On 2023-09-02, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 23:07:24 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> On 2023-09-01 14:50, candycane wrote:
>>> SC> Yes, at least on Linux.
>>>
>>> SC> The dd on other operating systems may use a different signal.
>>>
>>> Is dd on non unix systems?
>>
>> Yes. Linux for example. Linux is not Unix, but it certainly tries to
>> work the same.
>
> "Jumped uo UNIX wannabe"

In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?

Is it something that implements a set of user-visible APIs and certain
behaviour within its kernel (fork() semantics for example) ?

Is it something that came from a specific source code base and hence
nothing else can never be called Unix no matter how compatible that other
something is ?

If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?

If System V is a Unix, then why can't something else that also implements
the same APIs and kernel behaviour also be a Unix ?

Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
>In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?

Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix source code
license.

>Is it something that implements a set of user-visible APIs and certain
>behaviour within its kernel (fork() semantics for example) ?
>
>Is it something that came from a specific source code base and hence
>nothing else can never be called Unix no matter how compatible that other
>something is ?

As every piece of code in the code base used to say, Unix is a trademark
of AT&T Bell Labs.

>If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?

Now that's an interesting question. 4.2BSD is Unix, because it incorporates
code from AT&T v7. It comes with both an AT&T and a Berkeley license.

But the latest version of OpenBSD no longer has any AT&T code in it, so
strictly speaking it's not really Unix.

>If System V is a Unix, then why can't something else that also implements
>the same APIs and kernel behaviour also be a Unix ?
>
>Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
>really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?

I think that philosophically Linux started out with the Unix philosophy but
is rather quickly drifting away from it now. There's a lot of giant
monolithic stuff in Linux, from gnome2 to systemd, which is somewhat
contrary to the original Unix philosophy. Linux has succumbed to the urge
to put everything possible into the kernel and this is very non-Ritchie.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2023-09-04, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>>Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
>>really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?
>
> I think that philosophically Linux started out with the Unix philosophy but
> is rather quickly drifting away from it now. There's a lot of giant
> monolithic stuff in Linux, from gnome2 to systemd, which is somewhat
> contrary to the original Unix philosophy. Linux has succumbed to the urge
> to put everything possible into the kernel and this is very non-Ritchie.
> --scott

Gnome 2 has nothing to do with Unix as it's just a GUI (that could run
just as well on VMS if VMS had the required functionality).
Unfortunately, Gnome 2 worked way too well, so Gnome 3 was invented...

With regards to systemd, people were saying the Linux is not Unix
thing even back in the days of init scripts before systemd was even
a thing.

However, to develop that point, there are some systemd-free distributions.
Would they be considered to be Unix, and if not, why not ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

In article <ud4i5t$fo4$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com (Scott
Dorsey) wrote:

> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> >In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
> Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix
> source code license.

OK, let's call that a Unix(tm).

Linux, and BSD OSes that are not a Unix(tm), can fairly be described as
Unix-like operating systems, IMHO, because they have pretty good
source-level portability to and from Unix(tm) operating systems,

John

On 2023-09-04, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>>In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
> Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix source code
> license.
>

That's a seriously elitist point of view IMHO. It's saying that no
matter how good your modern Unix implementation is, then unless you
started that implementation by using some really ancient code, then
your implementation is not really a Unix, and can never be one.

IMHO, what really matters is the available functionality and behaviour
of your implementation, not whether you just happened to start your
implementation by using the Revered Source Code as defined by the High
Priests of Unix. :-)

>>If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?
>

On a re-read, that question is a bit too subtle, so let me expand on it.

The point I am trying to make is what defines a "Unix" varies over time
as new expected core functionality is added. If something ancient is
considered to be a Unix, then why isn't something that implements those
APIs (and a lot more) not also automatically considered to be Unix as well ?

If something implements all the required core functionality and behaviour,
then why isn't that a Unix in every way that matters in the real world ?

> Now that's an interesting question. 4.2BSD is Unix, because it incorporates
> code from AT&T v7. It comes with both an AT&T and a Berkeley license.
>
> But the latest version of OpenBSD no longer has any AT&T code in it, so
> strictly speaking it's not really Unix.
>

I didn't know that about OpenBSD, but in every way that matters, it most
certainly still is Unix IMHO and it's an excellent example of the point
I am making above.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2023-09-04 14:15, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-09-02, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 23:07:24 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-09-01 14:50, candycane wrote:
>>>> SC> Yes, at least on Linux.
>>>>
>>>> SC> The dd on other operating systems may use a different signal.
>>>>
>>>> Is dd on non unix systems?
>>>
>>> Yes. Linux for example. Linux is not Unix, but it certainly tries to
>>> work the same.
>>
>> "Jumped uo UNIX wannabe"
>
> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?

