RE: A dumb, somewhat off-topic question...

[(Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>]

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) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: 08-Jun-99                                       Time: 19:26:41
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------