Paul Tsai writes: > Mainly it all depends on your definition of Unix, however the origins of > Linux is Minix which is by no means Unix.
The origin of Linux is _not_ Minix. Torvalds and Tannenbaum clearly agree on that. Minix is a microkernel while Linux is a monolithic kernel. > I think BSD is considered Unix no matter who you ask. Ask the owners of the UNIX trademark and you will get a definite _NO_. > I think the Unix refers to the Kernel more than the OS, because I believe > the HURD kernel with GNU Software is considred Unix and Linux with GNU is > not so Unix. GNU's Not Unix originally referred to the HURD (another microkernel). If Linux is not Unix then HURD certainly isn't. > I know a lot of die hard Linux people keep insisting that Linux is > Unix... I've used Unix and I've used Linux. Linux is Unix. > Could Linux become Posix Compliant, etc? Of course, but I think they > would compromise their objectives too much if they did. Linux is probably already about as POSIX-compliant as most versions of Unix. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