Technically, it's a fairly simple question to answer. And I thought
everybody knew this. To quote Wikipedia:

"In the early 1990s, AT&T sold its rights in Unix to Novell, which then
sold the UNIX trademark to The Open Group, an industry consortium
founded in 1996. The Open Group allows the use of the mark for certified
operating systems that comply with the Single UNIX Specification (SUS)."

So Linux might be a Unix today. I haven't followed who complies with
what, and are allowed to be called what. It's in a sense ridiculous.
But so is life in general.

> Is it something that implements a set of user-visible APIs and certain
> behaviour within its kernel (fork() semantics for example) ?

Sortof, yes. It's about complying with SUS. But also getting the
certification about it.

> Is it something that came from a specific source code base and hence
> nothing else can never be called Unix no matter how compatible that other
> something is ?

That used to be the case in the past, but no longer so.

> If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?

At one point (as others mentioned) BSD was a set a patches on Unix. So
you had to have Unix in order to get to BSD. They were only eventually
split up with BSD 4.4.

At which point BSD wasn't actually Unix anymore, but Unix-like. Or, as
some like(d) to write: Un*x.

> If System V is a Unix, then why can't something else that also implements
> the same APIs and kernel behaviour also be a Unix ?

It requires more than API and kernel. But yes, at some point, you will
be compliant with SUS, and then you are Unix.
But it also needs to be certified by the Open Group. So just because you
say you are SUS compliant don't mean you can say you are a Unix.

> Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
> really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?

Neither, I'd say. Even though I think the Linux crowd is a bunch of mad
people who don't know how to develop good software, and I'll take BSD
any day of the week. But the numbers clearly favor Linux.
But the Unix label cares nothing about these points. See above...

Johnny

On 04/09/2023 22:22, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
> Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix source code
> license.
>
Strictly speaking it's something that has passed the Open Group
Certification: <https://www.opengroup.org/certifications/unix>

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On 9/4/2023 8:34 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-09-04, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>
>>> Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
>>> really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?
>>
>> I think that philosophically Linux started out with the Unix philosophy but
>> is rather quickly drifting away from it now. There's a lot of giant
>> monolithic stuff in Linux, from gnome2 to systemd, which is somewhat
>> contrary to the original Unix philosophy. Linux has succumbed to the urge
>> to put everything possible into the kernel and this is very non-Ritchie.
>> --scott
>
> Gnome 2 has nothing to do with Unix as it's just a GUI (that could run
> just as well on VMS if VMS had the required functionality).
> Unfortunately, Gnome 2 worked way too well, so Gnome 3 was invented...

I believe he is talking philosophy. The Unix paradigm is many small
tools combined to accomplish a task, for example:
cat paper.txt | eqn | pic | troff | lpr linotype.dev

Another simpler example is the use of "find" and "cpio".

The example frequently given was:
find . -depth -print | cpio -padm /mydir

I believe this can now be done with a single command where "find"
invokes "cpio" internally.

Further proof of the rise in single utility complexity over the
software tools approach can be seen by simply comparing the man
pages for "find". On Ultrix-11 (V7 Unix) it is 132 lines. On
Linux today, 1313 lines.

>
> With regards to systemd, people were saying the Linux is not Unix
> thing even back in the days of init scripts before systemd was even
> a thing.

Actually. Linus went to a lot of trouble getting AT&T to verify that
what he wrote was not Unix.

>
> However, to develop that point, there are some systemd-free distributions.
> Would they be considered to be Unix, and if not, why not ?

