On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 18:03:00 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 04/07/2023 17:54, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.
>>
>
>It is more like asking a "Motorised vehicle dealer" about your vehicle
>with wheels. The dealer might also sell tanks and other belted
>vehicles, but most of the trade is in things with wheels.
>
>Technically, Linux is not UNIX because it does not share a common
>ancestor in early UNIX code. But the functional commonality between
>Linux and "true" UNIX versions is huge - you'll find very little code
>that works on multiple UNIX systems that does not work equally well on
>Linux.

BSD was a rewrite of SysV which was the "real" unix yet BSD is still called
unix so its all semantics really. Plus a few linux distros have passed the
OpenGroup certification process and are technically Unix. I suspect the only
reason they don't all pass is because they don't want to cough up for an
increasingly meaningless moniker.

>It's possible that Linux has additional features that make the OP's task
>easier on Linux than on one or more of the real UNIX's, but there is
>still a much better chance of learning about that on c.u.p. than here in
>c.l.c++.

The closer you get to the kernel the more the various *nixes start to diverge
from each other. MacOS is considered unix but peel off the posix layer and its
a quite strange beast underneath.

On 7/4/23 09:56, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> On 7/3/23 15:32, R.Wieser wrote:
....
>>> To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going
>>> to be used in an Audi.
>>
>> Linux generally meets the requirements of the POSIX standard. What do
>> Audis and Fords have in common that is analogous to that relationship?
>
> There are dozens of standards that govern automobiles, starting with the
> SAE and/or Metric standards used for fasteners, and up through various
> standards that apply to the on-board software, CAN bus (being replaced
> by ethernet on newer vehicles) and processors (from RAS
> to security).

So, Audis and Fords are probably related to each other by the fact that
they both have internals that obey certain standards.

That isn't quite the relationship between UNIX and Linux. UNIX and Linux
are not two different things that both conform to the same standard.
UNIX is a standard, and most distros of Linux come close to fully
conforming to it. According to one of the other posters on this thread,
there are even distros that fully conform to it.

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> UNIX is a standard, and most distros of Linux come close to fully
> conforming to it. According to one of the other posters on this thread,
> there are even distros that fully conform to it.

Right. It is clear that my information was outdated.
The last I checked, no Linux distro had gone through
the UNIX certification process. But according to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix

"Notably, EulerOS and Inspur K-UX are Linux
distributions certified as UNIX 03 compliant."

I have no idea what "03" means but I am pretty
damn sure it does not stand for "2003".

br,
KK

kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> UNIX is a standard, and most distros of Linux come close to fully
>> conforming to it. According to one of the other posters on this thread,
>> there are even distros that fully conform to it.
>
> Right. It is clear that my information was outdated.
> The last I checked, no Linux distro had gone through
> the UNIX certification process. But according to:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
>
> "Notably, EulerOS and Inspur K-UX are Linux
> distributions certified as UNIX 03 compliant."
>
> I have no idea what "03" means but I am pretty
> damn sure it does not stand for "2003".

It's version 3 of the Single UNIX specification, released in 2002.
(Previous versions are referred to as UNIX 95 and UNIX 98, so it's
very likely that the "03" refers to the year 2003.)

https://unix.org/unix03.html

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> UNIX is a standard, and most distros of Linux come close to fully
>>> conforming to it. According to one of the other posters on this thread,
>>> there are even distros that fully conform to it.
>>
>> Right. It is clear that my information was outdated.
>> The last I checked, no Linux distro had gone through
>> the UNIX certification process. But according to:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
>>
>> "Notably, EulerOS and Inspur K-UX are Linux
>> distributions certified as UNIX 03 compliant."
>>
>> I have no idea what "03" means but I am pretty
>> damn sure it does not stand for "2003".
>
> It's version 3 of the Single UNIX specification, released in 2002.
> (Previous versions are referred to as UNIX 95 and UNIX 98, so it's
> very likely that the "03" refers to the year 2003.)
>
> https://unix.org/unix03.html

That's very surprising, at least for me. I never
thought it would refer to such an old specification.
I mean, come on, 2003, that was *20 years ago*!

While we are at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspur_K-UX

"Inspur K-UX 3.0 was also certified as a UNIX OS, although,
according to the same website, its certification expired
on 3 February 2019 and has not yet been renewed."

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EulerOS

"EulerOS 2.0, running on the Huawei KunLun Mission
Critical Server, was certified to conform to The
Open Group's UNIX 03 standard, however the certification
expired in September 2022."

I did not bother to check whether those distros
have renewed their UNIX certification. Wikipedia
can certainly contain outdated information.

Anyway, according to the same article EulerOS was
first released on September 24, 2021. It is
unbelievable that the UNIX 03 certification was
still worth acquiring just a few years ago.

How can a 20 year old specification still be
valid in a field that develops very rapidly?

br,
KK

On 04/07/2023 18:33, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Technically, Linux is not UNIX because it does
>> not share a common ancestor in early UNIX code.
>
> I have to disagree with that claim. There is no
> requirement to "share a common ancestor" at all
> in order to be a UNIX system.
>
> Linux could indeed become "a certified UNIX"
> by fulfilling certain technical requirements:
>
> https://www.opengroup.org/certifications/unix
>

I was under the impression that the classification "UNIX" was for OS's
that were derived from at least part of the original "UNIX" code - as
was the case for SunOS, AIX, and so on. I could be wrong - or it could
also have been changed. Ultimately, "UNIX" means what the owners of
that trademark decide it means, and the owners have changed over time.

> The Linux community never bothered to do that.

The history of the term "UNIX" has been filled with politics, legal
battles, economic fights - things that most of the Linux community would
prefer to stay clear of. In particular, there was that ugly business
with Microsoft paying SCO to fight with Novell about UNIX and source
code in Linux, as an underhand way to try to stop the success of Linux
challenging the monopoly of Windows. (Happily, MS has moved on a fair
bit since those days.) It's no wonder that the great majority of the
Linux community, and Linux distributors, have wanted nothing to do with
"official" UNIX.

>
> It probably would not help in any real sense
> and maybe they are not willing to put money
> into it. Linux works fine just the way it is,
> regardless of the "certified UNIX" status.
>

Exactly.

> As far as I remember, when Dennis Ritchie was
> asked whether Linux is a "real UNIX", he replied
> that for all sensible definitions, yes, it is.
> Or something like that.
>

Yes.

The reality, of course, is that such definitions are made by lawyers for
corporations with an aim for economic gain or power and control (for
future economic gain). They are not "sensible", from technical
viewpoints or from the viewpoint of being helpful to end-users.

There's nothing wrong with trying to have standards and improving
compatibility across systems. The challenge is who defines the
standards - volunteer or independent groups can easily run out of money
or energy, while company-controlled groups can be misused and biased.

> The following is from Wikipedia and from
> Dennis Ritchie's mouth:
>
> "I think the Linux phenomenon is quite delightful,
> because it draws so strongly on the basis that
> Unix provided. Linux seems to be among the healthiest
> of the direct Unix derivatives, though there are also
> the various BSD systems as well as the more official
> offerings from the workstation and mainframe
> manufacturers."
>
> "In the same interview, he states that he views both
> Unix and Linux as "the continuation of ideas that were
> started by Ken and me and many others, many years ago"
>
> In any case, all that is pretty much off-topic.

But interesting - at least for some of us.

> The OP is making a fool of himself. He should just
> shut up and go to comp.unix.programmer.
>

Yes. Regardless of any official meaning of "UNIX", Ritchie's definition
is the realistic and practical one. c.u.p. covers "unix-like" systems
as much as "true UNIX" systems.

kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> UNIX is a standard, and most distros of Linux come close to fully
>> conforming to it. According to one of the other posters on this thread,
>> there are even distros that fully conform to it.
>
>Right. It is clear that my information was outdated.
>The last I checked, no Linux distro had gone through
>the UNIX certification process. But according to:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
>
>"Notably, EulerOS and Inspur K-UX are Linux
>distributions certified as UNIX 03 compliant."
>
>I have no idea what "03" means but I am pretty
>damn sure it does not stand for "2003".

That's exactly what it stands for.

kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:
>Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> kalevi@kolttonen.fi (Kalevi Kolttonen) writes:

>How can a 20 year old specification still be
>valid in a field that develops very rapidly?

It's still being developed, and there are newer versions.

https://www.opengroup.org/austin/

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 04/07/2023 18:33, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> Technically, Linux is not UNIX because it does
>>> not share a common ancestor in early UNIX code.
>>
>> I have to disagree with that claim. There is no
>> requirement to "share a common ancestor" at all
>> in order to be a UNIX system.
>>
>> Linux could indeed become "a certified UNIX"
>> by fulfilling certain technical requirements:
>>
>> https://www.opengroup.org/certifications/unix
>>
>
>I was under the impression that the classification "UNIX" was for OS's
>that were derived from at least part of the original "UNIX" code - as
>was the case for SunOS, AIX, and so on. I could be wrong - or it could
>also have been changed. Ultimately, "UNIX" means what the owners of
>that trademark decide it means, and the owners have changed over time.

