The Spirit Of Unix vs. The Unix Trademark 389
BSD Forums writes "This article conveys the message that Linux, BSD, and Darwin continue what Unix started. InfoWorld's Tom Yager says that several readers took him to task for referring to Linux, BSD, and OS X as Unix. He feels that Unix has a rich legacy that deserves to be preserved and accurately conveyed to new generations of computer scientists. It rattles many of us to see that the operating systems that best exemplify Unix traditions today aren't Unix at all."
Call it Multics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Call it Multics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Call it Multics (Score:5, Funny)
GNU/Polyx.
Re:Call it Multics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Call it Multics (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder, why does RMS not call it "Gnunix" or something like that? It's snappier than "GNU/Linux", that's for sure. The domain name gnunix.org is still available too!
Unix =~ castrated Multics (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Unix =~ castrated Multics (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Call it Multics (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you go tell everybody. Go ahead.
Why don't people change the name? The same reason that it seems the term "Hacker" is forever doomed to be considered a person who breaks into a computer despite the protests of true hackers and english language etymologists.. Because the public has accepted calling it "UNIX". As much as we'd like to change names to avoid confusion, It's seemingly not going to sway public opinion. Whatever. I'm still gonna call myself an aspiring UNIX hacker even though I don't use any UNIX systems nor do I break into these computers illegally.
Re:Call it Multics (Score:2, Troll)
Huh? I've never heard this claim from anyone but Eric Raymond, and wannabe hackers having read too much in that "dictionary" of his. Please tell me of a respectable english language etymologist with the same stubborn view.
It should be quite noticeable by now, that "hacker" has been used of computer criminals for at
Re:Call it Multics (Score:5, Informative)
Huh? I've never heard this claim from anyone but Eric Raymond, and wannabe hackers having read too much in that "dictionary" of his. Please tell me of a respectable english language etymologist with the same stubborn view.
It should be quite noticeable by now, that "hacker" has been used of computer criminals for at least 15 years, both in mainstream media, and lot's of other places. To insist that it really means something else, is as stupid as insisting that "mouse" does not mean that thingy you move the pointer around the screen with, but in reality is a small rodent.
I believe you are mistaken. The term hacker has _always_ been defined as a computer expert or someone who is extremely adept at computer use. The derogatory term came about later. See below for actual definitions.
$ dict hacker
4 definitions found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Hacker \Hack"er\, n.
One who, or that which, hacks. Specifically: A cutting
instrument for making notches; esp., one used for notching
pine trees in collecting turpentine; a hack.
From WordNet (r) 1.7 [wn]:
hacker
n 1: someone who plays golf poorly
2: a programmer for whom computing is its own reward; may enjoy
the challenge of breaking into other computers
3: one who works hard at boring tasks [syn: {hack}, {drudge}]
From Jargon File (4.3.0, 30 APR 2001) [jargon]:
hacker n. [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A
person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how
to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to
learn only the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically
(even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing
about programming. 3. A person capable of appreciating {hack value}. 4.
A person who is good at programming quickly. 5. An expert at a
particular program, or one who frequently does work using it or on it;
as in `a Unix hacker'. (Definitions 1 through 5 are correlated, and
people who fit them congregate.) 6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind.
One might be an astronomy hacker, for example. 7. One who enjoys the
intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing
limitations. 8. [deprecated] A malicious meddler who tries to discover
sensitive information by poking around. Hence `password hacker',
`network hacker'. The correct term for this sense is {cracker}.
The term `hacker' also tends to connote membership in the global
community defined by the net (see {the network} and {Internet address}).
For discussion of some of the basics of this culture, see the How To
Become A Hacker (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html ) FAQ.
It also implies that the person described is seen to subscribe to some
version of the hacker ethic (see {hacker ethic}).
It is better to be described as a hacker by others than to describe
oneself that way. Hackers consider themselves something of an elite (a
meritocracy based on ability), though one to which new members are
gladly welcome. There is thus a certain ego satisfaction to be had in
identifying yourself as a hacker (but if you claim to be one and are
not, you'll quickly be labeled {bogus}). See also {geek}, {wannabee}.
