From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wes.parish@paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:11:04 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"? In-Reply-To: <20170313215157.GK27536@naleco.com> References: <20170312150410.GH27536@naleco.com> <20170313210650.umhrdqxzxtkvvczf@tesla.turnde.net> <20170313215157.GK27536@naleco.com> Message-ID: <1489450264.58c73518735ca@www.paradise.net.nz> That was the thing that tipped me off late in the nineties that Linux was succeeding - only the big vendors - and Microsoft - were ignoring Linux, everybody else had Linux-compatibility tick boxes. Particularly when FreeBSD incorporated one such item ... Then when IBM took Linux to the mainframe, it was pretty obvious that it wasn't solely a hobby OS any longer. Wesley Parish Quoting Josh Good : > My theory is that Red Hat sees more value in *not* passing the UNIX > certification tests. As if thus Red Hat was stating: "Linux is the > new standard, and Red Hat makes it happen. Anything else out there, > is just legacy." > > And truth be told, probably most (all?) of the "certified UNIX" systems > on the list have some "Linux compatibility" layer of some kind built > into them. So compatibility with whom is the compatibility that > matters? > > -- > Josh Good > > "I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor, Method for Guitar "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn