Novel transfered the Unix trade mark to the OpenGroup.
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html

No, Linux is not "close enough" to be UNIX. It's not Unix, either. The kernel is different and it's evolved entirely separately, at a source code level. The fact that Linux has a fair amount of BSD userland utilities, and some actual UNIX OSs have incorporated some GNU userland utilities does not make them the same thing. They do not have the same roots (unlike Country music vs. Bluegrass music).

BSD is evolved from the original UNIX source, so it's accurate to say that OS X is UNIX (well, built on top of UNIX, really) while Linux is not. You can say "UNIX-like", you can say "inspired by UNIX", but you cannot say that it is UNIX because it's something fundamentally different.

Put it this way: Windows and OS X are a lot alike. Finder vs. Explorer, Widgets vs. Gadgets, Aqua vs. Aero, etc... more than feature for feature, they're very alike in philosophy... the GUI is integral to the OS. You really cannot run either Vista or OS X without the GUI. You can open up a command shell in both, but that feature is hidden by default. They both have the "netstat" command, they both have the "ping" command. They both come with their own integrated browser that you cannot uninstall, same for media players... With all these similarities, shouldn't we just call it "close enough" and say that OS X is "a Windows"? Just because they copy each other extensively doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Linux is not Unix just like Open-Cola is not "the real thing".

Was it sunscreen (obsolete) or ipfilter (open source, now bundled with Solaris 10 and up) ?

You're absolutely right. You percieved my point exactly. My point was mainly to emphasize that the truth value of "Linux = Unix" can vary depending on your definition of Unix. Obviously I prefer not to use SCO's definition

Does SCO check every time a new user reads the Wikipedia article on Linux and thinks "Oh, so it's like Unix?"

Joel

I agree with you: everything you're saying is historically accurate. However...


Actually I would. I think they're so alike, and the user community that they serve (in general) is generally similar in goals and attitudes toward computing, despite a lot of Mac users thinking they're technically proficient because they're avoiding Micro$tink Windows. I like to think of them like Democrats and Republicans: they're all politicians.

I'm not calling a duck a fish; however, calling a goose or a swan a duck is, in some sense, accurate.

Q: "How do I read a help file on Linux?"

A: man <command>

Q: "How do I read a help file on Unix?"

A: man <command>

I would say that Linux is close enough, it's so Unix-like that I just shorten the "like" and say "It's a kind of Unix." Otherwise I just end up confusing people when I'm answering the question "What is Linux?" I get that question pretty often and if I'm to explain it effectively, it's best to give people a frame of reference. A lot of them are a lot older than me and they've heard of Unix or even used it from mainframes, etc.

I've just remembered to mention that I'm glad Linux is not UNIX (with all uppercase letter): Linux is cheaper.

I'd like to remind anyone who's emotionally invested in this discussion that I'm having fun here, and I hope you are too. My particular interest in this topic goes back to an old discussion with a friend in high school who had trouble understanding how an alligator is a kind of crocodile. That and that I work in a psychiatry lab...

Joel

I was talking about SunScreen.

That's a minority opinion. No one I know that has a Mac calls the OS "a Windows" and everyone I know realizes they're different. I know a fair amount of Mac users, and most of them actually do not consider themselves technically proficient, that's why they choose Macs!

As to the goals and attitudes towards computing, you could not be more wrong. Apple has an entirely different philosophy towards computing than MS does and a very different set of priorities. All I can say is, if you cannot accept that as fact, then there's really no point in having a discussion because we can't even agree on the basic facts and concepts.

One last chance: You might call OS X "a windowed environment", but saying that the UI is "windowed" is not the same as saying it's Windows(tm). One is a descriptive term, the other is a registered mark that refers to something very specific. It's the same with Linux vs. UNIX. UNIX is a registered mark and it refers to something very specific, i.e. the UNIX source code (and the derived operating systems). Linux is not derived from UNIX, although it uses many of the same concepts.

