[Gllug] HP Compaq?

[Ian Northeast]

Gordon Joly wrote:
> 
> >
> >  > No, it isn't; for God's sake don't believe everything you read. That's
> >>  like saying NT is a UNIX because it has a POSIX compatibility
> >>  subsystem.
> >
> >It *is* a UNIX - simply because IBM have the necessary license for the
> >name and they market it as such. It's nothing like Unix underneath, but
> >then neither is AIX.
> 
> I find this very hard to believe.
> 
> Does NT have a kernel? Does it have /proc/?
> 
> Is there always a process "1"?



You snipped too much of my post. I was talking about zOS:

> David Damerell wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, 5 Sep 2001, Matthew Bunter wrote:
>> >OS/390 (now known as zOS) IS a Unix
>> >http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/zseries/zos/unix/facts.html
> 
>> No, it isn't; for God's sake don't believe everything you read. That's
>> like saying NT is a UNIX because it has a POSIX compatibility
>> subsystem.

>It *is* a UNIX - simply because IBM have the necessary license for the
>name and they market it as such. It's nothing like Unix underneath, but
>then neither is AIX.


The point I am making is that the qualification for being UNIX (I use
capitalisation carefully) is to have the appropriate license. From ATT,
Novell, SCO, X-Open - whoever currently owns it. It bears little
relationship to functionality or underlying architecture. Linux has a
very Unix like architecture, and the various OS BSD derivitives are
..er.. derived from the original BSD. But they cannot be called UNIX
because of the licensing issue.

I have nothing at all to say about NT. I can see now how my quoting
Matthew might have led to this impression. I should have said "zOS"
specifically. Apologies. I thought my mention of "IBM" would make it
clear which system I was talking about.

Regards, Ian

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug