> [...] netBSD (like openBSD, freeBSD et al) is "not really UNIX".
> They are not.
> [...legalisms...]
This depends on what "really UNIX" is.
There are many plausible meanings for it, and I see no particular
reason to prefer yours over the far more common one, which is difficult
to define but amounts to, more or less, "anything philosophically and
APIly close to the V7 core". Eric Raymond wrote a piece about the
SCO-vs-IBM flap, which is mostly neither here nor there, but it does
have a worthwhile discussion of just what "Unix" means.
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html#id2791292 should take you
straight to it.
In his terms, you seem to want the word to mean some ill-defined cross
between a genetic Unix and a trademark Unix. However, that is not how
the word is normally used; in the usual sense of the term,
{Net,Open,Free}BSD are Unix, as are Linux and a large variety of
closed-source operating systems (some of which are genetic and/or
trademark Unices as well).
In any case, the whole debate is of little value. The remark which
started it all off was more a political statement than a practical
statement; while I both disagree with his political views on this
matter and defend his right to hold them, I see no real point in
discussing them further on-list. Thus, I'm shutting up unless someone
can actually come up with something new to say on the subject.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse_at_rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Received on Tue Feb 03 2004 - 17:19:56 GMT