From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: iking@killthewabbit.org (Ian King) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:06:39 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] UNIX turns forty In-Reply-To: <20090605144015.GA27542@mercury.ccil.org> References: <200906050348.n553mr9N017809@cuzuco.com> <20090605144015.GA27542@mercury.ccil.org> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2009, at 7:40 AM, John Cowan wrote: > Brian S Walden scripsit: > >> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do? >> command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9133570 > > Not a bad article, really, but I do get very tired of this rigid > separation of Linux and Unix. No, Linux doesn't have any AT&T code, > but there isn't all that much left in Solaris or *BSD either (other > than header files and such). And no, Linux distros aren't Unix- > branded > at present, but FWIU, that's because certification is neither fast nor > cheap, and applies only to a given release. Commercial Linuxes > have fast > release cycles, and Debian, whose release cycles are slow, can't > afford > certification. But in terms of actual, rather than formal, > compliance, > Linux is as much a Unix as any branded Unix. Not a very *good* article, either, IMHO. One gets the impression the author of the piece was given two or three pieces of data and instructed to write a historical drama around them. I also suspect he's never seen a PDP-7, either. Until about two years ago, one of these 'wimpy' machines was running a particle accelerator at the University of Oregon. It was unnecessary to slam the PDP-7 to make the point that Unix was created on a computer of modest resources. Unix bloat occurred for the same reason any other piece of software bloats up: users want to do less and get more. While it's true that some programmers and companies are better than others at adding features without adding heft, most find such exercise in economy unnecessary given the "throw another giga[byte | hertz] at it" culture that currently prevails. It's also amusing he introduces the NT kernel as some sort of 'perfect foil' to Unix, without even mentioning its VMS roots - as though it sprang fully formed from the aether. The reason NT was competitive is that Unix configuration and administration has never been a task for the meek. The goal of Windows was to reduce - or hide - complexity and lower the intellectual 'cost' of entry. It's not clear that newer versions have in fact accomplished that. :-) In other words, this read like any other popularized account - which would be expected, if it had been published in Ladies Home Journal. -- Ian