🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <80892@ut-emx.uucp>, ifbb657@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Douglas Floyd) writes:
|> Is the NeXT a true UNIX box, or is the UNIX part grafted on a non-
|> UNIX OS, like A/UX.  (I am not sure how A/UX is designed, so flame
|> away if the above statement is BS.)

It's probably BS.  Depends how you define Unix, is it just it's interfaces
or is it the original product produced by AT&T ?

One thing you can say is that Mach 3.0 isn't Unix but Mach 2.0 is BSD and thus
System 3 based, so the NeXT probably is a Unix box (AT&T would certainly think
so and get royalties from NeXT for every system sold).  However NeXT hasn't
signed up for all the 'Open Systems' stuff, so isn't SVID etc. compliant.

To answer your question, no it's not 'grafted on' to a none Unix like O.S.
you could argue that the Mach developments have modified the foundations
though.  When you get as far as Mach 3.0 (which NeXT isn't) the foundations
have changed so much that some of the original Unix semantics become hard to
support (like signal delivery).  However this is a different problem from
grafting a "unix" personality onto an alien OS.

David