[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: mike3
Subject: Re: Free system that could be "real Unix".
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:12:33 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Oct 12, 10:13 am, Christopher Browne <> wrote:
> 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.

Well the thing I was asking more about was making a system
that would be "real Unix" in the sense that it would be *capable
of passing* such evaluations -- so it would be "real Unix" in all
but the legal sense (ie. what you can market it as) (unless of
course all the money needed to get certification was paid.).

> 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.

What was so bad about it, anyway, that they didn't like it?

> 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.

What is "Unix" defined as, then? Obviously "UNIX(tm)" is defined as
whatever The Open Group has allowed to be branded as such, but what
is "Unix" defined as?

> 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
> forgetting.

reply via email to

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