This term seems to have been first adopted as a badge in the 1960s by
the hacker culture surrounding TMRC and the MIT AI Lab. We have a report
that it was used in a sense close to this entry's by teenage radio hams
and electronics tinkerers in the mid-1950s.
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
hacker
(Originally, someone
Re:Call it Multics (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it hasn't always been defined as that. First and foremost, there has not always been computers.
The derogatory term came about later. See below for actual definitions.
As explained in my post, which came "first" is of little value. A "pedagog" is no longer considered a slave, for example (although they might consider the wage they get to be similar).
Besides, do you really think I would have problems coming up with examples going in the opposite direction. If this was so obvious to everybody, you wouldn't have to argue it.
From Jargon File (4.3.0, 30 APR 2001) [jargon]:
Yes, exactly, that's ESR's "dictionary" I was talking about.
Strangely enough the FOLDOC entry seems to be mainly lifted straight out of the jargon file (but so is a lot of stuff there, and this entry even admits it, at the end...). It also makes the computer criminal meaning of hacker "deprecated", something real dictionaries don't do.
Tell me last time you found out that something was "deprecated" when looking it up in e.g Webster... It might tell you that something is "archaic", meaning nobody has uttered that phrase in 100 years, but it has already been put inside the dictionary, and therefore will never be removed (since people sometimes needs to work with old books). But "deprecated" is not something you will find in a real dictionary.
Can you now get it into your thick skull, that the word hacker can be used legitimately both about clever programmers and about computer criminals, about bored and tired programmers, and even about bad programmers (the Maryland definition), (and carpenters, vegetation removers, sword-fighters/roleplayers, cooks, golfers, etc...).
It's almost implausible how many otherwise intelligent people who take anything in jargon.txt has the truth and nothing but the truth. But, even if ESR thinks hacker means something else than it does, doesn't make it so. Hacker means a number of things, and none of the computer related interpretations has any "right" to be preferred, other than what is common usage. Of course, subgroups of the population can define their own "slang", and that is what jargon.txt is all about. It is a book documenting word-usage of people who usually have in common that they prefer "hacker" to mean only one thing. As such, it is not a good source of information on what "hacker" means.
Re:Call it Multics (Score:3, Informative)
They present it as "someone who does some sort of interesting and creative work at a high intensity level", and specifically mention that it often includes pranks.
Another definition which fits well is "someone who operates a complex system in a manner inconsistent with its designer's intent".
Either of those two definit
the cpu or harddrive... (Score:3, Insightful)
But then again, if you are one of those who will call whatever is under the hood of a car the engine you are just as bad (since
Re:Call it Multics (Score:3, Interesting)
So, that leaves your WordNet entry, which gives may enjoy the challenge of breaking into other computers as a definition. The Merriam Webster citation doesn't mention computers at all. So, what did you prove?
A *NIX by any other name (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed (Score:5, Interesting)
What's especially funny is the BSD people who like to claim that BSD is unix based. Perhaps they forgot the whole point of 4.4BSD-lite and the AT&T lawsuits. The point was to get rid of all the original unix source. So stop being so high and mighty, you're not special.
Re:Agreed (Score:5, Informative)
"unix-like operating system"
Ofcourse this isnt in any dictionary, yet! =)
Re:Agreed (Score:2)
let's face it.... (Score:3, Funny)
This is quite laughable (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is quite laughable (Score:2, Insightful)
Amen, Brother!
I remember when I finally made the jump from my old system (running PC-DOS with the "GNUish" tools... I had a lot of fun with that!) I indulged in some rejoicing along the lines of "now on to the real thing, Linux!" -- and some moron jumped down my throat: "Linux is not UNIX!"
(And all I'd meant, anyway, was "a real operating system" -- wasn't saying anything about UNIX at all!)
But had I meant that, I'd have been quite justified, I think.
In cert
The Unix Name (Score:4, Interesting)
Crafty intellectual property (Score:4, Insightful)
Also for the very good reason you mention that people do want to get the name out when their product is mentioned... Hence the KFC cashier correcting your request for Coke with Pepsi...
