The Real UNIX? (was: The Unix Haters Handbook)
--PWfwoUCx3AFJRUBq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sunday, 4 June 2006 at 9:35:47 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Allen <slackwarewolf@comcast.net> writes:
>> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes:
>>> Allen <slackwarewolf@comcast.net> writes:
>>>> Technically FreeBSD has more right than SCO UNIX to be called UNIX
>>> No. Unlike FreeBSD, SCO UnixWare is a direct descendent of the
>>> original AT&T Unix.
>>
>> So is / was Free BSD. That's why AT&T sued.
>
> It's not quite that simple. Even at the time of the lawsuit, BSD had
> very little AT&T code in it, and the lawsuit was sparked primarily by
> BSDI's unauthorized use of the Unix trademark. Read this:
>
> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
There's a difference between technical and commercial rights. Allen
was referring to the technical issues.
How much code is in the source base is one issue, but I don't know if
I'd call it technical. During the attack on IBM, SCO accidentally
revealed that the base System V malloc is still the same as the
Seventh Edition malloc (something so horrible that BSD rewrote it
decades ago, and Linux people threw it out for ugliness without
knowing the origin).
But is that the technical aspect we mean? Throughout the 1980s System
V borrowed heavily from 4.[23]BSD. The Eighth Edition of Research
UNIX was derived from 4.1cBSD. From that perspective, I'd really be
inclined to think that BSD has more claim to be the real UNIX than
Missed'em V has.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
--PWfwoUCx3AFJRUBq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFEg6ctIubykFB6QiMRAsCYAJ9kz7nsvjWkwPq2r84SxWPC/osLOACePDso
nPH56y1G/sPqHYOn9g8zxWw=
=6l7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--PWfwoUCx3AFJRUBq--
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 3 篇)：