Today, you have Unix and Unix-lookalike. Unix is a trademark
and only the trademark holder can determine what is and isn't
Unix. To be honest, I don't think anyone really cares anymore.

bill

On 9/4/23 12:15, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2023-09-02, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 23:07:24 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-09-01 14:50, candycane wrote:
>>>> SC> Yes, at least on Linux.
>>>>
>>>> SC> The dd on other operating systems may use a different signal.
>>>>
>>>> Is dd on non unix systems?
>>>
>>> Yes. Linux for example. Linux is not Unix, but it certainly tries to
>>> work the same.
>>
>> "Jumped uo UNIX wannabe"
>
> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
> Is it something that implements a set of user-visible APIs and certain
> behaviour within its kernel (fork() semantics for example) ?
>
> Is it something that came from a specific source code base and hence
> nothing else can never be called Unix no matter how compatible that other
> something is ?
>
> If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?
>
> If System V is a Unix, then why can't something else that also implements
> the same APIs and kernel behaviour also be a Unix ?
>
> Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
> really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?
>
> Simon.
>

To me, it's about design philosophy and implementation. Design
philosophy, where simple tools are combined to produce more
powerful tools. Layered design with properly defined interfaces
between the layers and powerful system library functions. Data
organisation at the byte stream level, with more advanced data
structures layered on top of that. All characteristics of unix
and unix like systems. Probably as lot more as well...

Chris

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2023-09-04, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>
>>>Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
>>>really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?
>>
>> I think that philosophically Linux started out with the Unix philosophy but
>> is rather quickly drifting away from it now. There's a lot of giant
>> monolithic stuff in Linux, from gnome2 to systemd, which is somewhat
>> contrary to the original Unix philosophy. Linux has succumbed to the urge
>> to put everything possible into the kernel and this is very non-Ritchie.
>
>Gnome 2 has nothing to do with Unix as it's just a GUI (that could run
>just as well on VMS if VMS had the required functionality).
>Unfortunately, Gnome 2 worked way too well, so Gnome 3 was invented...

Well, strictly speaking Linux is just a kernel and not the whole operating
system. Everything that makes it work, from the shell to the software tools
packages, are not really Linux. Most of them are GNU products. But people
think of the whole distribution together as "Linux" even though strictly
speaking it isn't.

>With regards to systemd, people were saying the Linux is not Unix
>thing even back in the days of init scripts before systemd was even
>a thing.

That's because it's not Unix. Unix is a trademark of Lucent now.

>However, to develop that point, there are some systemd-free distributions.
>Would they be considered to be Unix, and if not, why not ?

If they are licensed by Lucent who owns the trademark, then yes. If not,
then not. Lucent gets to decide. If Lucent wants to license that trademark
to VMS or to a washing machine, they can. Then they would be Unix. But
Lucent has not licensed it to any Linux distributor.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

John Dallman <jgd@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ud4i5t$fo4$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com (Scott
>Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>> >In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>>
>> Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix
>> source code license.
>
>OK, let's call that a Unix(tm).
>
>Linux, and BSD OSes that are not a Unix(tm), can fairly be described as
>Unix-like operating systems, IMHO, because they have pretty good
>source-level portability to and from Unix(tm) operating systems,

Yes. You could call them "Native Posix" operating systems too.

What is interesting is that even though you might have source-level
portability, the system behaviour between the Unixlike systems can be
quite different due to changes in scheduling algorithms, etc.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>On 2023-09-04, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>
>>>In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>>
>> Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix source code
>> license.
>
>That's a seriously elitist point of view IMHO. It's saying that no
>matter how good your modern Unix implementation is, then unless you
>started that implementation by using some really ancient code, then
>your implementation is not really a Unix, and can never be one.

You'll have to talk to the United States Patent and Trademark office about
that. While you're at it, you might complain about "Xerox" too.

If you want to start making cars and call them "Fords" I don't think that
Ford Motor Company will let you get away with it, and I don't think Lucent
will let you get away with selling a product as "Unix" either.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mon, 2023-09-04 at 13:17 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > But the latest version of OpenBSD no longer has any AT&T code in
> > it, so strictly speaking it's not really Unix.
> >
>
> I didn't know that about OpenBSD, but in every way that matters, it
> most certainly still is Unix IMHO and it's an excellent example of
> the point I am making above.

Can we agree to call time on this Unix thread? I fear it is off-topic.
--
Tactical Nuclear Kittens

On 9/4/2023 8:15 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
> Is it something that implements a set of user-visible APIs and certain
> behaviour within its kernel (fork() semantics for example) ?
>
> Is it something that came from a specific source code base and hence
> nothing else can never be called Unix no matter how compatible that other
> something is ?
>
> If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?
>
> If System V is a Unix, then why can't something else that also implements
> the same APIs and kernel behaviour also be a Unix ?
>
> Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
> really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?

