| Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| tutorials:node4.html [2011/04/30 19:34] – created georg | tutorials:node4.html [2011/04/30 19:36] – [3.2.2 Another Opinion] georg |
|---|
| Another opinion, which I don't share, is that Unix is a particular product. HP/UX is another. AIX is another. Gnu/Linux is another. You get the idea. | Another opinion, which I don't share, is that Unix is a particular product. HP/UX is another. AIX is another. Gnu/Linux is another. You get the idea. |
| |
| Fine, except that there is no product simply called ``Unix'' for sale today. You can't even point at a product that is the direct descendant of the original Unix that Ritchie & Thompson wrote at AT&T. Their Unix was the definitive Unix, the original, the one named Unix. You can't buy it today, methinks. And many of those that you can obtain today shared code with the original Unix. BSD is Unix as modified by students at the University of California in Berkeley. That's where sockets were invented. BSD branched into many implementations, several of which are alive & well today. Theoretically, each of those implementations has at least some of the original Unix code in them. Yet somehow BSD isn't a unix? Get real. I'm sure there are similar examples of cross-pollination between the other unix operating systems available today. | Fine, except that there is no product simply called <nowiki>"</nowiki>Unix<nowiki>"</nowiki> for sale today. You can't even point at a product that is the direct descendant of the original Unix that Ritchie & Thompson wrote at AT&T. Their Unix was the definitive Unix, the original, the one named Unix. You can't buy it today, methinks. And many of those that you can obtain today shared code with the original Unix. BSD is Unix as modified by students at the University of California in Berkeley. That's where sockets were invented. BSD branched into many implementations, several of which are alive & well today. Theoretically, each of those implementations has at least some of the original Unix code in them. Yet somehow BSD isn't a unix? Get real. I'm sure there are similar examples of cross-pollination between the other unix operating systems available today. |
| |
| Another problem with the claim that BSD, Gnu/Linux, & the others are not unix is that it takes little effort to write a program that runs on all of them. There are enough differences that a non-trivial program requires a little care to be portable, but it's not like portability concerns affect the architecture of your program. All in all, it is easy to port code between HP/UX, AIX, Gnu/Linux, & the BSDs. This isn't an accident. Those products are implementations of a single idea of what an operating system should be. That idea needs a name so that when you ask me what kind of operating system I program for a living, I don't have to reply with ``I'm an HP/UX, Gnu/Linux, AIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, QNX, & others programmer''. I say the name for that concept is ``unix''. If not, then it's POSIX, but POSIX is also a trademarked term with a certification schedule from The Open Group (together with IEEE). | Another problem with the claim that BSD, Gnu/Linux, & the others are not unix is that it takes little effort to write a program that runs on all of them. There are enough differences that a non-trivial program requires a little care to be portable, but it's not like portability concerns affect the architecture of your program. All in all, it is easy to port code between HP/UX, AIX, Gnu/Linux, & the BSDs. This isn't an accident. Those products are implementations of a single idea of what an operating system should be. That idea needs a name so that when you ask me what kind of operating system I program for a living, I don't have to reply with <nowiki>"</nowiki>I'm an HP/UX, Gnu/Linux, AIX, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, QNX, & others programmer<nowiki>"</nowiki>. I say the name for that concept is <nowiki>"</nowiki>unix<nowiki>"</nowiki>. If not, then it's POSIX, but POSIX is also a trademarked term with a certification schedule from The Open Group (together with IEEE). |
| |
| So somewhat out of contempt for our legal system's petty concerns for terminology, I say it's all ``unix''. There you have it, in more detail & controversy than anyone with a sense of perspective would ever want. | So somewhat out of contempt for our legal system's petty concerns for terminology, I say it's all <nowiki>"</nowiki>unix<nowiki>"</nowiki>. There you have it, in more detail & controversy than anyone with a sense of perspective would ever want. |
