Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
The unity of Unix (ZDNet)
This ZDNet column tries to draw attention to the set of core ideas which characterize all Unix-derived systems. "People who categorize the Unix market as splintered or fractured are generally trying to compare it unfavorably to Microsoft's Windows. That's simply wrong: Windows is a brand, Unix a set of ideas. The Windows brand has been consistently handled, but there's essentially no continuity of ideas between the 3.0, 95, NT, and Longhorn Windows generations. The Unix hardware makers, in contrast, have tried hard to differentiate their products through branding when, in reality, all of their products have been part of the same family.
Oddly enough, therefore, both beliefs: that Microsoft has been consistent and that Unix hasn't, are consequences of marketing fictions."
(Log in to post comments)
The unity of Unix (ZDNet) Posted Jul 28, 2005 12:53 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " Oddly enough, therefore, both beliefs: that Microsoft has been consistent and that Unix hasn't, are consequences of marketing fictions."
This gentleman has been living in the land of OZ.
Land of OZ Posted Aug 1, 2005 4:04 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] The ZDNet site says Paul Murphy is a pseudonym and doesn't say wherehe's been living. It does mention he has worked in Canada though. ZDNet do have a separate site where they post stories from their writers in Oz, so I'd expect he's North American.
The unity of Unix (ZDNet) Posted Jul 28, 2005 17:06 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] ... [while] Solaris is leading the migration to next-generation Unix by implementing true network computing on the Plan9 model. Huh? Somebody in the know cares to comment?
The unity of Unix (ZDNet) Posted Jul 28, 2005 17:22 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] OK, now I looked over some of the other writings of this gentleman, in particular his comments on Linux and Minix in an email exchange with Groklaw's PJ. My working hypothesis is "completely clueless". Linux (even the very first versions) is so completely different from Minix that it is not funny. Sure, Linus might have peeked at some Minix stuff, but copying anything is out of the question (much less "basing Linux on Minix"). Sorry for the noise.
The unity of Unix (ZDNet) Posted Jul 28, 2005 18:56 UTC (Thu) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Never mind the guy that wrote Minix has stated on several occasions, Linux isnot a derivative.
Paul Murphy: not "completely clueless" Posted Jul 30, 2005 18:00 UTC (Sat) by hackerb9 (subscriber, #21928) [Link]
I have to disagree; Paul Murphy is not completely clueless. He does seem to have trouble making a clear and succinct point, but if you take the time to figure out what he's trying to say, he is actually quite well informed. (Albeit, his conclusions are not often correct). In my reading of the e-mail exchange with Groklaw's PJ, it seems that both PJ and Paul Murphy were actually trying to say the same thing, Linux was born from Minix, but not in a copyright infringing way. They should have been agreeing, but instead got caught up in a pointless semantics debate. Paul Murphy needs some lessons in communication, PJ needs to be less defensive about Linux. While I'm saying that Paul Murphy is not completely clueless, I should state for the record that I still think he needs a clue-by-four. He doesn't get the value of "Free as in Speech". Many of his writings portray GNU/Linux as just another flavor of Unix; so, why not go with one of the fancier, proprietary flavors instead of that pinko-hippy, politically-correct, GPL thing? --B
Paul Murphy: not "completely clueless" Posted Jul 31, 2005 18:00 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Sorry, from his quoted comment on SCOX vs IBM, I'm now sure he is clueless (about Linux in particular). Grabbing Debian (as he suggests) would help IBM not at all in "cleaning up" their Linux stuff. Going back to ancient versions wouldn't help, when SCOX is complaining that Linus copied the very first Linux from "their" code. It doesn't help either against the bizarre SCOX theory that everything that somehow looks like Unix is their property. Sure, he is right in that Unix is more a set of very powerful ideas than a particular code base. But than doesn't mean SCOX does own it, not even if they had really bought SysV's rights (and it has been argued that they are mostly in the public domain anyway, and what isn't is extremely thin spread among a whole lot of people). In my not so humble opinion, it would have been his duty to find out at least a bit about what he was to be talking about.
The unity of Unix (ZDNet) Posted Jul 28, 2005 20:45 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] Actually, looks like a nice article. Look at the main point: Unix is really a set of ideas (not a specific implementation), and once you grok that, then yes, from that perspective, Linux is a Unix. And Minux is a Unix.It's not a matter of copying implementations; the BSD case showed that if you write your own code, it's yours (copyright only covers fixed forms of expression, not ideas). This article doesn't claim that Linux is somehow "sullied" with SCO code, or anything like this. It simply argues that it's fairly easy to move from one Unix-like system to another, because the set of ideas is the same. And in my experience that's true.
|
|||||||||||