Why is linux not unix?

[dmb]

I have been trying to research this in books, wikipedias and newsgroups. I can't seem to figure out why linux is not considered unix, and cannot be called unix. It seems like linux is fully posix complient. Why exactly does linux not pass the unix certification?

In some groups, people actually say linux is unix, and some say its its only kind of unix. Anyone willing to clear this up for people and me?

[Kimm]

Linux works just like UNIX does, the difference is that Linux has not bought a license, so Linux is not allowed to be called UNIX.

[Kronoz]

Linux is a variant of Unix in the same way Ubuntu is a variant of GNU/Linux.

[dmb]

How is it that freebsd/openbsd/netbsd are able to call themselve unix? I doubt they payed for a unix license.

[Kimm]

They did, or atleast BSD, I supose they can call themeselfes that since they are based off of eachother (and no: Linux is not based on UNIX, they have no code incommon)

[Almighty]

Actually the Free/openBSDs are concidered clones of Unix. I don't really know if people actually call them Unix systems.

[DoktorSeven]

Because GNU (as in GNU/Linux) ->Gnu's Not Unix ;)

[Kimm]

GNU can be used in FreeBSD/Solaris (and so on) too, but they are still UNIX, GNU is just a collection of tools, Linux is one of the Kernels avilable that uses GNU, but that doesnt effect if it is UNIX or not.

(GNU is Not UNIX, means that the utilities, that resemble UNIX utilities are as a mather of fact, not, they are GNU utilities)

[Qrk]

http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/flavors_of_unix.html#linux

This page is interesting. Scroll down to read about Windows.


Should the functionality meet the requirements of the UNIX brand then indeed it could become a registered UNIX system.

[stoeptegel]

I have been trying to research this in books, wikipedias and newsgroups. I can't seem to figure out why linux is not considered unix, and cannot be called unix. It seems like linux is fully posix complient. Why exactly does linux not pass the unix certification?

Because of the history. In the movie "revolution OS" Richard Stallman himself tells about this.
( /me mumbles something about a torrent on demonoid)

EDIT
Sorry, i misunderstood your question.

[Lunixfanboy]

To obtain UNIX certification, one must pay for and pass the Open Software Laboratories UNIX cert tests. You don't pay to pass the certs, you are NOT UNIX.

[dmb]

I'm sure with all the money going around linux now adays, that one company (be it redhat, ibm or whatever) should be able to pay for the certifications. Did anyone ever try to get it certified?

[Arktis]

:rolleyes:

Seriously, why would anyone ever want to go and do that?

[briancurtin]

yeah, why would it even matter to get certified?

[prizrak]

UNIX is an old OS developed by AT&T, it has since evolved into BSD. Linux is a POSIX compliant kernel for an OS that is known as GNU/Linux in some circles. It is completely compatible with UNIX but shares no code with it whatsoever it was a completely independent project by Mr. Linus Torvalds. According to his book he didn't even have POSIX specs in front of him when he was coding it. Therefore Linux is not UNIX :)

[tageiru]

I'm sure with all the money going around linux now adays, that one company (be it redhat, ibm or whatever) should be able to pay for the certifications. Did anyone ever try to get it certified?
Why would anyone waste money on that?

It would be quite weird since the GNU in GNU/Linux stands for GNU is Not Unix. :)

[prizrak]

Getting Linux certified as UNIX would be the most random and unnecessary thing ever. Anyone who would use UNIX knows that Linux is compatible and is alot like UNIX in many ways. It might not be certified de jure but it is de facto, so what would be the point?

[Caligula]

Linux is a variant of Unix in the same way Ubuntu is a variant of GNU/Linux.

No...

Linux doesn't have apiece of Unix in it, it just works in the same way..

[s|k]

You know Windows NT/2000/XP are POSIX compliant as well, nobody goes around calling them UNIX.

[Qrk]

You know Windows NT/2000/XP are POSIX compliant as well, nobody goes around calling them UNIX.

Looks like you could, though. From the Unix.org webpage:


Microsoft® Windows NT was developed as a completely new, state of the art, 32 bit operating system. As such, it has no connection with the UNIX system source code. However, market demand for POSIX.1 , POSIX.2 has led to developments by several companies of add-ons that provide partial functionality. Should the functionality meet the requirements of the UNIX brand then indeed it could become a registered UNIX system.

[htinn]

This reminds me of that Unix v Apple lawsuit.

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1015814.html

Unix itself is a trademark and you can get in a lot of legal trouble from improper use.

[s|k]

This reminds me of that Unix v Apple lawsuit.

http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1015814.html

Unix itself is a trademark and you can get in a lot of legal trouble from improper use.
Can one install KDE on a "unix based (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/)" Apple?

[dmb]

I think you can. YOu would have to install the xserver, and not uses the aqua interface though.

[IYY]

The Linux kernel does not try to copy Unix. It does the same things, but very often not in the same way. The BSD's are trying to be as close to Unix as possible. So, Linux is not Unix, as far as the kernel goes.

As for GNU/Linux, well that's not Unix either. It's a set of tools that act like the Unix tools, but often with more functionality. And GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix, so...

[jpkotta]

Unix is a philosophy of design, which is named after a trademarked operating system. In that sense, GNU/Linux is Unix.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

[s|k]

Unix is a philosophy of design, which is named after a trademarked operating system. In that sense, GNU/Linux is Unix.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
Heh.

Write programs that do one thing and do it well.
This philosophy works only so far. When you want to start bridging all these 'only child' programs with something like say for instance...a clipboard manager, HA. Good luck. Sometimes modularity sucks.

[3rdalbum]

BSD originally had actual UNIX (AT&T) code in it. After an attempted lawsuit and settlement, the proprietry code was replaced with open source code (which obviously would provide exactly the same functionality)

However, Linux never had UNIX code in it. That's probably why BSD is still known as a Unix and Linux isn't.

Also, I thought BSD was only compatible with Linux software through a binary compatibility layer?

[prizrak]

Linux (GNU/Linux) is a clone of UNIX but not based on it. This is probably the best and simplest way to look at it.

[helpme]

Linux?
Isn't that the kernel of th GNU operating system? :D