The trademark was transferred to X/Open (now the Open Group) two decades
ago to be applied after certification against the X/Open specifications
(subsequently merged with POSIX).

On 7/5/2023 12:50 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/07/2023 18:33, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> Technically, Linux is not UNIX because it does
>>> not share a common ancestor in early UNIX code.
>>
>> I have to disagree with that claim. There is no
>> requirement to "share a common ancestor" at all
>> in order to be a UNIX system.
>>
>> Linux could indeed become "a certified UNIX"
>> by fulfilling certain technical requirements:
>>
>>    https://www.opengroup.org/certifications/unix
>>
>
> I was under the impression that the classification "UNIX" was for OS's
> that were derived from at least part of the original "UNIX" code - as
> was the case for SunOS, AIX, and so on.  I could be wrong - or it could
> also have been changed.  Ultimately, "UNIX" means what the owners of
> that trademark decide it means, and the owners have changed over time.
>
>> The Linux community never bothered to do that.
>
> The history of the term "UNIX" has been filled with politics, legal
> battles, economic fights - things that most of the Linux community would
> prefer to stay clear of.  In particular, there was that ugly business
> with Microsoft paying SCO to fight with Novell about UNIX and source
> code in Linux, as an underhand way to try to stop the success of Linux
> challenging the monopoly of Windows.  (Happily, MS has moved on a fair
> bit since those days.)  It's no wonder that the great majority of the
> Linux community, and Linux distributors, have wanted nothing to do with
> "official" UNIX.
[...]

Fwiw, I think there was a big legal battle over RCU (Read Copy Update)
with IBM and SCO. I need to look it up again. IIrc, my friend Joe Seigh
had to testify.

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> The history of the term "UNIX" has been filled with politics, legal
> battles, economic fights - things that most of the Linux community would
> prefer to stay clear of. In particular, there was that ugly business
> with Microsoft paying SCO to fight with Novell about UNIX and source
> code in Linux, as an underhand way to try to stop the success of Linux
> challenging the monopoly of Windows. (Happily, MS has moved on a fair
> bit since those days.) It's no wonder that the great majority of the
> Linux community, and Linux distributors, have wanted nothing to do with
> "official" UNIX.

I am too lazy to look up the reference, but I remember clearly what
Linus Torvalds admitted years ago. He said that the Linux kernel
would not have happened if BSD for i386 had been available.

I cannot recall the details, but BSD for PCs was also in some kind
of legal trouble.

br,
KK

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>On 7/5/2023 12:50 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 04/07/2023 18:33, Kalevi Kolttonen wrote:
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> Technically, Linux is not UNIX because it does
>>>> not share a common ancestor in early UNIX code.
>>>
>>> I have to disagree with that claim. There is no
>>> requirement to "share a common ancestor" at all
>>> in order to be a UNIX system.
>>>
>>> Linux could indeed become "a certified UNIX"
>>> by fulfilling certain technical requirements:
>>>
>>>    https://www.opengroup.org/certifications/unix
>>>
>>
>> I was under the impression that the classification "UNIX" was for OS's
>> that were derived from at least part of the original "UNIX" code - as
>> was the case for SunOS, AIX, and so on.  I could be wrong - or it could
>> also have been changed.  Ultimately, "UNIX" means what the owners of
>> that trademark decide it means, and the owners have changed over time.
>>
>>> The Linux community never bothered to do that.
>>
>> The history of the term "UNIX" has been filled with politics, legal
>> battles, economic fights - things that most of the Linux community would
>> prefer to stay clear of.  In particular, there was that ugly business
>> with Microsoft paying SCO to fight with Novell about UNIX and source
>> code in Linux, as an underhand way to try to stop the success of Linux
>> challenging the monopoly of Windows.  (Happily, MS has moved on a fair
>> bit since those days.)  It's no wonder that the great majority of the
>> Linux community, and Linux distributors, have wanted nothing to do with
>> "official" UNIX.
>[...]
>
>Fwiw, I think there was a big legal battle over RCU (Read Copy Update)
>with IBM and SCO. I need to look it up again. IIrc, my friend Joe Seigh
>had to testify.
>

Everything you ever wanted to know about the SCO (Caldera) suit.

http://www.groklaw.net/

On 7/4/2023 8:54 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:32:27 +0200
> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>> Muttly,
>>
>>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>>> one complained.
>>
>> Thanks for that.
>>
>> Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
>> in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.
>>
>> To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going to be
>> used in an Audi.
>
> Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.
>

Audi *IS* VW. Or more precisely, VW owns Audi. That's why Audi
diesels were caught up in Dieselgate.

