[nycbug-talk] Article on Unix and open source

Pete Wright pete
Mon Aug 2 11:24:13 EDT 2004

G.Rosamond wrote:

> On Aug 2, 2004, at 12:45 AM, Jesse Callaway wrote:
>     On Aug 2, 2004, at 12:04 AM, G.Rosamond wrote:
>         http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/2057223
>         The article is titled "can gnu ever be unix?", but the author
>         repeatedly refers to gnu and bsds.
>         Thoughts?
>         g
>     "In researching this article I met with hurdles that almost made
>     me give up on writing it." - newsforge.com article 4/7/28/2057223
>     I guess that money from the Open Group made you think twice, huh.
>     This is pretty crazy. I like that he hints that Windows could be
>     certified with some code revamping. It's an amusing thought. The
>     whole article is rather uninformed and not newsworthy. It's an ad
>     with bad information.
> It's actually a funny article, IMO.
> GNU's not Unix could be Unix-certified? I think there's a tendency to 
> put the Unix certification process on an altar. . .either as a 
> throwback to the past or as a self-defense to the SCO run-around.
> Fundamentally, the clearest thing to me is the spirit of the Unix 
> tradition, which is not about costly processes and hollow labels, but 
> rather about dynamic, open development, in addition to allegiance to 
> the standard Unix development models and principles. The perception of 
> traditional Unix being over-priced but amazingly stable and secure is 
> a more recent phenomena than the public-at-large thinks. . .
> Everyone should take the opportunity to speak to Brian, Bubette and 
> others from the Lower East Side Mac Unix Users Group (lesmuug.org). 
> While some people in NYCBUG have attended their meetings and are even 
> long-time members of it, those of you who have not heard about the old 
> Bell Labs days might learn a bit. LESMUUG is not a group of people 
> looking for Quark shortcuts. There are some technical heavy-hitters 
> there who always cause my mind to race when they speak.
> For instance, I heard about Brian's opinion of "open source" via a 
> third party (Big I): there's nothing new about it, it's always been 
> the way Unix development happened. It was just labelled 'open source' 
> in the 1990's. This was also mentioned by Peter Salus several times at 
> USENIX. . .
I agree with you pretty much George, Unix Cert. just tastes like getting 
that sticker on your software that states "Windows Certified."  I mean 
shoot, if you look at the open groups list of certified systems it's 
just Solaris on Sun/AIX on Power with one Tru64 on Alpha thrown in there.

I think there are two distinct concepts that we have to keep clear here 
tho.  GNU and "open source."  Open source, if I remember my history 
correctly (or is it current events), was a label made up by a bunch of 
gnu/linux folks in Cali. including Eric Raymond.  I think they did not 
intend for it be any different than "the unix way," just another way of 
looking at it.  I think what they really wanted was to put a more 
business like appearance on the who whole GNU/FSF thing.  On the other 
hand we got Stallman and GNU, and frankly it doesn't matter if like him 
or hate him I can't imagine the FSF letting the GNU system get "Unix 


Pete Wright
email:  pete at nomadlogic.org
mobile: 917.415.9866
web:    www.nomadlogic.org/~pete
member: NYCBUG www.nycbug.org
New York City's BSD User Group

More information about the talk mailing list