|
Home > Archive > Unix Programming > January 2007 > Slightly OT: Correct Nomenclature for All Unix-Like Operating Systems
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Slightly OT: Correct Nomenclature for All Unix-Like Operating Systems
|
|
| David T. Ashley 2007-01-17, 7:28 pm |
| I frequently (in documents) need to refer collectively to Unix-like
operating systems (Solaris, Unix, Linux, FreeBSD, etc.).
What is the right nomenclature for this?
I've been using "*nix", but this might be my own invention and not well
understood.
Here are the possibilities I'm aware of:
a)*nix.
b)Unix-like operating systems.
c)Unices.
d)Unixes.
What is the right nomenclature?
--
David T. Ashley (dta@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)
| |
| Michael B Allen 2007-01-17, 7:28 pm |
| On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:11:58 -0500, David T. Ashley wrote:
> I frequently (in documents) need to refer collectively to Unix-like
> operating systems (Solaris, Unix, Linux, FreeBSD, etc.).
>
> What is the right nomenclature for this?
>
> I've been using "*nix", but this might be my own invention and not well
> understood.
>
> Here are the possibilities I'm aware of:
>
> a)*nix.
>
> b)Unix-like operating systems.
>
> c)Unices.
>
> d)Unixes.
>
> What is the right nomenclature?
The term "Unix" refers to a set of standards. The most important are
SUS and POSIX both of which have multiple versions. If the vendor
implements those standards they can call their system "Unix". Linux
deliberately takes liberties with these standards which is one reason
why it is frequently separated from the "Unix" group. The BSDs were
derived from a slightly different set of standards although I *think*
they mostly qualify as "Unix". Of course theres a fair amount of cross
pollination going on (e.g. the sockets API started out in BSD but made
it's way into SUS and POSIX).
Ultimately things come down to code portability. When porting code you
have about five major systems to think about - Unix, Linux, BSD, Darwin
(aka OSX) and Windows. The Unix category includes a cluster of OSs like
Solaris, HPUX, AIX, and some others. Linux and BSD are very close to
the Unix group such that code should be mostly portable provided you
don't get cute. Darwin is based on FreeBSD and qualifies to be called
"*nix" but in reality its different enough not to be included in the
previous sentence. Windows, believe it or not has a POSIX compliant MO
but most people use it for Windows specific functionality so it is in
a separate category.
I guess this doesn't really answer your question head-on but perhaps it
will give you some context.
Also, bare in mind there has always been a lot of rivalry and jockeying
between the different camps so sometimes you need to read between
the lines.
Mike
| |
| Chris F.A. Johnson 2007-01-18, 1:32 am |
| On 2007-01-18, David T. Ashley wrote:
> I frequently (in documents) need to refer collectively to Unix-like
> operating systems (Solaris, Unix, Linux, FreeBSD, etc.).
>
> What is the right nomenclature for this?
>
> I've been using "*nix", but this might be my own invention and not well
> understood.
>
> Here are the possibilities I'm aware of:
>
> a)*nix.
This is common, with the plural, *nixen.
> b)Unix-like operating systems.
Also common, but frowned upon by the Open Group, which owns the
UNIX trademark.
> c)Unices.
Also quite common.
> d)Unixes.
How prosaic! ;)
> What is the right nomenclature?
I doubt that there is one.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence
|
|
|
|
|