"Keep that popcorn chicken coming colonel" - God, from The Simpsons
Re:Crafty intellectual property (Score:3, Insightful)
No, generic photocopiers are "xerography machines", not "xerox machines". Yes, the name "Xerox" is derived from "xerography", just like the name "Kleenex" is presumably derived from "clean". That doesn't mean they aren't valid trademarks.
Re:The Unix Name (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me that Slashbots can criticize players like Microsoft for ignoring standards when it suits them, then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves. Standards exist and are worth protecting because they make everyone's lives easier. If an OS is UNIX98 or POSIX compliant, then if means if you want to port your software to that platform, you can make certain assumptions before you start work that will vastly increase your chances of success within time and budget. And what "looks and smells" like Unix covers a wide range of ground, even Minix "looks and smells" a lot like Unix, but it simply doesn't have the capability of Linux let alone Solaris. An OS like OpenVMS isn't Unix, but you can compile and run plenty of Unix software on it, because of its POSIX API. NT with Cygwin can "look and smell" like Unix, but under the hood it's totally different.
If anyone can come along and write an OS that has $ as its prompt and you can type ls to get a list of files, does that make it a Unix? No, there's more to it than that. And that's why the Unix(r) brand exists.
Re:The Unix Name (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Unix Name (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I don't know how much certification costs, but I'm sure Apple or IBM could afford it. IBM probably will do so in the post-AIX5 era, just to reassure the corporates that their in-house AIX apps can be recompiled without too much trauma. Apple probably don't care right now, but if they want to sell to the US govt they'll need FIPS, and they might do UNIX at the same time.
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
Re:The Unix Name (Score:4, Funny)
But at the same time, don't assume that every poster has an identical anti-MS, pro-liberal-use-of-the-term-Unix stance. Nothing in the parent post mentions Microsoft and standards, so while your point about standards is well made, throwing in the term 'Slashbots' hardly works toward establishing the rational and reasoned Slashdot I'm sure you (and most of us) would prefer. Though rereading the latter half of that sentence does make me wonder if I might be delerious this morning.
Re:The Unix Name (Score:3, Insightful)
True to a point, but only if those standards are good. I certainly wouldn't want every linux built upon the Linux Standard Base, for example, because it entails usage of RPM, which is fine for many but doesn't suit my preferences. There is a difference between useful standards and standards which are constructed for easy migration from the status quo. (IPV4 vs IPV6, for example.)
However, to clarify, I don't disagree wit
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
Re:The Unix Name (Score:5, Funny)
From: o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s (david parsons)
Subject: Re: NT causes $10M loss [Was Uptime Discussion]
Date: 14 Apr 1998 13:22:18 -0700
Organization: Department of Atomic Test Units
Lines: 12
In article
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>In any case, I doubt that V7 UNIX could actually pass today's
>UNIX branding. It's only called UNIX for historical reasons.
>Strictly speaking, it's an operating system formerly known as UNIX.
I think the phrase you're looking for is `Posix can go fuck itself'.
____
david parsons \bi/ Standardization run amuk.
\/
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2, Insightful)
Open Source code is its own standard. Standards are for secretive companies, for companies that don't trust each other, and for monopolists. Standards are a poor surrogate for an open implementation, but in the proprietary world that's all you get. But we don't need them, the implementation is the standard, and it's almost always a more co
Re:The Unix Name (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, right. Let's take something simple, like SMTP or POP3. There are multiple implementations of these standards, from sendmail/popper to Exchange. If they don't conform to the same standard, no-one gets their email. But since they do, not only can email get from A to B, but you can feasibly replace one with the other. How does that benefit a monopolist in any way? You want to talk open source, what if sendmail and qmail don't use the same SMTP standard? What if Apache and Mozilla don't use the same HTTP standard? See, saying "the code is the standard" only works if there is only one implementation. For everything else, you need a neutral third party to make sure everyone plays by the rules.
There hasn't been much movement on formal standards, at least among Unices.
POSIX, NFS, DCE, CDE/Motif, X11, Kerberos, etc etc etc. How can you not have heard of these?
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
Documentation is certainly important at a certain stage. The useful standards you do note are all fairly informal, embodied in RFCs, a process that encourages (demands?) implementation before specification, and the process does not look anything the formalism of, say, Posix.
Yes, and since proprietary Unic
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
It amazes me that Slashbots can criticize players like Microsoft for ignoring standards when it suits them, then turn around and do exactly the same thing themselves.
It isn't necessarily the same people writing both kinds of complaints. Besides, this discussion isn't about standards, so you might try to understand the subject before you complain about not understanding the debatants... Get it? Done! Over to the
Re:The Unix Name (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not as simple as that. Consider: Solaris(tm) is UNIX(tm) and its scheduler (for example) works a certain way. Whether this is the best way to do it is a matter of debate. Linux' scheduler works a different way, so is it the same under the hood, even tho' all the programmer sees is fork(), nice and all the rest?
That's why Open Group exists - to make these kinds of decisions of what's UNIX(tm) and what's not. Interestingly, Linux per
Re:The Unix Name (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
By that argument, NT is more UNIX than Linux is, because NT has POSIX!
That is why I say that the definition of what is Unix and what is not is complex, and that's why a standards body exists to make the decision.
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
My point was, the definition of what is Unix and what isn't isn't straightforward. You cannot say "it has this API so it is Unix" nor "it has this shell so it is Unix" and so on. If the term "Unix" is to be meaningful at all (as distinct from "Unix-like") then a decision has t
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2)
Unix is not the correct name... (Score:2)
Re:Unix is not the correct name... (Score:3, Funny)
Heh, seems a little contradictory.
Would that become "GNU's Not One"?
Re:The Unix Name (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it is fine that people, who know what Unix(tm) is to call everything "Unix" but it gets confusing for those not well-versed in computer science history. Personally, I like calling things by their actual names. For instance, MacOS X does not smell a whole lot like Mandrake to me.
Re: The Unix Name (Score:5, Funny)
X.I.N.U
Xinu
Is
Not
Unix
Halb
A quick history lesson... (Score:5, Insightful)
History (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? If you give away your coal, you don't have it any more. If you share a new idea, and we all follow your habit, then we all have so much more that the increase becomes qualitative rather than just quantitative, and we get the sort of emergent phenomena that have turned the market's paradigms upside-down.
"Unix" has come to mean more than the trademarked code of its current ownership corporation, and more than the trademarked code of its parent corporation. That change in meaning has occurred because of the way the the term has been used by the call-them-"generations" of programmers whose efforts and dedication to specific, commercially-unorthodox principles have been the direct cause of its dominance.
It's become a philosophy. Of course, the name of the philosophy is an old AT&T / Bell Labs, then Berkeley product name, but the right to control that trademark was lost when the companies that had the rights to the name in days long past made use of the genius of those for whom it became a philosophy. They got paid for their investment! They profited by letting it happen, and that's good. It's too late now to turn back the clock, and if they (AT&T, et al.) had kept "Unix" under lock and key as closely as a coal company must keep control of its coal, they would never have seen their brainchild become the core of much of the world's commerce and communication.
Re:History (Score:2)
Really - what's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, those who argue it doesn't matter if something is Unix(TM), Unix-like, a Unix clone etc are absolutely correct. What I like about this article is the way it explores the ironic concept that the OSs that aren't legally Unix(TM) are in reality closer to the original spirit of Unix than those from vendors who paid to use the trademark.
Re:Really - what's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
AIX is quite different to alot of the *nix varients and do is Darwin in many respects.
Just because 'ls' is present doesn't make it Unix (tm), come to that just because it's got the Unix(tm) sticker on it (ie its been approved as Unix by the Open Group) doesn't make is Unix either. AIX is certified and it's a horrible varient, lots of proprietary stuff in their.
Of course it's easier to jump from AIX to HP-UX than from Open-VMS to OS/400, but there's still alot of underlying major differenc
Re:Really - what's the difference? (Score:2)
Since the certification is made on the whole system, and not only the kernel or the single pieces of software that go with it, I believe that a distinction made on "commercial" vs. "non-profit", rather then "free" vs. "proprietary" (even if maybe the cost of the certification may be changed depending on the price of the system, or something like that).
