Re: Is Linux Unix?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:35:11AM +1200, Steven Jones wrote:
> heh....and at the rate Linux is taking over Unix space he like RISC based Unix will be going the way of the dodo.
>
> ;]
>
> Considering how many "Unixes" run Open source applications and utilities I find it laughable that ppl can look down on Linux. Simple answer is Linux is not Unix because its better (or going to be). From an operational point of view I have found that there is little Unix can do that Linux cannot, and certainly plenty Linux can do that Unix cannot, kernel compatibility and cost effective hardware see to that.
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryo Furue [mailto:furufuru@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2004 7:42 a.m.
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Is Linux Unix?
>
>
> John L Fjellstad <john-debian@fjellstad.org> wrote in message news:<2jYu2-6Py-5@gated-at.bofh.it>...
> > I was wondering if Linux can be considered Unix?
>
> This question makes me laugh (no offense to you) because it reminds me (and
> would remind many people who frequent(ed) comp.unix.admin) of a certain person,
> who would never fail to be offended, saying "Linux is not Unix" as if it were an
> mantra, whenever an innocent poster asks a question about Linux in comp.unix.admin.
> If you are intrested, seach the google groups with "Rev Don McDonald Unix
> Linux". He was very derisive toward Linux and fierce enough in repeating the
> mantra to scare novices off and to be quite notorious to the frequenters.
>
Long ago, when my brother Joe worked at Bell Labs, there were only two
Unixen. He told me that some of his friends at work referred to them,
not as AT&T Unix and Berkeley Unix, but as Sunni Unix and Shia Unix
because of the passion with which advocates on both sides argued that
the other Unix was *wrong*. The passionate advocacy, still colors the
issue of "what is Unix?", but the players have changed. Perhaps we can
agree the Unix is not Windows.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: