View Single Post
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#10
Originally Posted by dalonso View Post
No, you are wrong. Indeed, your quote of wikipedia says nothing about UNIX being a commercial version o Linux. It says "unix-like".

In fact, Linux means "Linux is not Unix".

UNIX is not really an operating system: It could better be understood as a set of tools which names, options and behaviours must be respected in order for an Operating System being called of Unix flavour.

Solaris is a Unix flavour, BSD is a Unix flavour, MacOS X is a Unix flavour, SCO is/was a Unix flavour.

Linux+GNU tools is not a Unix flavour, as it has never been certified as so. It's more of an "emulator" that tries to be compliant to Unix but without being Unix.
YOU are wrong and shouldn't correct people when you don't know what the F you're talking about.

1.) Linux DOES NOT mean "Linux is not Unix", the word Linux is derived from a combination of UNIX and it's inventors first name: Linus.

2.) UNIX absolutely is an Operating System in and of itself, the original UNIX Operating System was called exactly that, "UNIX". The fact that there are many variations doesn't nullify the existence of the original.

3.) MacOS X is as much a "Unix flavour" as Windows is, it is the latest version of an object oriented piece of crap operating system that was originally called NeXTSTEP. The only similarities it has to an actual Linux/UNIX distribution are the various pieces of code that Steve Jobs stole from FreeBSD.

4.) "Linux+GNU tools is not a Unix flavour, as it has never been certified as so. It's more of an "emulator" that tries to be compliant to Unix but without being Unix." Wow, I honestly think reading this just made me dumber, my brain is throwing a fit trying to add up the number of ways this statement is flat out idiotic. Keep your verbal diarrhea to yourself or go correct people on sesamestreet.com where you may actually have a chance of finding someone who knows less than you do.