🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <farrow.716074432@fido.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow) writes:

| >In article <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
| ...
| >The term "UNIX" has not fallen into common use in the sense than it refers
| >to any "UNIX-like" product. 
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| 
| The hell it hasn't! AT&T/USL are several years too late. I was using
| UN*X for over a year before I even heard of AT&T System V. At CU
| Boulder, we don't even have any SysV machines that I know of, yet we
| refer to all of our UN*X boxes as "UNIX". It has been at least several
| years since "UNIX" meant AT&T System V, and I bet nobody outside of AT&T
| and USL still mean that when they say "UNIX".  I say "UNIX" does indeed
| refer to any UNIX-like product. In fact, I would say "UNIX" is now
| understood to mean a general class of OS's to most people in the
| computing field.
---
Sorry, but I'll bet virtually all of the machines you are referring to
are running systems which *are* derived from AT&T/USL UNIX code and that
they pay license fees to AT&T/USL for the privilege.  UNIX is *not* just
System V; System V is just the current USL UNIX product.  Things like
BSD UNIX, HP-UX, SunOS, AIX, Au/X, Xenix, etc., are all licensed
versions of UNIX.  Not all of them paid the necessary additional fees to
actually use the trademark "UNIX" on their products, but I don't think
you would get a court to accept that the common use of "UNIX" to
describe such systems diluted the trademark.  There are a few UNIX-like
systems (like Coherent) which are not derived from "real" UNIX code, but
I don't think many people call them UNIX.

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:	uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,	 arpa:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550