By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
458,166 Members | 1,212 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 458,166 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

P: n/a
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

Xah Lee, 2006-05

In the computing industry, especially among unix community, we often
hear that there's a “Unix Philosophy”. In this essay, i dissect the
nature and characterization of such “unix philosophy”, as have been
described by Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson,
and Richard P Gabriel et al, and in recent years by Eric Raymond.

There is no one definite set of priciples that is the so-called “unix
philosophy”, but rather, it consistest of various slogans developed
over the decades by unix programers that purport to describe the way
unix is supposed to have been designed. The characteristics include:
“keep it simple”, “make it fast”, “keep it small”, “make
it work on 99% of cases, but generality and correctness are less
important”, “diversity rules”, “User interface is not
important, raw power is good”, “everything should be a file”,
“architecture is less important than immediate workability”.. Often,
these are expressed by chantible slogans that exhibits juvenile humor,
such as “small is beautiful”, “KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)”.

Suppose, we take a team of student programers to produce a large
software system. When the software is done, give it to software critics
to analyze and come up with some principles that characterize its
design decisions, without disclosing the nature of the programers. The
characterization of such software, will more or less fit the
descriptions of the “Unix Philosophy” as described in different
ways by various unix celebrities.

For example, it would focus on implementation simplicity as opposed to
interface simplicity. It will not be consistent in user interface, but
exhibits rawness. It would be correct only for most cases, as opposed
to mathematically correct or generic. It would employee simplistic data
structures and formats such as text-files, as opposed to a structured
system or binary format that requires a spec. It would be speedy, but
less on scalability. It would consists of many small programs, as
opposed to one large system with inter-dependent components. It would
be easy to patch and port, but difficult to upgrade its structure or
adapt entirely new assumptions.

The essence of this theory is that when a software is produced for real
world use, it is necessary that it works in some acceptable way,
otherwise the software will be continuously debugged and refined. A
software system written by a bunch of student or otherwise
under-educated programers, but refined long enough for acceptably
practical, real world use, will necessarily develop characteristics
that is known as the Unix Philosophy.
----
This article is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/unix_phil.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

Jun 8 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
22 Replies


P: n/a
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

Xah Lee, 2006-05

In the computing industry, especially among unix community, we often
hear that there's a “Unix Philosophy”. In this essay, i dissect the
nature and characterization of such “unix philosophy”, as have been
described by Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson,
and Richard P Gabriel et al, and in recent years by Eric Raymond.
Unix Philosophy.
----
This article is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/unix_phil.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

Sigma may impress some, but it does not impress me until you realize
that philosophers can't count. That you have lower-case for the first
person nominative pronoun is one thing, but that you have a difference
in subject versus predicate is certainly something that Confucious
criticizes. frank
------------------
tja
Jun 8 '06 #2

P: n/a
"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> writes:
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

Xah Lee, 2006-05


___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

(If you *must* post followups, please drop comp.lang.c from the
Newsgroups: header -- which doesn't imply that this is topical in any
of the other newsgroups to which it's posted.)

Xah: please consider creating your own newsgroup under alt.*. You can
post your long essays there and (if you absolutely insist on doing so)
post pointers to them elsewhere.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Jun 8 '06 #3

P: n/a
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

Xah Lee, 2006-05

In the computing industry, especially among unix community, we often
hear that there's a “Unix Philosophy”. In this essay, i dissect the
nature and characterization of such “unix philosophy”, as have been
described by Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson,
and Richard P Gabriel et al, and in recent years by Eric Raymond.

There is no one definite set of priciples that is the so-called “unix
philosophy”, but rather, it consistest of various slogans developed
over the decades by unix programers that purport to describe the way
unix is supposed to have been designed. The characteristics include:
“keep it simple”, “make it fast”, “keep it small”, “make
it work on 99% of cases, but generality and correctness are less
important”, “diversity rules”, “User interface is not
important, raw power is good”, “everything should be a file”,
“architecture is less important than immediate workability”. Often,
these are expressed by chantible slogans that exhibits juvenile humor,
such as “small is beautiful”, “KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)”.


Perhaps you should take a peek at the ideas in Plan 9 from Bell Labs,
which is a continuation of this philosophy, unlike the "modern" unix
clones.
Jun 8 '06 #4

P: n/a
Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”
[snip]
Perhaps you should take a peek at the ideas in Plan 9 from Bell Labs,
which is a continuation of this philosophy, unlike the "modern" unix
clones.

Is there an actual Plan 9? I'm only aware of the one from Outer Space.
frank
Jun 8 '06 #5

P: n/a
Frank Silvermann <in*****@invalid.net> wrote:
Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

Perhaps you should take a peek at the ideas in Plan 9 from Bell Labs,
which is a continuation of this philosophy, unlike the "modern" unix
clones.