In article <u855hm$pm9t$1@redfloyd.dont-email.me>,
red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
>On 7/4/2023 8:54 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:32:27 +0200
>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Muttly,
>>>
>>>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>>>> one complained.
>>>
>>> Thanks for that.
>>>
>>> Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of
>>> something in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.
>>>
>>> To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going
>>> to be used in an Audi.
>>
>> Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.
>>
>
>Audi *IS* VW. Or more precisely, VW owns Audi. That's why Audi
>diesels were caught up in Dieselgate.
>

Now we really have gotten to the meat of this discussion, haven't we?

I need hardly point out the insanity (a nice way of saying "hypocrisy") of
the same people who were bashing OP up and down and every way for being
off-topic (*), degenerating the thread into yet another dumb collection of
old geezers arguing about old Unix systems they once used.

At least now we're talking about cars. That's an improvement.

(*) I'm well aware of the (BS) counter-argument here. No need to
regurgitate it. Thank you.

--
"He is exactly as they taught in KGB school: an egoist, a liar, but talented - he
knows the mind of the wrestling-loving, under-educated, authoritarian-admiring
white male populous."
- Malcolm Nance, p59. -

On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 18:31:34 -0700
red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote:
>On 7/4/2023 8:54 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:32:27 +0200
>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Muttly,
>>>
>>>> I've posted linux specific questions on that group and no
>>>> one complained.
>>>
>>> Thanks for that.
>>>
>>> Though mine is not a programing question, but /an availability/ of something
>
>>> in Linux. There, AFAICT, the the distinction matters.
>>>
>>> To me it feels like asking a Fort dealer about something thats going to be
>>> used in an Audi.
>>
>> Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.
>>
>
>Audi *IS* VW. Or more precisely, VW owns Audi. That's why Audi
>diesels were caught up in Dieselgate.

Duh! That was the point!

In article <u85vhh$sjdv$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
....
>>> Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.
>>>
>>
>>Audi *IS* VW. Or more precisely, VW owns Audi. That's why Audi
>>diesels were caught up in Dieselgate.
>
>Duh! That was the point!
>

The implication being that Linux is a subset of Unix, in the same sense as
Audi is (now) a subset of VW,

It's be like asking Amazon for help with IMDB.

--
Reading any post by Fred Hodgin, you're always faced with the choice of:
lunatic, moron, or troll.

I always try to be generous and give benefit of the doubt, by assuming troll.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:27:45 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <u85vhh$sjdv$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>....
>>>> Its more like asking a VW or Skoda dealer about your Audi.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Audi *IS* VW. Or more precisely, VW owns Audi. That's why Audi
>>>diesels were caught up in Dieselgate.
>>
>>Duh! That was the point!
>>
>
>The implication being that Linux is a subset of Unix, in the same sense as
>Audi is (now) a subset of VW,

No, in the sense that Audi, VW and Skoda cars are pretty much the same.

>It's be like asking Amazon for help with IMDB.

If you don't understand unix don't comment on it. From a systems devs POV
linux and unix are 99% interchangable. Yes the kernels differ but then the
solaris kernel is a very different to AIX which is different to HP-UX.

In article <u86nee$vnt1$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> for some unknown reason wrote:
....
>If you don't understand unix don't comment on it. From a systems devs POV
>linux and unix are 99% interchangable. Yes the kernels differ but then the
>solaris kernel is a very different to AIX which is different to HP-UX.

This (preceding) paragraph is totally insane and was totally unnecessary.

--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain
in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL:
http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Seriously

On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 16:53:13 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <u86nee$vnt1$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> for some
>unknown reason wrote:
>....
>>If you don't understand unix don't comment on it. From a systems devs POV
>>linux and unix are 99% interchangable. Yes the kernels differ but then the
>>solaris kernel is a very different to AIX which is different to HP-UX.
>
>This (preceding) paragraph is totally insane and was totally unnecessary.

So far all of your posts fit that criteria.