Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!aps
From: aps@decvax.UUCP (Armando P. Stettner)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: When is UNIX UNIX
Message-ID: <119@decvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 14:03:34 EST
Article-I.D.: decvax.119
Posted: Fri Nov 16 14:03:34 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 04:40:17 EST
Lines: 37
This is a reposting as news got scrambled recently on decvax.
aps.
From its beginning, UNIX was in a constant state of change. I do not
feel that any single version or release typifies UNIX. I feel that
UNIX represents a philosophy of implementation and architecture more so
than its common services. However, I feel that there is a set of
characteristics which is required in order consider a thing a member of
the UNIX lineage: open, read, write, seek, close, fork, exec, getuid,
setuid, a real hierarchical file system, a shell, etc.
What other capabilities a "UNIX System" is given is not important to
the question of whether or not the system is UNIX. What maybe more
important is how a capability is implemented and how it is presented to
a user [process?]. Adding VMS type RMS capabilities (file access
methods) to UNIX is not necessarily a bad idea. Doing so will not
change whether or not it is UNIX. However, if the implementation means
that all files have an RMS file type and files can not be reproduced
*exactly* by simply copying their bytes because the system knows more
about their structure to begin with or if the implementation means that
the output of one program can not be piped into the input of another,
it probably isn't UNIX anymore.
While I'm on it, 4.2BSD isn't UNIX; neither is 4.1BSD, System V or
System III or Version 7 (although I think it is the "real standard").
Even the /usr/group "standard" is not UNIX. These are all UNIX. They
are all part of the evolution of UNIX. As I have said before, I
believe that UNIX is evolution. To nail down the idea UNIX to some
specific implementation is not good. UNIX is a direction or set of
directions. For me, it is a way of being. (How's that for
existentialism.) If I can get real-time capabilities or the ability to
share resources across several machines running UNIX, more power to me,
a user.
Armando P. Stettner
UNIX User.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxj.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!houxj!wapd
From: wapd@houxj.UUCP (Bill Dietrich)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX and real-time and when is UNIX UNIX
Message-ID: <428@houxj.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Nov-84 10:50:34 EST
Article-I.D.: houxj.428
Posted: Wed Nov 14 10:50:34 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Nov-84 03:18:59 EST
References: <115@decvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 35
I can't resist stating what I understand to be the
legally correct definition of "Unix". Although I
am an employee of ATT Bell Laboratories, this is
not an official statement and I may be wrong about
various details.
I think the official legal definition is that ATT's
implementation of Unix System V and the implementations
done by Motorola, National, Zilog and Intel under
agreement with ATT are the only items that can be
called "the Unix operating system".
Things like BSD 4.X which (I believe) are built from
ATT code originally and (I believe) require fees to
be paid to ATT (probably an agreement between Berkeley
and ATT) are properly called "Unix-based operating
systems".
Things like PC/IX and others which provide similar
or identical functionality but are not based on ATT
code at all are properly called "Unix look-alikes".
Also, I believe that ATTBL has trademarked "Unix"
(or registered it somehow) as an adjective only, so
that it is improper to say "Unix has pipes".
Correct form would be "the Unix operating system
has pipes".
Just thought I would try to state the "official"
position, to muddy the waters further.
Bill Dietrich
houxj!wapd
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX and real-time and when is UNIX UNIX
Message-ID: <4637@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 16:10:17 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4637
Posted: Thu Nov 15 16:10:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Nov-84 16:10:17 EST
References: <115@decvax.UUCP>, <428@houxj.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 12
> I think the official legal definition is that ATT's
> implementation of Unix System V and the implementations
> done by Motorola, National, Zilog and Intel under
> agreement with ATT are the only items that can be
> called "the Unix operating system".
Basically correct, except that you're forgetting a few earlier releases
of Unix from Bell, notably V6 and V7. And if you want to be fussy, the
official form of the word is "UNIX", not "Unix". Bletch.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry