When AT&T balkanized its Unix holdings in 1993, two different companies ended up walking away with pieces of the original Unix. Novell originally bought it all, then decided to keep the Unix source code and sell the Unix trademark — the name, in other words — and the Single Unix Specification standards to the X/Open Company. The Open Group, as it is now called, has since learned to use these assets profitably by offering qualification testing and certification for operating systems. If your OS meets certain requirements, passes the qualification tests, and you pay the fees, you get to call it Unix. Should GNU/Linux get certified?
Can GNU ever be Unix?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSAlert.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Well i dont think so considering what GNU stands for. It would be a bit silly to have a GNUs not Unix unix
/Fredrik
Is it
((Gnu) is (not (Unix)))
or
(((Gnu) is (Not)) Unix)
My last name is “Unix” , but my middle name is “Not” .
(with apologies to Norm Show)
those who care, don’t know.
those who know, don’t care. about this particular nominal issue.
is that a certification costs money, and in the GNU/Linux world it would last for a very short time as the development of is so fast.
I see the lack of Unix certification less and less of a problem as GNU/Linux is on its way to make it as a defacto industry standard for unixlike systems.
The name would have to be changed to GWNU: GWNU Was Not Unix! But seriously.. I’ve read about places that have made Linux their reference Unix implementation, sans certification and all. The Open Group must not be so happy. It’d be smart for them to just issue a “free” certification to Linux so to keep their name in there somewhere.
Perhaps yes, after all, there is no reason all of the GNU/Linux world has to become certified. Redhat or SuSE or some such could create a specific distribution with a tightly controlled set of packages that can then be certified as Unix while other distributions can remain what they are.
Perhaps what might be better, however, is if Linux had a certification of its own, and again, not all distributions would have to submit to it, but those that did would have a standard set of APIs that those in need of such could easily work with. The name Linux itself would, of course, remain part of the Free Software world, but the certification could be added as initials at the end. Novell LinuxCL, or Red Hat LinuxCL or some such.
Standards are not the enemy.
Novell did not sell the Unix trademark and specification. They actually transferred the Unix specification and trademark to X/Open Company now called The Open Group. For information visit their website http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html
Maybe when and if the SCO stuff is killed then it would be smart. (If these companies can make their investment back)
But if they do it now, it will look like SCO is right that Linux really is UNIX and they should get fees for it.
We’ll see.
Gnu – Gnu is Now UNIX.
And it would be the second OS to get UNIX certified that’s not a decendant of the AT&T/BSD code
Being that Linux and all programs running on linux are constantly updated, a Linux based system is a moving target. Would every single release version need to be certified? Would ancillary programs like window managers be included in the testing or just the kernel? Perhaps it may make marketing sense (haha) to get Linux 2.2.x certified since development has basically trickled to a halt. 2.4.x is still being developed albeit by much fewer developers.
There are 2 reasons to get ANY SORT of certification for a company: 1) Legal reasons, like U.L. listings for liability, 2) Marketing reasons, some people think a product is better developed if it has a microsoft certified driver, or that a company is better than the competition because it conforms to ISO9001.
But if they do it now, it will look like SCO is right that Linux really is UNIX and they should get fees for it.
UNIX (family) certification does not mean it contains Unix (brand) code; only that it behaves in the way UNIX (family) operating systems are expected to.
UNIX certification will not go one inch towards legitimizing SCO’s claims.
To begin with and just because I see that in many OSAlert readers it does matter, I am not an English native speaker so flamming on language issues go to /dev/null. But I ‘ll do my best…
Basically in the GNU/FSF spirit the real purpose is not just to oppose to proprietary software only but also to oppose to everything that tries to patent and standarize in bad ways (not in positive ways). In my eyes Open Group and Unix trademark (as all trademarks) are institutions and are irrelevant to free community software tools. API compliance is important but it can and should be a goal by the community (every community) just for interoperability and easy of use. Besides, what do we need computers if they aren’t just tools for the community. This is just a personal opinion of course.
P.S. I suppose it would be good for OSAlert reades interested in GNU/Linux to take a close look in “RevolutionOS” documentary and especially to the interviews of Richard Stallman.
P.S.2 Before you make assumptions I mostly hate Linux, I prefer BeOS and used OS/2, Windows, DOS and proprietary Unixes in the past and present.
I don’t think RMS would be happy with Gnu/linux becoming Unix certified. He started with the plan of creating a free unix, but his plans for the HURD kernel have gone way beyond that. So the GNU operating system, would definitivly not be UNIX. Whats the deal with the HURD Kernel anyways? Other Alternative Kernels/operating systems seem to be moving ahead at a much quicker pace. I would love to play around with it, but documentation/Support is so scarce.
In my opinion (little as it may weigh) Unix(tm) has attained mythical status in the eyes of both common computer users and the more geeky. Counted in IT-years, the days of monolithic Unix(tm) systems in dusty rooms are very, very long ago and the connotations of those systems seem equally archaic to us.
To even call GNU software Unix-like “feels” wrong. GNOME feels nothing like old-fashioned green terminals and teletype machines. Unix(tm) lives – after a fashion – but has become a legend in its own time. I would no more expect a younger Unix-variant to covet Unix certification than I would expect someone to name their kid Prometheus.
for you who want a certification for linux, THERE IS ONE!
That is called as Linux Standards Base.
Among others, certified distributions include for example Redhat, Suse, Mandrake.
Debian is not certified, but is compatable (there is free compability testing kit available)
http://www.linuxbase.org
AFAIK, GNU/Linux is already POSIX compliant, which is an open standard for Unix API and ABI. This is far more important than obtaining Unix branding, which is all that the Unix certification from the Open Group is all about.
Also, the Linux Standard Base is a good thing, and should be embraced and extended to ensure compatibility from distro to distro.
Finally, GNU/Linux is quickly becoming the de facto standard for Unix-like operating systems, and is quickly replacing old proprietary Unices. Everyone except SCO and Sun Microsystems realize this (Solaris is a fine OS, but is losing it’s relevency). Both IBM and HP fully realize this, even though they have their own proprietary Unices (AIX and HP-UX). They keep their Unix versions for the biggest of big iron on their own CPUs, then sell Linux on everything else. IBM also last year mentioned in a memo that old Unix will eventually be obsolete, being replaced by GNU/Linux.
LSB and POSIX compliance are where it’s at for GNU/Linux.
In short, GNU/Linux or BSD getting Unix branding/certification from the Open Group would be a complete waste of time and money.
Now, which name do YOU want to be associated with?
Mac OS X
>:-P
only territories can… unless you find a reference for it, but there’s none to my knowledge.
Linux is fresh, Linux is alive. UNIX is dead. (and BSD too)
Are you lost…? This isn’t /., BSD is very much alive.
Certification is a badge that companies wear to show that they belong to the same club. Free software developers don’t care about such marketing efforts, so they don’t need such corporate badges.
cheers,
dalibor topic
“Linux is fresh, Linux is alive. UNIX is dead. (and BSD too)”
What a loser. Long live BSD.
or you just do what MiNT did on the Atari,
original stood for MiNT is Not TOS, changed to MiNT is Now TOS when Atari bought it.
so you end up with GNU’s Now Unix