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

[mike3]

On Oct 16, 8:09 pm, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@acm.org> wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com> would 
> write:
>
> > On Oct 14, 8:06 pm, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@acm.org> wrote:
> >> Sockets is a fine architecture. Learn it. Use it. Live free and prosper.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Hmm. Could this mean then that perhaps it is _better_ that the Free
> > systems are not "real Unix" in the sense of 100% compliance with the
> > SUS? Then what is all this stuff about "Real Unix = power", anyway?
>
> Those that were selling licenses to "Real UNIX(tm)" presumably wanted
> to have something to point out as a "marketing strategy," some
> putative advantage to buying their products over others that lack
> something that they *are* selling...
>

In case you've been wondering, this is why I was asking about the
possibility of a libre Unix system. Take a read of this post I dug up:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/660c718655732123?dmode=source

"> Since it hasn't passed the conformance test, it's true that the
Linux
> vendors can't legally call their products Unix.  But trademark law has
> no bearing on what the rest of us say in informal communications.  We
> can say it's Unix, we can say it's Coca Cola, we can say whatever we
> want.  For practical purposes, it's as good as any "certified" Unix.

For _some_ practical purposes, maybe.  But I don't think I'm the only
one that would have problems if I wrote something in terms of a
standard
and then tried to run it on something that didn't quite comply with
that standard."

The point above is one I'm really most interested in. Could it
be a good idea to have a fully SUS-compliant operating system?

Here's another quote:

"> And if laypeople use Unix in a generic sense enough, perhaps it
will
> become the generic term that it should have been (as happened with
> trademarks like Aspirin).

Oh, don't give me that advocacy crap.  ISTR that TOG was considering
waiving the license fee for Linux if it could meet the compliance
test,
but it still hasn't happened.  Maybe the Linux groupies have too big
egos?

(FWIW, I saw something that tried to enumerate the discrepancies
between
LSB and POSIX, since LSB has some sort of standards sponsorship too.
One more fewkin' newbie coming along after all the big ($$) guys
finally got
together on POSIX and SUS.  Now we gotta reconcile it all over again,
and
the newbies prolly think we ought to change to meet _them_.  "crock"
is
about the least rude way I'd describe that!)"