It is possible to pick different criteria.

The historical criteria: if it is based on original
AT&T SysV or Berkeley BSD code then it is Unix.

The duck criteria: if the shell commands and programming
API's expected from Unix is there then it is Unix.

The legal criteria: if it has been certified as compliant
to Posix/SUS then it is Unix.

The majority criteria: if the majority of IT people
consider it Unix then it is Unix.

I don't think it makes much sense to discuss what criteria
is "best".

I believe applying them would give:

Commercial Unixes (AIX, Solaris, HP-UX etc.) : Y Y Y Y
*BSD (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD etc.) : Y Y N Y
Linux : N Y N Y
OS X/macOS : Y Y Y N
z/OS, OpenVMS, Windows : N N(native)/Y(addon) Y(long time ago) N

Arne

On 2023-09-04 12:15:22 +0000, Simon Clubley said:

> On 2023-09-02, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 23:07:24 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-09-01 14:50, candycane wrote:
>>>> SC> Yes, at least on Linux.
>>>>
>>>> SC> The dd on other operating systems may use a different signal.
>>>>
>>>> Is dd on non unix systems?
>>>
>>> Yes. Linux for example. Linux is not Unix, but it certainly tries to
>>> work the same.
>>
>> "Jumped uo UNIX wannabe"
>
> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
> Is it something that implements a set of user-visible APIs and certain
> behaviour within its kernel (fork() semantics for example) ?
>
> Is it something that came from a specific source code base and hence
> nothing else can never be called Unix no matter how compatible that other
> something is ?
>
> If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?
>
> If System V is a Unix, then why can't something else that also implements
> the same APIs and kernel behaviour also be a Unix ?
>
> Or is Linux really a Unix after all (in every way that matters) and what's
> really going on here is just some out-of-touch BSD Unix elitism ?
>
> Simon.

Here are the vendors and products that that have certified and that
accordingly have permission to use the UNIX® trademark:
https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

Product sales and marketing organizations can be interested in passing
qualification or certification tests and licensing trademarks, when the
buyers are including those tests or branding requirements in their RFQs.

OpenVMS was within range of passing the then-current compatibility
qualification testing an aeon or so ago with the DII COE work
(V7.2-6C1, V7.2-6C2), as that was effectively then a test for Sun
Solaris compatibility. Effectively, the US Government wanted to buy Sun
Solaris servers and software for some then-current COTS-related
projects, but couldn't legally specify Sun hardware and software in the
RFQ. The Single UNIX Specification and The Open Group were all getting
going around that same Y2K-ish timeframe.

Here is an actually-still-active HPE OpenVMS link on DII COE:
http://h41379.www4.hpe.com/solutions/government/coe/certification_programs.html

Unrelated, and entirely for what it is worth... While checking some
details and dates on DII COE availability here—we're further from Y2K
now than Y2K was from the VAX/VMS announcement back in 1977—I found a
nice little write-up on perceived (and measured) I/O performance issues
from a Y2K-era thread comparing OpenVMS with Linux. A similar
discussion is happening around here again over in another thread. The
following quote is from Y2K, and is by David Mathog:

"For a UNIT text file operation, going RAMDISK to RAMDISK on OpenVMS,
or file cache to file cache on Linux, on identical DS10s, the result is
that the Linux system is 2.5-6.5 times faster. This is for an operation
like "read text record from input, write text record to output" - pure
IO. It doesn't matter if you do this in 1 file or in 1000 you're
already starting out with the Unix systems "lighter" text file handling
mechanisms 3X faster than those on OpenVMS. And it goes downhill from
there, rapidly, because the lack of file effective file caching on
OpenVMS throws in another factor of 10 advantage to Linux. The only
time I can get similar performance from my VMS box is when the IO is
minimal (a CPU bound program) or the IO is done differently, via memory
mapping or some other mechanism to bypass RMS.)
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/metuuEsFXLY/m/9o3ODbwJAPQJ

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

In article <ud4ldd$1g3dd$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Now that's an interesting question. 4.2BSD is Unix, because it incorporates
>> code from AT&T v7. It comes with both an AT&T and a Berkeley license.
>>
>> But the latest version of OpenBSD no longer has any AT&T code in it, so
>> strictly speaking it's not really Unix.
>
>I didn't know that about OpenBSD, but in every way that matters, it most
>certainly still is Unix IMHO and it's an excellent example of the point
>I am making above.

