On Oct 12, 10:13 am, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoth mike3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > On Oct 10, 5:49 pm, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
