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

[mike3]

On Oct 12, 10:13 am, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@acm.org> wrote:
> Quoth mike3 <mike4...@yahoo.com>:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:49 pm, John Hasler <j...@dhh.gt.org> 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.