On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Thus spake Andrew Martin
> > > up just with a comment like "Linux != Unix"...which, it isn't, its a
> > > Unix-like clone...but they can't seem to figure the distinction *rofl*
> > Agreed... :-) But BSD isn't Unix either - not officially. [Waits for
> > Marc to disagree, again...]
> Of course it is. It has direct lineage back the Bell Labs. There is
> no AT&T code left in but you can most definitely say "BSD Unix" where
> you can't say "Linux Unix." For many years Berkeley was the main
> development hotbed for Unix. In fact, BSD was eventually fed back
> into SVR4.
What he said *scrambles to save this for next time*
> > Not to mention the fact that at least one release of Linux did go through
> > full Posix certification and is thus allowed to be called Unix :-)
> Posix != Unix. NT is a Posix system. So is OpenVMS.
> BTW, which version of Linux was Posix certified and who paid for it?
Ummmm, I don't know the version, but I do know that this was the
case...whether they stayed Posix certified or not is another story, but I
do remember this...
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas SARZ||Date: 1998-03-03 13:41:32|
|Subject: text should be a blob field|
|Previous:||From: Michael Meskes||Date: 1998-03-03 13:31:01|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] patches now that 6.3 has been released|