Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: The term "Unix-like"
Message-ID: <49796@sun.uucp>
Date: 17 Apr 88 01:02:48 GMT
References: <12952@brl-adm.ARPA> <11057@mimsy.UUCP> <49535@sun.uucp> <9910@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 22

> The term "UNIX-like" is overused by AT&T edict.  Vendors are forbidden
> by the license agreement from calling their products "UNIX" or
> "UNIX-based," even if it's a vanilla UNIX port.  "UNIX-like" is
> acceptable.

"UNIX-like" can legitimately be used to refer to a system that is in no way
compatible with UNIX.  "UNIX-compatible" can't (it can be so used by dishonest
vendors, but honest ones shouldn't use it in that case).  Someone could have a
"UNIX-like" system that had neither "open()", "read()", "write()", nor
"close()" calls, if they had calls that were like those calls, but such a
system couldn't be considered "UNIX-compatible" by any rational person.
Unless AT&T also forbids the use of "UNIX-compatible", the latter would be
preferable.  (Also, are you certain that they forbid all such use of UNIX?  At
one point, Xenix - a system for which the term "UNIX-like" is ridiculous, as it
is derived from AT&T code - was being advertised as "a microcomputer derivative
of the UNIX system" or some legalese variant of that.  Did AT&T tell Microsoft
to stop this?)

Also, "UNIX-like" is abused by people other than vendors; I suspect most of
them don't give a fig about AT&T's position on the matter (how many columnists
do *you* know who daintily refer to "the UNIX system" rather than just "UNIX"?
There may be some who do, but there are many who don't.).