> I wonder why Linux isn't "branded". Is it because Linux fails some technical
> conformance criterion or is it because no one wants to put up the money to get the
> brand?
The biggest reason Linux isn't branded "Unix" is that there are things
required in that brand that Linux doesn't have and doesn't need. Things
like streams support are required for the branding, but have no wide
spread use and thus no real reason to be required in the Linux space
(yes, there are a handful of apps that if they were ported could use
streams, but not nearly enough to constitute a requirement).
There are other examples of things like this that are a part of the
branding. It just hasn't been worth the effort.
Also note, perhaps more importantly, is the question of what do you *want*
to be known as? "Unix" with all it's "baggage", or "Linux" which is new
and up and coming?
--Donnie
--
Donnie Barnes http://www.redhat.com/~djb [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Bah."
Challenge Diversity. Ignore People. Live Life. Use Linux. 879. V.
The more you cry, the less you'll pee.
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
