Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!terminator!pisa.citi.umich.edu!rees
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Subject: Re: process priorities (problem?)
Message-ID: <507ad317.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu>
Date: 20 Mar 91 16:39:47 GMT
References: <18030@milton.u.washington.edu> <504080ad.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <1991Mar20.062300.25980@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Sender: usenet@terminator.cc.umich.edu (usenet news)
Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Lines: 18

In article <1991Mar20.062300.25980@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, system@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (System Admin (Mike Peterson)) writes:

  I agree completely with another posting which said that IBM and Apollo
  shouldn't be calling their products "UNIX". Gratuitous changes are a
  pain in the <insert favourite region here>.

Why not?  AT&T still calls their product "Unix," and look at all the things
they broke in system V.  And what about Berkeley?  Their version of Unix
bears little resemblance to anything that ever came out of Bell Labs.  You're
annoyed because Apollo Unix doesn't look like anyone else's, but in fact no
one's Unix looks anything like the original, so who's to say which one is
"real Unix?"

Besides, AT&T (who owns the name "Unix") likes to define Unix as anything
that passes the SVVS.  By this measure, Domain/OS passes, Berkeley doesn't.
But I'm not going to go out and buy a computer just because it's SVID
compliant.  In fact, that's a mark against it for me.  I'm going to buy the
computer that gets the job done the way I want it done.