mit Datum Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:19:49 -0500 in comp.unix.aix:
Hm, this goes quite astray from comp.unix.aix. Is there some
unix.advocacy or other appropriate group to move to?
!> Disregarding the "Unix" trademark for the ease of this discussion, I
!> will use the name Unix here for an OS that has the quality and
!> reliability of Unix.
!That's kind of redundant, don't ya think??
No, I don't think so. I just wanted to make clear that I can not
take care about the ownership of the unix trademark (because I don't
even know who does own it nowadays), but nevertheless will use
the term unix in a way that seems useful to me for discussion
purposes. AFAIK this is tolerable according to european copyright
!> Main argument, why Linux isn't Unix:
!> On a Unix, I expect the kernel, the libraries and the utilities to
!> On a commercial Unix, I expect the developer/vendor to have the
!> source code from which it actually is compiled.
!> On a freeware Unix, I expect to be able to get the source code from
!> which it actually is compiled.
!This seems to be a fairly odd way of defining an OS as a UNIX OS....These
!are merely YOUR development preferences....
I do not define Unix here. I just pronounce a requirement,
not only for unix, but for any supportable software. Something
that does not fulfill this requierement is not only no unix, it is
not at all... - hm, well, maybe it is some penguin...
!> On Linux, chances are high that nobody in the world knows from
!> which source your running system was actually compiled. You may
!> figure out what this implies concerning reliability and bug-fixing.
!> And even if you get a distribution for which this does not apply,
!> still the kernel and the libraries and the utilities are developed
!> seperately from each other, without appropriate coordination or
!> quality crosschecks.
!It is obvious that the UNIX98 standard can't be utilized to define what
!UNIX professionals regard as "UNIX"....Functionality, interface
!commonality, etc should be the benchmarks, not a preference as to how a OS
!is developed....That makes no sense....
Well, I am sorry I do not know about the UNIX98 standard. To
say the truth, I did not follow much conceptual discussions
during the last three years, because I was (and am) over-occupied
with setting up lots of machines. Moreover, I did not see much
necessity to create a new standard and didn't expect one to
appear. Possibly some kind of "take the things as they are and
make the best for the customer out of them"-mentality. Would
somebody kindly point me to an appropriate information source?
About the other point ("preference...development"): structured
approach and consistency in the very core of a product's design
is, among others, what comes out as it's robustness, it's stabi-
lity, it's endureability. This, more or less, is what is tradi-
tionally implied by the term "german engineer's work".;-)
But today, things are different. Instead of quality ensureance
we have quality management. And ISO 900X gives you the actual
possibility to manage something that doesn't even exist.
!Labeling linux as a UNIX OS doesn't mean you have to LIKE the OS....
Well, ok, agreed. The other question for me is: can I, honestly,
give this to a customer to fulfil his production needs? And
"this is much better than using windows" is -for me- not enough
--- Communications powered by FreeBSD --
Write to: Peter Much * Fichtenstr. 28 * D-65527 Niedernhausen * +49-6127-967111