Is it correct to say that Unix is still alive?

R

RodrigoBSD

In my opinion there should be a distinction between Unix and Unix-based operating systems or Unix clones, it is true that Unix was quite influential but as an AT&T operating system, Bell Labs, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Douglas McIlroy , and Joe Ossanna no longer exists. Even so to say that Unix is still alive for me is a mistake, I personally prefer the term "Unix-based operating systems (or clones such as GNU / Linux) are the most used in such a market (whatever that market)" to refer to Unix as operating system.
 
I see Unix as meaning both that operating system, and as a category.

Much of FreeBSD or NetBSD was done on top of Unix. When AT&T took back or reclaimed rights to their OS, that the opensource community through Berkeley had to rewrite those proprietary parts, to use with their contributions to Unix as BSD.
 
Cthulhux I think you did not understand what I meant, what I said is that Unix as an operating system no longer exists, what exists today are Unix based operating systems or Unix cloes and those operating systems you mention are based operating systems in Unix and certificates but Unix an operating system from 1969 to this day is dead and is only a certificate.
 
sidetone Another reason to distinguish between Unix and operating systems that are based on Unix or are Unix clones is that today no Unix-Like probably has not a single line of code for the AT&T bone code even if they are based on Unix or They are clones of it are functionally similar but they are not the same and I consider that saying that Unix is still alive is a way of belittling all Unix-Like as if they were all Unix, as if there was nothing that will differentiate them from Unix and misrepresent them. things confusing a dead operating system with operating systems based on Unix or its clones, obviously everyone knows that every Unix-Like is not Unix but they say that Unix is still alive and it is not.
 
RodrigoBSD said:
Another reason to distinguish between Unix and operating systems that are based on Unix or are Unix clones is that today no Unix-Like probably has not a single line of code for the AT&T bone code even if they are based on Unix or They are clones of it are functionally similar but they are not the same and I consider that saying that Unix is still alive is a way of belittling all Unix-Like as if they were all Unix, as if there was nothing that will differentiate them from Unix and misrepresent them. things confusing a dead operating system with operating systems based on Unix or its clones, obviously everyone knows that every Unix-Like is not Unix but they say that Unix is still alive and it is not.
Click to expand...
People tend to focus on one aspect of an OS and ignore others. For me, in practice, Unix-Like is UNIX for my purposes. Even DOS is UNIX to me for the simple reason that I don't have to change my mind set and methodology when using that, compared to FreeBSD, Linux, MINIX, etc.

From a historical trade mark perspective, indeed UNIX is dead. Perhaps there's not even a scrap of original code, but from a practical every-day perspective I'm using UNIX regarding of what the historical development has been, because I'm using UNIX ideas. A historical understanding is important, but we must not mix up the purely academic with daily practice.

So, historically UNIX is dead. In every day use, it lives on!
 
Solaris is the closest you can get to a true UNIX. AT&T and Sun worked together to merge System V and SunOS which became Solaris. I would say Solaris 8 is more of a classic UNIX as Solaris 11 is more modern.

AFAIK, UNIX System V is dead. You can find UNIX System V emulator for Windows and its around 5MB on a floppy disk.
 
The real question is: How do you want to define Unix? There are many ways to do it. One way would be to ask Dennis and Ken whether a certain machine is Unix or not. Sadly, that's difficult: Dennis is no longer with us, and few people are able to reach Ken (he's alive, but leads quite a private life). By the way, I hear rumors from well-informed sources that Ken uses a Chromebook as his personal machine.

Here is a useful definition: Anything that passes a full POSIX conformance test must be Unix. That's because it has all the interfaces that allow compiling and running Unix-style C programs, and shell scripts. Similarly, one could use the SUS conformance tests (which are the ones that allow a system to call itself Unix). But be careful: While useful, this definition includes many things that by most other definitions would not be called Unix. For example, the old IBM mainframe operating system MVS (today brand-named z/OS by IBM) passes those conformance tests!

But you propose another test:

RodrigoBSD said:
Another reason to distinguish between Unix and operating systems that are based on Unix or are Unix clones is that today no Unix-Like probably has not a single line of code for the AT&T bone code ...
Click to expand...
Clearly, Linux contains no single line of the copyrighted AT&T code, nor do the *BSD versions since something Net/2 or thereabouts (or at least they should not, and if any were left behind, it would be a mistake). But I'm quite sure that AIX still contains AT&T source code, and HP-UX probably does too (in the case of HP-UX I'm not sure because I last had access to its source code ~20 years ago, while I've been able to see the AIX source code until recently). So by your definition those are Unixes. And AIX continues to be actively sold: Go to www.ibm.com, type in your credit card number (if you have a VERY high limit credit card), and a few days later you'll have an AIX machine at home.