Starting in the 1980s, the CSRG at UCB, start an effort, mostly
headed by Keith Bostic, to purge BSD of AT&T proprietary code
and produce an unencumbered BSD distribution: that is, the whole
OS, freely redistributable, as open source, without license from
AT&T.

The first iteration of this was the Net/1 release, which was
incomplete, and came after 4.3BSD-Reno and before 4.4BSD. Net/2
came shortly thereafter and was mostly complete, but found to
contain some encumbered AT&T code. 4.4BSD came next, and had
(essentially) three releases:

1. 4.4BSD-Encumbered, which contained a very small amount of
AT&T source in, I think, 7 source files? Something like
that... Anyway, it was a full, bootable distribution.
2. 4.4BSD-Lite, which was basically -Encumbered minus the AT&T
code and probably missing some cryptographic code as well.
In that era, there were still restrictions on exporting
cryptographic software out of the United States.
3. 4.4BSD-Lite2, which was the final official release, came a
few months or a year or something after -Lite, and contained
mostly bug fixes and ongoing work done at Berkeley.

Most of the "free" BSDs started with 386BSD, which was a port of
Net/2 to the 386 done by Bill and Lynne Jolitz (and documented
in a series of articles published in Dr Dobbs Journal, and later
collected into a book). This generated a lot of excitement, as
people could get "real" BSD on PC-class hardware, but the Jolitz
crew could be "challening" to work with and was slow in
producing bug fixes, etc. Groups started formating ersatz
distributions that brought together sets of patches, coalescing
into the NetBSD and FreeBSD projects (more or less started
concurrently, more or less at the same time). NetBSD came to be
distinguished by an emphasis on portability, while FreeBSD
started with a focus on, "turning PCs into workstations" and
then focusing on server applications on the x86 ("the power to
serve"). Eventually, OpenBSD forked off of NetBSD after Theo
de Raadt was ejected from that project for abusive behavior. A
few years later, FreeBSD got a little wild with the cheese whiz
in trying to implement a complex M:N threading model and Matt
Dillon forked off DragonFly BSD. Those are the four biggest BSD
distributions today; of those, FreeBSD has continued to focus on
server applications and is widely used (e.g., Netflix, Yahoo,
etc) while OpenBSD focuses on security and "correctness" and is
probably better known for its subprojects, in particular
OpenSSH.

Eventually, all of the BSDs effectively rebased themselves onto
4.4BSD-Lite2.

Linux is a totally separate codebase, developed independently
initially by Linus Torvalds, and then by a cast of many
thousands. Torvalds was working with Minix as a pedagogical
system, but found it unsatisfactory for workaday use, so wrote
his own imitation of Unix. It is now arguably the most
successful and important operating system in history.

- Dan C.

In article <ud4psi$bf5$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>If they are licensed by Lucent who owns the trademark, then yes. If not,
>then not. Lucent gets to decide. If Lucent wants to license that trademark
>to VMS or to a washing machine, they can. Then they would be Unix. But
>Lucent has not licensed it to any Linux distributor.

Lucent does not own the Unix trade mark; that's the Open Group.
AT&T/Lucent/Bell Labs hasn't had anything to do with Unix since
the 1990s.

- Dan C.

Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <ud4psi$bf5$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>If they are licensed by Lucent who owns the trademark, then yes. If not,
>>then not. Lucent gets to decide. If Lucent wants to license that trademark
>>to VMS or to a washing machine, they can. Then they would be Unix. But
>>Lucent has not licensed it to any Linux distributor.
>
>Lucent does not own the Unix trade mark; that's the Open Group.
>AT&T/Lucent/Bell Labs hasn't had anything to do with Unix since
>the 1990s.

Sorry, I had forgotten completely about the Open Group purchase. I still
see the old Bell Labs headers every day though!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 12:15:22 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:

> On 2023-09-02, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 23:07:24 +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-09-01 14:50, candycane wrote:
>>>> SC> Yes, at least on Linux.
>>>>
>>>> SC> The dd on other operating systems may use a different signal.
>>>>
>>>> Is dd on non unix systems?
>>>
>>> Yes. Linux for example. Linux is not Unix, but it certainly tries to
>>> work the same.
>>
>> "Jumped uo UNIX wannabe"
>
> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?