I don't believe that, say, Red Hat should get the certification for free, since it would just be something used to give their _paying_ customers some _paid_
Re:Really - what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
I run Windows 2000. It has the GNU toolchain (gcc, make, etc) and commands (ls, cat, etc) installed. It also has an X server (XFree86). It even conforms to the 'everything is a file' idea (/proc/registry, for example...)
Am I a Unix user?
Re:Really - what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, with a few changes, Microsoft could claim that Windows 2000 is UNIX-compliant. It's already somewhat POSIX-compliant.
What's on your resume? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it like this - what is on your resume?
Would you put "Unix", "*nix", or would you list each of the OSs that you have actually used? They each have their subtle points. Sure, if I have worked on Solaris and Linux, working on *BSD would be easier. But I think it is good to list them out. On my
It's just like chip architectures (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it: People like using brand-names to speak about things that are clones of the brand. Xerox copies? Kleenex anyone?
Yes, Linux is a different beast from BSD is a different beast from Solaris. But because of the surface congruence, it makes sense for them all to share one label. And guess what? Unix is convinient and more applicable than anything else I can think of at the moment.
Don't forget.. (Score:2, Funny)
"Hey man, you want a coke?"
"Sure."
"What kind?"
"Dr. Pepper."
I don't care what it's called... (Score:2, Funny)
The Spirit of Unix (Score:4, Funny)
Meanwhile... my favorite unix quality that Windows still doesn't have is... modularity... I swear if I have to restart after changing a setting on a service one more time I'll kidnap the MSN butterfly and do evil things to it... Starting with pulling off its wings. Why can't they simply "service mscrap restart" like the good OS's do?
Re:The Spirit of Unix (Score:2)
My biggest problem still is legacy apps that were very poorly written that demand the restart of an otherwise perfect computer. Sometimes, just logging in again will fix it. Sometimes not. Better than Win 95, sr1 though. I think after my first install, the computer had to reboot about 6 times, and my video still popped up 640x480x
It's not a universal trademark anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
YAW
But, but... (Score:2, Funny)
The spirit of Unix? I've had that once.. (Score:2, Funny)
Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
For you to say "the best traditions", you are imposing your specific tastes and selection on what is "all the traditions, rules, profitability, service, and more" of UNIX.
That's kindof like picking "love your neighbor" as "the best traditions of Christianity" and thinking that therefore any Christian who doesn't support porn or homosexuality isn't
Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".
The sum is more than the parts. If you have your own viewpoint, well, okay, just don't call it by the original name.
Because it isn't.
And for a deeply religious subject like UNIX vs. Linux vs. BSD, I have to say: the sum is more than the parts. You can't really break it up, and keep the same name.
So say "Linux" or "BSD". It'll help keep things clear.
And if you think about it, that too is in the best traditions of open source software: you don't like something, you can change it. And if the developers like the change you submit, they can incorporate it. But if they don't, you can distribute your own source code: just keep the same license (GNU) or not (BSD) as the case may be, and *give it your own name so that people don't get confused*.
Deception is not encouraged.
Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc. (Score:2)
Ah man , already we have a nut running around calling everything GNU/foobar.
Now I have to call my BSD box Linux/BSD ?
NO FRICKEN WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc. (Score:2)
Does anyone know why the lameness filter keeps triggering on my name?
Perhaps the lameness filter is set to trigger on a combination of "Linux" with one of a list of "dirty words", and "mick", being sometimes used as an ethnic slur, is on that list?
Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any traditional (orthodox) Christian would say "You can't reinterpret Christianity, and still call it Christianity", "You can't pick and choose, and still call it Christianity", "You can't break up the whole, and still call it Christianity".
Tell that to Martin Luther.
Re:Don't get rattled. Just say Linux/BSD/etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not the best example. Summarizing the Reformation as people claiming "You can't reinterpret the Bible as you choose and call it Christianity" (slight word change) is a reasonably accurate, though detail-free, overview.
