A dumb, somewhat off-topic question...
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?
---
Mark Wright
mwright@pro-ns.net
mark_wright@datacard.com
Reply to: