[Info-vax] What is a "real" Unix ?

[Simon Clubley]

On 2023-09-04, Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> wrote:
> Simon Clubley  <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>
>>In that case, what is a "real" Unix ?
>
> Strictly speaking, it's anything licensed under the AT&T Unix source code
> license.
>

That's a seriously elitist point of view IMHO. It's saying that no
matter how good your modern Unix implementation is, then unless you
started that implementation by using some really ancient code, then
your implementation is not really a Unix, and can never be one.

IMHO, what really matters is the available functionality and behaviour
of your implementation, not whether you just happened to start your
implementation by using the Revered Source Code as defined by the High
Priests of Unix. :-)

>>If BSD is a Unix, then is System V also a Unix ?
>

On a re-read, that question is a bit too subtle, so let me expand on it.

The point I am trying to make is what defines a "Unix" varies over time
as new expected core functionality is added. If something ancient is
considered to be a Unix, then why isn't something that implements those
APIs (and a lot more) not also automatically considered to be Unix as well ?

If something implements all the required core functionality and behaviour,
then why isn't that a Unix in every way that matters in the real world ?

> Now that's an interesting question.  4.2BSD is Unix, because it incorporates
> code from AT&T v7.  It comes with both an AT&T and a Berkeley license.
>
> But the latest version of OpenBSD no longer has any AT&T code in it, so
> strictly speaking it's not really Unix.
>

I didn't know that about OpenBSD, but in every way that matters, it most
certainly still is Unix IMHO and it's an excellent example of the point
I am making above.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.