The whole thing boils down to a pointless and sophomoric question. The same applies to humans: People replace nearly all their cells regularly. A little baby is born, and has an identity as a human (let's call it Adam). After 50 years, there are probably no cells from the original baby left in Adam's body, and probably no atoms or molecules either, all having been replaced. But it is still Adam.
 
RodrigoBSD said:
[..] They are clones of it are functionally similar but they are not the same and I consider that saying that Unix is still alive is a way of belittling all Unix-Like as if they were all Unix, [..]
Click to expand...
RodrigoBSD said:
[..] what I said is that Unix as an operating system no longer exists [..]
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. Fundamentally, UNIX was a research project that introduced and popularized interesting ideas around systems design. The design and ideas propagated through various implementations, including the one from AT&T, which reflect the UNIX philosophy. The clones are nothing more than implementation details that reflect the principles of a UNIX system, all of them being the result of UNIX research.
 
ralphbsz I prefer to call Unix a certification and Unix Like a family of Unix-like operating systems whether or not they are certified but never say that Unix, the 1969 operating system is still alive because of more children it has had.
PD:By the way I do not get to quote others because I am not very used to the page
 
drhowarddrfine said:
To add: Apple's OSX is UNIX.
Click to expand...

macOS is registered as certified UNIX since it is POSIX compliant and paid large fee but it's not pure UNIX. FreeBSD and many other open source UNIX variants can be registered as certified UNIX but they can't afford to pay the fee.

As I have said above that UNIX System V is primitive and you will notice there are huge differences to modern UNIX systems.
 
Strictly speaking, anything that is certified to pass SUS (the Single UNIX Specification), is allowed to call itself “UNIX”. Everything else is not.
Since the set of certified systems is not empty, the answer to the question “Is UNIX still alive?” is clearly “yes”.

As far as FreeBSD is concerned: It is not SUS-certified, so it may not officially be called “UNIX”, but it strives for POSIX compatibility, as does Linux. The difference is that FreeBSD was derived from classic BSD UNIX (even though not much of it is left in FreeBSD today), while Linux was not. For that reason, FreeBSD is sometimes referred to as a “Unix derivative”, and Linux as a “Unix clone”.

(Note that the above is a gross simplification of things. There are several books about BSD and UNIX history.)
 
olli@ said:
Strictly speaking, anything that is certified to pass SUS (the Single UNIX Specification), is allowed to call itself “UNIX”. Everything else is not.
Since the set of certified systems is not empty, the answer to the question “Is UNIX still alive?” is clearly “yes”.

As far as FreeBSD is concerned: It is not SUS-certified, so it may not officially be called “UNIX”, but it strives for POSIX compatibility, as does Linux. The difference is that FreeBSD was derived from classic BSD UNIX (even though not much of it is left in FreeBSD today), while Linux was not. For that reason, FreeBSD is sometimes referred to as a “Unix derivative”, and Linux as a “Unix clone”.

(Note that the above is a gross simplification of things. There are several books about BSD and UNIX history.)
Click to expand...

I don't consider FreeBSD, Solaris, Minix, Linux or macOS as a pure UNIX but a derivative based on AT&T UNIX System V. Many of the original codes in modern UNIX systems derived from System V no longer exist and System V is discontinued or dead. Therefore the original UNIX is dead but UNIX devriates or concepts lives on.

I don't consider Microsoft Windows a true window since the first window was on Xerox Alto in 1970's and it ceased to exist. Microsoft Windows and Apple Lisa came in early 1980's.

So here again... Do you consider macOS to be a true or pure UNIX even it was heavily modified from original UNIX code base?
 
olli@ said:
Strictly speaking, anything that is certified to pass SUS (the Single UNIX Specification), is allowed to call itself “UNIX”. Everything else is not.
Since the set of certified systems is not empty, the answer to the question “Is UNIX still alive?” is clearly “yes”.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Inspur K-UX (based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux) has obtained UNIX certification showing that it is even possible for non-UNIX-based operating systems to apply.

