like functionality, > kinda like Windows with Service For Unix, or OS/2 with its POSIX layer, > or is GNU/Linux an unix. I would consider GNU/Linux an Unix but definitely not Windows with SFU because the latter provides the API and utitilities only on top of a completely different operating system. I don't know OS/2 though. Regards Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
