On 08-Jun-99 Mark Wright wrote: > I've checked the FAQs, and I can't seem to find a good answer to this: > why is Linux not refered to as a flavor of Unix? On Linux.Org, it's > referred to as "Unix-like", and this hedging seems pretty universal. > Is there some Unix standard that Linux does not adhere to. Is there > some licensing organization that expects someone to pony up some dough > before they can say, "Unix(TM)" (but if that's it, who paid for > FreeBSD?) In my experience, Linux is no more different from any > particular flavor of Unix than Solaris is from AIX, or whatever - is > there some important difference I'm missing?
"UNIX" is a registered trademark of The Open Group -- see http://www.unix-systems.org/trademark.html However, you are completely right in that Linux is "UNIX" in exactly the same sense as a vaccuum cleaner is a "Hoover" or a ball-point pen is a "Biro" (or, in France, a "Bic"). Likewise Solaris, AIX etc are "UNIX". While you can get away with using "UNIX" as a generic term like this in casual speech, you have to be careful elsewhere. In the above URL it is stated: "It must not be used as a generic term." To register a product (e.g. Linux) as "UNIX" with The Open Group you would have to register it under "UNIX95" or "UNIX98": see http://www.opengroup.org/public/prods/xum4.htm and http://www.unix-systems.org/unix98.html respectively. Sorry about that! Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 08-Jun-99 Time: 19:26:41 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
