> 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