Re: [plug-newbies] Re: Network Operating System

Top Page
Author: Paolo Alexis Falcone
Date:  
To: Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Newbies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [plug-newbies] Re: Network Operating System
On 6/11/05, Dean Michael C. Berris <mikhailberis@???> wrote:
> Quoting fooler <fooler@???>:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dean Michael Berris" <mikhailberis@???>
> > To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Newbies Discussion List"
> > <plug-newbies@???>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 7:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: [plug-newbies] Re: Network Operating System
> >
> >
> >> (To clear things, Linux has no affiliation whatsoever with ANY of the
> >> UNIX distributions out there. UNIX and Linux are completely different
> >> animals, and calling one a clone of another would be incorrect -- even
> >> if the README file says so.)
> >
> > i dont see any good point of yours why you made so complex that linux is a
> > not a clone of unix... once you *imitate* something is called a clone...
> > thats the simplest definition of a *clone*... linux is an imitation of
> > unix.. and therefore linux is a clone of unix...
> >
>
> You're not looking hard enough.
>
> Once you imitate something, that's what you're doing -- imitating something.
> You're not cloning it. And no, the simplest definition of a clone is not an
> imitation.
>
> The simplest definition of a clone is an EXACT COPY OF SOMETHING ELSE. If you
> clone something, you make a copy of something. Imitating something
> doesn't mean
> you're cloning -- so it doesn't follow that whenever I imitate you, I
> am cloning
> you. Or to use your sentence construction: I is an imitation of you... and
> therefore I is a clone of you...
>
> So if kernel hackers suddenly decide and not give much thought about the
> Language Game (Introductory Philosophy people, I hope you got a taste of this
> in college), then it pays to remember that context yields concepts -- and
> setting context is most important in writing documentation or ANYTHING
> for that
> matter.
>
> Of course unless you still think that a clone is an imitation then the mime at
> the corner of the street is a clone of a deaf person trapped in a glass box.


Perhaps you aren't playing the same language game :)

In the loosest term, Linux is a clone of Unix as it strives for POSIX
API compliance, and runs and feels like a Unix given this effort.
However, internally, Linux is not a clone of Unix - given that it's no
direct derivative of the AT&T product of years ago, and its design
diverges from traditional Unix variants, being brought about in more
contemporary times.

Unix by itself is a very loose definition. Some say Linux is a Unix
having the look and feel of a Unix, while some say it has to be a
derivative of the original UNIX published decades ago. The Open Group
otoh would give another definition to UNIX. The situation has been so
messy that you can already rewrite the classic proverb as follows:

"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a
duck unless the word 'duck' is licensed."

Personally I don't care :) As long as they do their jobs well and they
all look and feel the same (be it Linux or the BSDs or commercial
UNIX) then it's alright.

--
Paolo Alexis Falcone
pfalcone@???
_________________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Newbie Mailing List
plug-newbies@??? (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph