Thread

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

   Andrew Martin <martin@biochemistry.ucl.ac.uk> — 1998-03-03T14:41:59Z

   > 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
   
   

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

   D'Arcy Cain <darcy@druid.net> — 1998-03-04T04:31:14Z

   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.