[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Free system that could be "real Unix".

From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Free system that could be "real Unix".
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:13:48 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) XEmacs/21.4.20 (linux)

Quoth mike3 <>:
> On Oct 10, 5:49 pm, John Hasler <> wrote:
>> mike3 writes:
>> > Would it be possible to construct a Free (note the capital "F") operating
>> > system that would be capable of meeting all the UNIX standards (POSIX,
>> > SUS, etc.) precisely enough to be able to be certified by The Open Group
>> > as UNIX(R)...
>> Any major Linux distribution could qualify, but nobody cares any more.
> You sure? I thought they would require modification. But I'm not
> sure just how extensive it would need to be. If it is not be a huge
> amount, perhaps, just perhaps, one might "drift" over the "sweet
> spot" but of course nothing would really happen since the creators
> would either a) not notice it or b) not have the money to actually
> pay The Open Group to certify it. And, UNIX is just a label really,
> so even if it is not certified to be legally branded as such that
> does not necessarily make it any worse in terms of quality,
> capability, etc., especially if it were to otherwise meet all the
> relevant standards.

The *biggest* part would be the cost of having "whatever remains of
The Open Group" evaluate the system to validate that it conformed to
their requirements.

The biggest *change,* as far as I was last aware, that would be needed
would be to introduce the STREAMS abstraction, which both BSD and
Linux folk have generally eshewed.  

Back before they had become SCO and became "evil," I believe Caldera
had built a version of STREAMS for Linux, but were rebuffed on
introducing it into "official" kernels as people generally thought it
was a bad idea.  (STREAMS *was* controversial; a lot of people really
didn't like it, so this wasn't anything personal against Caldera.)

> BTW, what do you think of the conception that if it's "Unix", it's a
> "powerful" OS?

I think that in a very important sense, it no longer matters, at least
in terms of looking at "UNIX(tm)."  

There are so many implementations that are definitely *NOT* "UNIX(tm)"
(though they are certainly 'Unix', with lower case letters) that are
reasonably powerful that the trademark isn't worth that much anymore.

Consider Linux, the prolific sets of BSD 4.3 branches, MacOS-X,
possibly even Hurd...  There are also a number of RTOSes that provide
POSIXy functionality, and probably a bunch of other kernels that I'm
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "")
Rules of  the Evil  Overlord #153.  "My Legions of  Terror will  be an
equal-opportunity employer. Conversely, when  it is prophesied that no
man  can defeat  me, I  will  keep in  mind the  increasing number  of
non-traditional gender roles." <>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]