andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) (04/17/88)
[]
'Unfortunately, "POSIX-like" may connote "we've lifted some
ideas from POSIX, but we have no committment to make it
particularly look like POSIX" rather than "we'll try our best
to make it look like POSIX"; I believe the latter is what was
intended. (The same problem exists with "UNIX-like", a term
that is much overused, especially when used to refer to systems
derived from AT&T code....)'
The term "UNIX-like" is overused by AT&T edict. Vendors are forbidden
by the license agreement from calling their products "UNIX" or
"UNIX-based," even if it's a vanilla UNIX port. "UNIX-like" is
acceptable.
This situation is beginning to change; a new program will allow vendors
to call their products "UNIX(tm)" if they meet certain stringent
conditions.
-=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA]guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (04/17/88)
> The term "UNIX-like" is overused by AT&T edict. Vendors are forbidden > by the license agreement from calling their products "UNIX" or > "UNIX-based," even if it's a vanilla UNIX port. "UNIX-like" is > acceptable. "UNIX-like" can legitimately be used to refer to a system that is in no way compatible with UNIX. "UNIX-compatible" can't (it can be so used by dishonest vendors, but honest ones shouldn't use it in that case). Someone could have a "UNIX-like" system that had neither "open()", "read()", "write()", nor "close()" calls, if they had calls that were like those calls, but such a system couldn't be considered "UNIX-compatible" by any rational person. Unless AT&T also forbids the use of "UNIX-compatible", the latter would be preferable. (Also, are you certain that they forbid all such use of UNIX? At one point, Xenix - a system for which the term "UNIX-like" is ridiculous, as it is derived from AT&T code - was being advertised as "a microcomputer derivative of the UNIX system" or some legalese variant of that. Did AT&T tell Microsoft to stop this?) Also, "UNIX-like" is abused by people other than vendors; I suspect most of them don't give a fig about AT&T's position on the matter (how many columnists do *you* know who daintily refer to "the UNIX system" rather than just "UNIX"? There may be some who do, but there are many who don't.).
rk9005@cca.ucsf.edu (Roland McGrath) (04/18/88)
Of course, any sane person with any aesthetic sense would say "Unixish" and AT&T can go to hell. -- Roland McGrath ARPA: roland@rtsg.lbl.gov roland@lbl-rtsg.arpa UUCP: ...!ucbvax!lbl-rtsg.arpa!roland