Getting the history of the names straight (Score:2, Interesting)
You forgot to mention Linux (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Getting the history of the names straight (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, Dutch must be the only language that has a word for "tree based operating system". Strange though that I hadn't heard of it before, since I use both the language and a tree based operating system every day. It's not in the dictionary either.
Or is there another kind of Dutch that I'm not aware of?
Re:Getting the history of the names straight (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Getting the history of the names straight (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, a dialect called Trolkrapp It is spoken only on Slashdot, and in some seedier bars in parts of Belgium.
UNIX is a philosophy (Score:5, Informative)
GNU/Linux is an embodyment of that philosophy, and the one that is currently the most vigorous. The original AT&T codebase was strangled by the lawyers who so wanted to protect what they saw was theirs that they starved it of the oxygen of new ideas and code.
Offtopic (Score:2)
UNIX Trademark??? (Score:5, Funny)
I here I was thinking SCO owned UNIX.
They told me they did!!
Re:UNIX Trademark??? (Score:4, Informative)
UNIX is the model (Score:5, Insightful)
I have long since taken the attitude that UNIX now stands as a model for an OS. Linux, openBSD, netBSD, Solaris and OSX are all implementations of that model. Each one has its differences and perculiarities, but they are all based on the UNIX model. The great thing about this is that once you understand the model, moving from between the different implementations is easy. And for every from of hardware there is a UNIX model OS. So you can UNIX anywhere.
One of the essential aspects of the UNIX model is 'openness', which promote clarity and understanding.
Re:UNIX is the model (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X in particular is explicitly advertised [apple.com] as offering "the power of UNIX" and being "The most widely-distributed UNIX-based operating system."
W
Developer laments: What Killed FreeBSD (Score:3, Interesting)
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It
Unix in spirit or name never both (Score:5, Interesting)
Most *nix systems are eather Unix in name or in spirit some are nither but it's impossable to be both.
The old AT&T 3B2 user manual would talk about the Unix community. How it evolved by people freely adding something to Unix.
This seams ironic considering the 3B2 was made under AT&Ts new Unix liccens instead of the original one.
The original liccens was more "free" (as in speach and beer).
After the break up AT&T was free to compete with other companys and changed over to a new restrictive liccens that gave AT&T control over Unix it never had before.
Unix grew up as a almost-free operating system and the Unix community was happy to help it grow.
But when Unix transformed into a commertal product from AT&T with a restrictive liccens this came to an end.
But BSD remained true to the spirit of Unix as did the never quite complete GNU system.
Today most people consider Gnu/Linux[1] to be the home of the free software world. The heart and soul of the old Unix lives here.
While SCO has the soulless body of Unix. Actually suing IBM simply becouse they added code to Linux.
I've always felt that it wasn't Unix if you didn't include a C compiler yet many Unix venders did just that. Offering the compiler sepretly.
The idea that being able to modify the operating system was important is lost on todays Unixes.
But it's not lost on BSD and Gnu/Linux[1].
[1] Normally I just call it Linux but for the function of the point the title Gnu/Linux just works better.
Yeah, but ... (Score:2)
(I know, I know, too easy. Mod me down.)
everything is a file is the best legacy (Score:2)
Not Unix? (Score:2)
The Unix tradition, from what I gathered, was making something that was solid and reliable, a foundation on which people could build things.
So both are similar ideas... one is an economic foundation, another is a technical foundation.
Linux and BSD make a lot of improvements, but after sifting through the Unix Hater's Handbook, I'm thinking they *still* make a lot of the old
Supporting unix ideals... (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong perception (Score:2, Insightful)
I never got, why especially the (vocal) BSD crowd is so proud of being a "real Unix(tm)".
Ever looked at the catastrophy a solaris or tru64 creates on your harddrive ?
No visible concept of where to put files at all - files are everwhere and linkorgies provide backwards compatibility and make a thought for a decent, modern filesystem-layout unessecary.
Sure, there seem to have been some guideline at sometime
Explained. (Score:5, Informative)
Applies to Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD/Darwin/Others as well as NetBSD.
