Verily I say unto thee that William Poaster spake thusly:
> It was with some disbelief that I saw Baby Chris Ahlstrom (aka TomB)
> claim that Linux is not a Unix clone.
> It's laughably stupid.
> Did he think Linus made it all up and it just happened to share nearly
> all the APIs and characteristics/shells etc?
> -- "Hadron" <ijqlce$nd...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Linux is *not* a UNIX clone, it *is* (however) a clone of UNIX.
That's still not right.
A clone is an exact copy, therefore a clone of UNIX would have to /be/
UNIX. Linux is not only not copied from UNIX, but it isn't even copied
from MINIX, the OS which inspired it, as Andrew Tanenbaum stated quite
emphatically. At best they share some common goals and features, while
adhering to what was subsequently defined as the POSIX standards. That
defines Linux as a POSIX-compliant, UNIX-like system, but not a clone.
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 188.8.131.52, up 75 days | ~ V for Vendetta.