evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar29.020148.24672@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: >A number of vendors >use licensed AT&T code but are not allowed by AT&T to refer to their product >in the marketplace as "Unix". First off, nobody I know in this market uses the word "Unix". Everyone selling the product uses the all-caps version, "UNIX". I had been, er, "reprimanded" for my use of "Unix" in official capacities (hi, Peter :-). As for use of the name: I believe licencees must pay extra to use "UNIX" as their trade-name for the product. I believe that Interactive (386/ix) and ESIX have chosen to invent their own names, even tho' their products are both close to the current AT&T release. Both certainly use the term UNIX liberally in their advertising (as well they should!). I recall when Everex was struggling to make a unique name for its UNIX product, before coming up with ESIX (I still have a number of floppies, manuals, and paraphenelia marked ENIX). Before the final name was chosen in May 1989, a number of others (ENIX, EOS, OSIX) had been considered, but all conflicted with something else. Despite what seemed at the time to be an agonizing name search I remember that the whole exercize was considered by Everex to be more worthwhile (for a number of reasons) than merely calling their product UNIX. Dell, UHC, and Microport have chosen to pay the money and use the name UNIX, I believe. So has SCO, even though its UNIX is probably further from the original AT&T code than any of the others. This will certainly be the case when 486/ix and ESIX R4 start shipping. By the way: Is Interactive still going to call its Release 4 product "486/ix"? Is this not the stupidest, most confusing naming scheme in the market right now? -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 "Never will I succumb to the effects of bandwagonism" -- Dream Warriors
johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.144722.1753@telly.on.ca> you write: >I believe that Interactive (386/ix) [has chosen to invent their own names ... >By the way: Is Interactive still going to call its Release 4 product >"486/ix"? As of their release 2.2, which is still based on Sys V.3.2, Interactive changed the name of their product to "INTERACTIVE UNIX" rather than 386/ix. They fortunately never released anything called 486/ix. Apparently until a year or so ago AT&T didn't license the unix name at all, then changed their minds so that many of the licensees changed their product names to include the name "unix." -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (04/03/91)
In <1991Apr1.144722.1753@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: >First off, nobody I know in this market uses the word "Unix". Everyone >selling the product uses the all-caps version, "UNIX". The key distinction is that UNIX is an adjective, while Unix is a noun. If you're talking about a *thing* you say Unix; if you're *describing* that thing you say UNIX. When you say "UNIX operating system" you are in effect saying "an operating system whose characteristics are described by the adjective UNIX". When you say "Berkeley Unix" you are in effect saying "A Unix whose characteristics are described by the noun Berkeley used as an adjective". It is grammatically wrong to say "Berkeley UNIX". It is marginally correct to say "Unix operating system" (because although Unix is a noun it is possible to use it as an adjective). The orthogonality is not complete and you don't usually say "UNIX Unix", because it sounds awkward, although it is grammatically correct. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould) (04/03/91)
>>First off, nobody I know in this market uses the word "Unix". Everyone >>selling the product uses the all-caps version, "UNIX". >The key distinction is that UNIX is an adjective, while Unix is a >noun. This is pure bunk. AT&T owns a registered trademark "unix." If they want to keep it, they are required to defend the use of their trademark - in particular to avoid it becoming a generic name for the product. (An example of a former trademark that has become generic is "thermos." The name of the company that owned the trademark escapes me, but Alladin is their chief competitor. Alladin now sells things called "thermos bottles.") Among the ways that AT&T does this are the following two. First, they require their licensees to use the word as an adjective. Second, they require it to be made typographically distinct. This secone requirement is the reason it's often written in all caps. In ASCII, how else does one make something typographically distinct? In practice, many people - including me - use "unix" as a noun. There's little that AT&T can do about this, as they don't have any particular influence over the public at large. However, they can - and do - keep their licensees in line. (An example: At one time, mt Xinu used the slogan "We know Unix backwards and forwards." AT&T sent them a letter, pointing out that this use of "Unix" as a noun violated their license on the trademark. Before eventually dropping that slogan, it was changed to the much less satisfying "We know the Unix trade mark backwards and forwards," simply for the purpose of complying with AT&T's restrictions.) The way the word is written, be it unix, Unix or UNIX, has absolutely nothing to do with its part of speech. Until very recently (recent versions of System V) *nobody* but AT&T was allowed to formally call their product "unix." Hence all the various names (Xenix, Ultrix, Dynix, HP/UX, AIX, SunOS, UniPlus+, ...). AT&T now licenses the use of the trademark as well as the code. I wonder where bizarre ideas like "Unix" is different from "UNIX" come from. Have the people who foster them ever talked to a lawyer about trademarks or read an AT&T license agreement? -- Ed Gould No longer formally affiliated with, ed@mtxinu.COM and certainly not speaking for, mt Xinu. "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."
lerman@stpstn.UUCP (Ken Lerman) (04/04/91)
In article <3028@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: |In <1991Apr1.144722.1753@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: | |>First off, nobody I know in this market uses the word "Unix". Everyone |>selling the product uses the all-caps version, "UNIX". | |The key distinction is that UNIX is an adjective, while Unix is a |noun. If you're talking about a *thing* you say Unix; if you're |*describing* that thing you say UNIX. When you say "UNIX operating |system" you are in effect saying "an operating system whose |characteristics are described by the adjective UNIX". When you say |"Berkeley Unix" you are in effect saying "A Unix whose characteristics |are described by the noun Berkeley used as an adjective". It is |grammatically wrong to say "Berkeley UNIX". It is marginally correct |to say "Unix operating system" (because although Unix is a noun it is |possible to use it as an adjective). | |The orthogonality is not complete and you don't usually say "UNIX |Unix", because it sounds awkward, although it is grammatically |correct. |-- |Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM> |UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi The reason for this is that legally, trademarks are adjectives. People don't eat Jello; they eat Jello brand skin and bones extract. And the trademark for the operating system is UNIX, not Unix. Ken
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (04/04/91)
In <1991Apr3.053653.592@mtxinu.COM> ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould) writes: >I wonder where bizarre ideas like "Unix" is different from "UNIX" >come from. Have the people who foster them ever talked to a lawyer >about trademarks or read an AT&T license agreement? Trademark lawyers and the AT&T license agreement do not define parts of speech. Common usage does. If enough people verb a noun, the dictionary writers must--however reluctantly--update their dictionaries accordingly. The term "Unix" in all its typographically different incarnations has, because of common usage, been a noun far longer than it has been a registered trade mark. Parts of speech are not defined by legalistic fiat. (In "Legalistic fiat", fiat is a noun, and in "Fiat automobile", Fiat is an adjective. Letting our brains wander, we also find that in "Fiat lux", Fiat is a verb while lux is a noun, but in "Lux soap" Lux is an adjective while soap is a noun; but in "Soap opera", Soap is an adjective. Etc.) In deference to AT&T's attempts to use only the capitalized term "UNIX" and insist (in deference in turn to trade mark law) that it is an adjective and not a noun, I simplify the whole complex picture by saying that "Unix" is a noun and "UNIX" is an adjective. This should keep most everybody happy. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@cirrus.COM> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
keithe@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (04/10/91)
In article <3034@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >...I simplify the whole complex picture by >saying that "Unix" is a noun and "UNIX" is an adjective. This should >keep most everybody happy. That's _fine_ as long as your sole form of communication is written. But how are you going to convey the differences among [Uu][Nn]Ii][Xx] in a verbal mode. I 'spos "UNIX" could be shouted and "unix" whispered. But how about the other, uh, 14 cases? (help *) KEITHE(), user of the UNIX brand operating system... :-)