At 04:33 AM 01-17-2003, Brian Kolaci wrote:
while i am a hardcore/diehard solaris user, i would recommend staying away from the inflammatory "*real* unix" argument. I've seen "*real* unix" tossed around by many people, as a means of disparaging linux and open/free/netBSD, and all it does is inflame.Me too,I tried replying last night, however the "efilter" blocked my response. I use Solaris myself. But its not limited to Solaris. There would be problems with AIX, IRIX, HP-UX and any other *real* unix. Major businesses typically *only* use
i used to argue - eight years ago! - that UnixWare was the only *real* unix, as it was based on the original ATT license. Others argue that the only *real* unix is based upon those versions certified by the Open Group. Which then means the only *real* unices are Tru64, AIX5, and Solaris, depending upon which spec you go by!
no, it's a war not worth fighting. linux isn't unix, technically. but by that argument, none of the gnu utils are *real* unix utils.
i use solaris because i've been administrating sun sparcs running solaris since 1995. i'm extremely comfortable with that environment (and the reliability and security i enjoy from same). i use it every day. but the fact is, there are a few cobalt raq's in my network. and it's not like i have to put on gloves and a mask when i log into them. nor do i have to work *really hard* to figure out how to administrate them.
all that matters is interoperability. my argument is that if things go linux-only, then, well, linux joins the mentality of microsoft - 'everyone else conforms to me, if you don't conform, we'll either ignore you or beat you into submission'. i don't think anyone in the open source community should see that as good. it's the antithesis of what linux and the open source community are all about!
end of screed.
Paul Theodoropoulos
http://www.anastrophe.com
http://folding.stanford.edu
The Nicest Misanthrope on the Net