Actually one more example: Cars and Trucks are technically considered two different types of automobiles, but people often just use the word "car" in place of "automobile" and include trucks, SUVs, etc as "cars" and this is generally accepted. Those are all general terms. On the other hand, Ford is a registered mark for a brand of automobiles. No one refers to a random vehicle as a Ford unless it really is manufactured and/or marketed by Ford Motor Company. You could say a particular vehicle is "Ford-like", and in a way all modern automobiles are related to Fords because the mass popularization of vehicles was largely accomplished by Henry Ford, but only those produced by his company are actually called "Fords".

Hummers are not Fords, and Linux is not UNIX.

Fin.

and all really boils down to the acquisitions of steamy farts and flying kites stringed with probably iron casted keys ... ^_^


if you cant use unix then just use linux ... they are the same thing ...



.

Originally posted by AnzeT:
I thought you guys might like to take a look at the original question i.e. will there be a large difference in the commands between Unix and Linux? As interesting as this legal wrangle may be, I suggest that it is off topic!

I'm going to suggest I addressed that question with this link.
Since the OP did not name a particular brand of UNIX it left the door open to everyone's own understanding of "UNIX" including comparison of Linux and UNIX and the opinion they are or are not the exact same thing.
That is the reason my first post to this thread is a bunch of links the OP could pursue as much as he wanted.

I've made that point several times. The differences in commands are merely superficial, as is any singular definition that avoids the common computing paradigm in all Unix-like operating systems.

Perhaps I am wrong about Mac users' attitudes in general, however the Mac users I know have at best a superficial knowledge of computing yet consider themselves a cut above anyone using anything else (including Linux/Unix). I think that's pretty weird.

A car and a truck are different things if you need to use a definition that distinguishes between the two. If you're talking about moving furniture, they're different. On the other hand, if you want something that gets you from point A1c to point X11, then you only need something with wheels (and preferably a seat).

Like I said, if you're a lawyer, developer, system administrator, or you work for Sun Microsystems, IBM or HP, then they're very different.

Joel

probably i'm understand him more and maybe even more in that i'm an amature in linux too ...

if i'm asking the question to myself what if i for some reasons cant use unix(including solaris and bsd and probably minix and macosx if that matters) ??

will the answer be i will use linux because it is similar ?? ... just for the reason of it is similar to "unix" ??


.

That wasn't the analogy I was using. I specifically said that car vs. truck is accepted, but calling all cars Fords is not, which is the difference between Linux and UNIX.

As for firewalls on UNIX, the poster who provided a link to the UNIX Rosetta stone is probably the best response you'll get. Each UNIX has a very different packet filter since they were all added-on after the fact.

Back to the what is or is not Unix discussion, I have to revise my previous posting.

Unix is no more a lineage but now a set of specifications.
Technically an O/S without its root in the Original AT&T code like Linux or (Windows ) could claim to be Unix provided its compliance with these specs. However, Linux doesn't fully comply so it's still not Unix.

Here are the registered O/Ses http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

chort and jilliagre both make excellent points. I read an article that mentioned that "even Windows" could be considered Unix if it lived up to the standard. I agree with that. However, it would definitely be a different user experience on some levels.

I still think the difference comes in the superficialities of the user experience. If you're just checking your email, chatting with people, and using the internet as an information source, then they're pretty much the same. That's what I was using Unix for in the early 90s as a middle and high-school student. The administrators changed the server architecture several times, from VAX, to Sun with SunOS to Sun with Solaris and so on, and we never noticed. I used it well enough to fall in love with it; I was always disappointed that it was proprietary and expensive. When I found out there was a free "version of Unix" I jumped at the chance to use it.

Now I use Linux for a lot more than what I used Unix for and I do notice differences between, say, my computer and my colleagues' OS X computers. However, I can say "ls" on either of them and I get the same thing.

I definitely prefer what I get with Linux...

As my last gasp of resistance, let me say that if Linux and Unix are different enough for it to really matter, then I need to turn myself in to StataCorp because the manuals, the console when I'm running the software and everywhere else I look except the license says Unix and I know I'm running Linux. I must have a hacked version...or maybe it's all the same to them.

Thanks for the lively discussion.
Joel