I was talking about the legal definition; those with an actual UNIX
licence.

You can also argue that some implementations using the Linux kernel ahave
now diverged a long way. I would argue that systemd does not conform to
the conventional UNIX model.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 14:04:00 +0100, John Dallman wrote:

> In article <ud4i5t$fo4$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com (Scott
> Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>> >In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>>
>> Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix source
>> code license.
>
> OK, let's call that a Unix(tm).
>
> Linux, and BSD OSes that are not a Unix(tm), can fairly be described as
> Unix-like operating systems, IMHO, because they have pretty good
> source-level portability to and from Unix(tm) operating systems,

That is pretty well my view.

In article <klmuo1F5o2aU2@mid.individual.net>,
Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2023 12:15:22 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2023-09-02, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>>> "Jumped uo UNIX wannabe"
>>
>> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
>I was talking about the legal definition; those with an actual UNIX
>licence.

That's not the real measure anymore either, though. Unix
licenses haven't really been a driving force in a long, long
time. As commercial Unix continues its slide from relevance,
the licensed code just doesn't matter.

The thing that matters now is SUS and POSIX conformance, as
measured by the Open Group, who own the Unix trademark and
certification program. To be properly called Unix, one needs
to meet the certification criteria; whether the source code
is licensed from one entity or another is irrelevant.

>You can also argue that some implementations using the Linux kernel ahave
>now diverged a long way.

One could make that argument about any of the traditional Unix
distributions from the commercial vendors. AIX didn't look very
much like 6th Edition, for example, the same with NeXTStep back
in the late 80s/early 90s, as well, even though that contained
licensed code from e.g. BSD.

>I would argue that systemd does not conform to
>the conventional UNIX model.

I would concur in that judgement, but I don't think it much
matters. Quite frankly, Linux has grown large and important
enough to not have to care. They are the descendents for all
intents and purposes, and the "No true Scotsman" arguments about
what is, or is not, Unix are not worth squabbling about for
them.

- Dan C.

In article <ud5erl$bkp$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>In article <ud4psi$bf5$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>If they are licensed by Lucent who owns the trademark, then yes. If not,
>>>then not. Lucent gets to decide. If Lucent wants to license that trademark
>>>to VMS or to a washing machine, they can. Then they would be Unix. But
>>>Lucent has not licensed it to any Linux distributor.
>>
>>Lucent does not own the Unix trade mark; that's the Open Group.
>>AT&T/Lucent/Bell Labs hasn't had anything to do with Unix since
>>the 1990s.
>
>Sorry, I had forgotten completely about the Open Group purchase. I still
>see the old Bell Labs headers every day though!

Open Group didn't purchase the trademark; I think perhaps you
mean Novell? Novell transfered the rights to the "Unix"
trademark to X/Open, which merged with OSF to form the Open
Group a couple of years later.

A relatively short explanation of the timeline is here:
https://unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html

- Dan C.

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 5:15:26 AM UTC-7, Simon Clubley wrote:

(snip)

> In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?

> Is it something that implements a set of user-visible APIs and certain
> behaviour within its kernel (fork() semantics for example) ?

There used to be a story about George Washington's axe.
(The one he cut down the cherry tree with.)

After many year, two new blades and three new handles, it is still GW's axe..

So, starting with BSD Unix, and one by one replacing Unix copyright code with
BSD replacements, is there some point that it isn't Unix anymore?

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 7:33:58 AM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wrote:

(snip)

> That's because it's not Unix. Unix is a trademark of Lucent now.

(snip)

> If they are licensed by Lucent who owns the trademark, then yes. If not,
> then not. Lucent gets to decide. If Lucent wants to license that trademark
> to VMS or to a washing machine, they can. Then they would be Unix. But
> Lucent has not licensed it to any Linux distributor.

Unless the trademark is genericized, being used so often for the non
official product, that it loses its status.

Companies try hard to stop it from happening, though.

> Well, strictly speaking Linux is just a kernel and not the whole operating
> system. Everything that makes it work, from the shell to the software tools
> packages, are not really Linux. Most of them are GNU products. But people
> think of the whole distribution together as "Linux" even though strictly
> speaking it isn't.

As much as I dislike these never-ending, off-topic threads, ...

It's certainly true that what many/most people call "Linux" would
more accurately be called "GNU/Linux".

And "GNU" is an acronym for what, exactly?