These days, since UNIX is a specification and not an actual technology; it will likely outlive Linux (and all current operating systems today).
 
drhowarddrfine said:
It is a true UNIX because the people who own that specification and test for such things, the openGroup, say it is.
Click to expand...

OpenGroup means nothing to me since they're 'for-profit' organization and UNIX certification isn't free and annual royalties isn't free either. I was surprised to see macOS, a direct descendant from BSD, made the list since its OS is very heavily modified and many codes are pulled from FreeBSD. Apple paid OpenGroup a lot of money to get its macOS certified as UNIX while FreeBSD was sued to have the name 'UNIX' removed from its documentations. OpenGroup is saying that macOS is more true UNIX than FreeBSD. How ironic is that?

OpenGroup holds no credibility whatsoever since they're biased and they only will cater to those who can afford to pay to have their OS called 'true' UNIX while their codes are mostly absent from original UNIX created by Dennis Ritchie.

The only true 'UNIX' is AT&T System V. Everything else are just derivatives or clones.
 
Remington said:
OpenGroup means nothing to me since they're 'for-profit' organization ...
Click to expand...
The original Unix was created by AT&T Bell Labs. AT&T is a for-profit organization. Some people consider it to be one of the most most evil ones ever in the US economic system, a monopoly that for a long time had no equal. I see it more nuanced.

The Unix certification process has one purpose: To determine whether an OS meets the interface standards to be interoperable with another set of OSes. I keep reminding people that this has nothing to do with the question whether the OS contains source code from the original Dennis&Ken prototype; as an example, IBM's z/OS has the Unix certification, and its heritage is as a mainframe OS (which predates Unix by about a decade or two).

I was surprised to see macOS, a direct descendant from BSD, made the list since its OS is very heavily modified and many codes are pulled from FreeBSD.
Click to expand...
Have you tried using a mac at the bare OS level, without the GUI, just with C code, a compiler, and the standard system calls and libraries? It is Unix, in the sense of that everything one expects to work on Unix will work there too.

Apple paid OpenGroup a lot of money to get its macOS certified as UNIX ...
Click to expand...
If you are trying to insinuate that Apple illegally bribed the OpenGroup to get the certification, that is not only complete nonsense, it is also libel and slander. Please stop making groundless accusations.

while FreeBSD was sued to have the name 'UNIX' removed from its documentations.
Click to expand...
Can you explain more about that? I must have forgotten about that lawsuit.

But as a reminder: Neither FreeBSD nor MacOS contain a single line of source from the original Bell Labs (a.k.a. Dennis&Ken) Unix.

... to have their OS called 'true' UNIX while their codes are mostly absent from original UNIX created by Dennis Ritchie.
Click to expand...
Well, if you want to define "Unix" as "contains code from Dennis", in that case AIX (and I presume HP-UX and perhaps a few others) are true Unix. But I think that definition is not particularly helpful.

The only true 'UNIX' is AT&T System V. Everything else are just derivatives or clones.
Click to expand...
Why not Version 7? Why not Plan 9? Why not 4.3 BSD? All of those contain code from Dennis and Ken (in the case of Plan 9, I don't know whether Dennis did coding himself, but Ken certainly did).
 
There seems to be 3 definitions of UNIX. One which is a current trademark, which is not the original Unix. The original Unix (trademark). And Unix derivatives/clones. I don't consider something that needs a boardroom to make a decision a part of the original Unix, because by definition, you could take a portable drill, and say, "THIS IS UNIX", because they paid to have a non-software object to be Unix. "Unix" in that sense is just a trademark, where there's nothing that excludes a mechanical clock being called Unix. Of course, they won't do that, because it will make it obvious to others, and it will hurt their reputation of what they're able to call Unix.

Because FreeBSD had a history of being developed with Unix, it is more of a Unix than anything else, except maybe what some described as Solaris. An open source project is likely to be excluded from a Unix trademark name, because they are not charging for use of their project to pay an organization for a trademark name. They could, if they saw use of it for reputation, but it looks like it would be a waste of money and effort. Then it would have to conform to their rules, which can change, which would be controlled by them, instead of being the best operating system it can be in its own style. FreeBSD has its own reputation, and doesn't need that anyway. FreeBSD is its own trademark. The name BSD means more than Unix, because there are true BSDs that are opensource, and aren't controlled by a board in that way. Technical standards or history make it BSD, while this doesn't apply to the name Unix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top