Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:7861 comp.misc:10853 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!olivea!tymix!cirrusl!sunstorm!dhesi From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc Subject: Re: Jargon File Editorial Philosophy Message-ID: <2795@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 10 Dec 90 18:21:14 GMT References: <1Yh2D8#44K9D41f8QQk5qw1fx64Q7TX=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> <2776@cirrusl.UUCP> <1Yj7hX#2l3Vc22kQ5w7992j5r42BCZr=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 23 In <1Yj7hX#2l3Vc22kQ5w7992j5r42BCZr=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes (on defining UNIX): >I disagree completely. 80% of my UNIX-expert toolbox is transferable between >any two dialects of UNIX you care to name. Just as importantly, UNIX still >has a relatively unified technical culture... Unfortunately, there's Minix, Coherent, and a few other look-alikes that are not derived from the original AT&T code, and 80% of your UNIX-expert toolbox is probably transferable to them too. So the implied definition of UNIX must either apply to them, so they too should be called UNIX, or the definition should be changed so it applies only to an OS derived from the original UNIX code. Furthermore, 80% of your toolbox may well be transferable to some MS-DOS environments which implement many of the UNIX system calls, and it will almost certainly be transferable to many implementations of POSIX in the near future, including (>GAK<) VMS. Not a good way to define UNIX. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi