Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - the Linux of Databases...

> Thus spake Andrew Martin
> > > up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
> > > Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*
> >
> > Agreed... :-)  But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
> > Marc to disagree, again...]
>
> Of course it is.  It has direct lineage back the Bell Labs.  There is
> no AT&T code left in but you can most definitely say "BSD Unix" where
> you can't say "Linux Unix."  For many years Berkeley was the main
> development hotbed for Unix.  In fact, BSD was eventually fed back
> into SVR4.

'fraid it isn't. Unix is a trademark and can only be applied to systems
which the trademark owner approves. Just 'cos the code has a certain
heritage doesn't mean that the current version is approved. There is
a FAQ somewhere which discusses all the issues - I forget the details.

>
> > Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
> > full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)
>
> Posix != Unix.  NT is a Posix system.  So is OpenVMS.
True - I was over zealous there. However the release was given approval for
the Unix label to be applied.

>
> BTW, which version of Linux was Posix certified and who paid for it?
It was Linux-FT - I believe the company producing it is now defunct :-(


Andrew
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin                             University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk    (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL:   http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel:   (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890                    (Home) +44(0)1372 275775

Thus spake Andrew Martin
> > Of course it is.  It has direct lineage back the Bell Labs.  There is
> > no AT&T code left in but you can most definitely say "BSD Unix" where
> > you can't say "Linux Unix."  For many years Berkeley was the main
> > development hotbed for Unix.  In fact, BSD was eventually fed back
> > into SVR4.
>
> 'fraid it isn't. Unix is a trademark and can only be applied to systems
> which the trademark owner approves. Just 'cos the code has a certain
> heritage doesn't mean that the current version is approved. There is
> a FAQ somewhere which discusses all the issues - I forget the details.

Sure, sure.  It isn't Unix if there's a liar^H^H^Hawyer in the room
but we know who it's parents are.

> > BTW, which version of Linux was Posix certified and who paid for it?
> It was Linux-FT - I believe the company producing it is now defunct :-(

Figures.  Perhaps they should have spent their money elsewhere.  I don't
know anyone personally who is really impressed with Posix certification.
Those who really understand know that it is meaningless and those that
don't could care less.  There's only a small constituency somewhere in
the middle there that think it is important and they aren't buying
anything that has any hint of "free" about it.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 424 2871     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.