A good and interesting read about UNIX history (Score:5, Informative)
"Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix- From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable " remembers how UNIX evolved from it's early days as a proprietary software owned by AT&T; branching over to the educational field as BSD (Berkeley System Distribution), and finally ending up as various flavors of SysV and BSD's both proprietary, and freely-redistributable.
The link: here! [oreilly.com]
it's up to the people who created it (Score:4, Interesting)
Research versions of UNIX were based on bits and pieces from BSD, but they involved removing a lot of functionality, so by looking at the documentation [bell-labs.com] as well as their follow-on, Plan 9 [bell-labs.com], you can get a pretty good idea of what they considered good and bad.
Based on conversations I have had with the Bell Labs folks over Plan 9, I suspect that they probably wouldn't want to take responsibility for the OS X kernel.
This is a contextual problem - don't forget that. (Score:5, Interesting)
GNU system? (Score:2)
So, maybe we should just call our systems GNU systems or for the folks running KDE who would object, refer to them as "open source environments." After all, running cygwin on windows gives me same look/feel, and I could call it an OSE. Notice the word environment implies it sits on top of
You should first learn how to spell it (Score:3, Funny)
"UNIX® is a registered trademark [unix-systems.org]" and should be spelled in all caps.
Thank you
As far as I'm concerned BSD=="real" UNIX (Score:3, Interesting)
Differentiate between 'spoken' and 'branded' --- (Score:5, Informative)
"From February 1995, computer systems have carried the UNIX brand if:
They guarantee to support the services specified in the Single UNIX Specification.
Customers can identify UNIX certified products by the Open Brand logo and the mandatory attribution declaring to which version of the specification the product complies:
UNIX 93 applies to UNIX system products which pre-date the Single UNIX Specification.
UNIX 95 applies to UNIX system products which conform to the Single UNIX Specification.
UNIX 98 applies to UNIX system products which conform to the Single UNIX Specification , Version 2.
The mark to be associated with the Single UNIX Specification, Version 3 is under development, see the platform pages for the latest information.
In licensing the UNIX brand a vendor warrants and represents that every certified product:
Conforms to the specification.
Meets The Open Group's test and certification requirements.
Will continue to conform to the specification.
Will be rectified within an agreed time should it be found to be non-conformant.
UNIX certification is widely recognized as the international symbol of assurance in open systems. By the end of 2001, the value of procurements of open systems referencing the brand had exceeded $25 billion. "
So, from a technical standpoint you can see that if it meets the standards (UNIX98, UNIX95, UNIX93, or a soon to be updated standard) LINUX, FREEBSD, or any other OS can be branded 'UNIX' legally.
However, in spoken discourse (and by spoken I mean not only verbal, but written words attributed to journal, informal, or fiction genres) I think it perfectly acceptable to say 'unix' when it would be more accurate to say 'Linux', or 'FreeBSD', as mentioned previously in the example of 'Kleenex' becoming a generic term for 'tissue'. The verbal lexicon will continue to change and reflect our understandings of the effective reality (Linux contains many of the standards contained in UNIX98 for example, and for all intents and purposes is indistenguishable from a branded UNIX to an end user)
Unix keepers of the flame should not find issue with this usage, since it really serves to pay homage to the roots of all Posix compliant operating systems - UNIX. Without the brainchild of AT&T Labs, we would not be here discussing this subject. Just as well, as the article cited at the head of this thread indicates, the tradition of brainstorming inovation across a free community will continue to drive changes which will find their way into the standard whether the UNIX purists like it or not. As Bruce Lee stressed: internalize what works - and the unix paradigm of open development works.
Is it an age thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's up with X? (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently, if you want your product name to become the generic name, then it has to end in "X".
Re:SCO (Score:2)
Re:Vasoline (Score:2, Funny)
Beep Beep Beep.. Like, dude think different!
Use the new I-KY Jelly!
Re:Over it (Score:2)
Re:Over it (Score:2, Informative)
2. The SCO lawsuit has nothing to do with the Unix trademark, it has to do with System V intellectual property. For what it's worth, IBM calls Linux, umm.....Linux.
Moderators on crack once again.....