Is there an actual Plan 9? I'm only aware of the one from Outer Space.


<http://cm.bell-labs.com/plan9/>.

But directing the OP there would be futile, as is discussing such
off-topic matter on comp.lang.c.

Richard
Jun 8 '06 #6

P: n/a
Frank Silvermann <in*****@invalid.net> writes:
Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

[snip]
Perhaps you should take a peek at the ideas in Plan 9 from Bell Labs,
which is a continuation of this philosophy, unlike the "modern" unix
clones.

Is there an actual Plan 9? I'm only aware of the one from Outer
Space. frank


No, there is no _actual_ Plan 9. The OS named "Plan 9" is named after
the Outer Space one.

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

ATTENTION: Despite any other listing of product contents found
herein, the consumer is advised that, in actuality, this product
consists of 99.9999999999% empty space.
Jun 8 '06 #7

P: n/a
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the “Unix Philosophy”

Xah Lee, 2006-05

In the computing industry, especially among unix community, we often
hear that there's a “Unix Philosophy”. In this essay, i dissect the
nature and characterization of such “unix philosophy”, as have been
described by Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson,
and Richard P Gabriel et al, and in recent years by Eric Raymond.

There is no one definite set of priciples that is the so-called “unix
philosophy”, but rather, it consistest of various slogans developed
over the decades by unix programers that purport to describe the way
unix is supposed to have been designed. The characteristics include:
“keep it simple”, “make it fast”, “keep it small”, “make
it work on 99% of cases, but generality and correctness are less
important”, “diversity rules”, “User interface is not
important, raw power is good”, “everything should be a file”,
“architecture is less important than immediate workability”. Often,
these are expressed by chantible slogans that exhibits juvenile humor,
such as “small is beautiful”, “KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)”.

Suppose, we take a team of student programers to produce a large
software system. When the software is done, give it to software critics
to analyze and come up with some principles that characterize its
design decisions, without disclosing the nature of the programers. The
characterization of such software, will more or less fit the
descriptions of the “Unix Philosophy” as described in different
ways by various unix celebrities.

For example, it would focus on implementation simplicity as opposed to
interface simplicity. It will not be consistent in user interface, but
exhibits rawness. It would be correct only for most cases, as opposed
to mathematically correct or generic. It would employee simplistic data
structures and formats such as text-files, as opposed to a structured
system or binary format that requires a spec. It would be speedy, but
less on scalability. It would consists of many small programs, as
opposed to one large system with inter-dependent components. It would
be easy to patch and port, but difficult to upgrade its structure or
adapt entirely new assumptions.

The essence of this theory is that when a software is produced for real
world use, it is necessary that it works in some acceptable way,
otherwise the software will be continuously debugged and refined. A
software system written by a bunch of student or otherwise
under-educated programers, but refined long enough for acceptably
practical, real world use, will necessarily develop characteristics
that is known as the Unix Philosophy.
----
This article is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/unix_phil.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/

I'm only responding to this in comp.lang.c/perl.misc and
comp.unix.programmer, since those are the only groups who really need to
read this darned essay in the first place. Anyone who wants to respond
to *me*, email. I don't subscribe to those newsgroups.

Xah, normally you make some kind of point. This time, you haven't. We
all know Unix is a crock of an operating system designed more for ease
of implementation than correct use! However, it's been debugged and
patched so well by now that it beats the alternatives.

Still, with permission I'd like to forward your essay (or have you post
it) on alt.os.development. If anyone needs to see that Unix is not the
Way, the Truth and the Life, it's the operating system hobbyists who
consistently try to dump it on top of their pet microkernels.

--
The science of economics is the cleverest proof of free will yet
constructed.
Jun 8 '06 #8

P: n/a
On 7 Jun 2006 18:35:52 -0700, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:
The Nature of the Unix Philosophy


Good grief. Him again.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Jun 8 '06 #9

P: n/a
Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:
The Nature of the Unix Philosophy


Good grief. Him again.


Yeap. It's Saint Troll the Flagellant day ...
Jun 8 '06 #10

P: n/a
moi
Roberto Waltman wrote:
Al Balmer <al******@att.net> wrote:
"Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:

The Nature of the Unix Philosophy


Good grief. Him again.

Yeap. It's Saint Troll the Flagellant day ...


Bullshit is his middle name ...

;-]

HTH,
AvK
Jun 8 '06 #11

P: n/a
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the "Unix Philosophy"

Xah Lee, 2006-05

In the computing industry, especially among unix community, we often
hear that there's a "Unix Philosophy". In this essay, i dissect the
nature and characterization of such "unix philosophy", as have been
described by Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, Dennis Ritchie, Ken Thompson,
and Richard P Gabriel et al, and in recent years by Eric Raymond.

There is no one definite set of priciples that is the so-called "unix
philosophy", but rather, it consistest of various slogans developed
over the decades by unix programers that purport to describe the way
unix is supposed to have been designed. The characteristics include:
"keep it simple", "make it fast", "keep it small", "make
it work on 99% of cases, but generality and correctness are less
important", "diversity rules", "User interface is not
important, raw power is good", "everything should be a file",
"architecture is less important than immediate workability". Often,
these are expressed by chantible slogans that exhibits juvenile humor,
such as "small is beautiful", "KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)".

Suppose, we take a team of student programers
Can all "student programmers" be lumped into one homogeneous category?
With one particular level of skill and talent, applicable to your
example? What would that skill level be, roughly speaking?
to produce a large software system.
....such as an OS? (just longing for specifics here) What is "large"?
(longing for more exact quantifiers)
When the software is done, give it to software critics
But it's never really "done", is it? A part of the unix philosophy (or
unix practice, at least) is an ongoing perfecting/enhancing process
that involves a whole community of developers and users, isn't it? Or
do you mean "when the project reaches its [alpha/beta/rc1/etc.] stage"?
(again, wanting specifics - these development markers exist and are
well entrenched in the unix world -- why not use them here?)
to analyze and come up with some principles that characterize its
design decisions, without disclosing the nature of the programers. The
characterization of such software, will more or less fit the
descriptions of the "Unix Philosophy" as described in different
ways by various unix celebrities.
Just to be sure, are you referring to the names you listed at the
beginning of your article? ("Brian Kernighan, Rob Pike, Dennis Ritchie,
....") If so, I'd make a more explicit tie, by means of such word as
"such as those mentioned above". If not, listing a couple of celebrity
names here would help the reader connect more dots.
For example, it would focus on implementation simplicity as opposed to
interface simplicity. It will not be consistent in user interface,
inconsistent across versions (over time), or inconsistent from platform
to platform (OS to OS), or, say, among various linux distributions? Or
among window managers and various API's?

and I don't understand what "implementation simplicity" is exactly.
(I'm not trying to be subversive here; just trying to understand.)
but
exhibits rawness. It would be correct only for most cases,
how is software "correct"? Do you mean "the software would work"?
(without errors, as expected)

what is a "case"? Do you mean, it would work under most *conditions*,
in most *environments*? I don't understand

as opposed to mathematically correct or generic. It would employee simplistic data
structures and formats such as text-files, as opposed to a structured
system or binary format that requires a spec. It would be speedy, but
a text data structure can require a spec.

And are you talking about quick-and-dirty, slapped-together, makeshift,
short-term-fix tasks? If yes, why not say that!
less on scalability. It would consists of many small programs, as
opposed to one large system with inter-dependent components.
How would such software rate on the "modular is good" scale?

"many small programs" seems to suggest modularity. If so, what makes
this "student software" undesirable, in spite of its (perhaps pseudo-)
modularity?
It would
be easy to patch and port, but difficult to upgrade its structure or
adapt entirely new assumptions.
why?
The essence of this theory is that when a software is produced for real
world use,
By "real world", do you, by chance, mean the commercial/business world?
(Since it is /that/ world that seems to operate more on rigid deadlines
and bottom-line $$ constraints)
it is necessary that it works in some acceptable way,
"some acceptable way"? Please quantify/define "acceptability" here
(the "some" doesn't help with the quantifying either)
otherwise the software will be continuously debugged and refined. A
software system written by a bunch of student or otherwise
under-educated programers, but refined long enough for acceptably
another dangerously undefined term -- "under-educated". Some of your
readers may perceive this to be a reference to "accreditation"
(diplomas), which -- i believe most would agree -- would make your
assertion a gross error.

I personally know a highschool dropout programmer who, although
self-taught, exerts such diligence, thoroughness and ingenuity in his
work, that his products are state-of-the-art, to the extent that huge,
global, tycoon software corporations, fearing the undisputed
superiority of his product to theirs, have EXTENSIVELY attempted to buy
him out (with carrots, threats and all other means possible). Yes, a
guy with barely any official accreditation, whom an indiscriminant,
carelessly generalizing observer might pidgeon-hole into the
"under-educated" category.
practical, real world use, will necessarily develop characteristics
that is known as the Unix Philosophy.


Overall, when I read the article i wish for more specifics and for more
exact and understandable quantities, particularly when the very measure
of a quantity is used to make some argument (the chosen words create
only a *semblance* of measurement, and, in the end, leave the reader
with only a vague idea about the quantities entailed)

As is the point of your article to bemoan the shortcomings of student
programmers? This group is at first presented as an example, but then
seems to become the focus.

If so, should we not give any consideration to the stringency
*inherent* in student life, resulting from things like: shortage of
time (to do things methodically, with long-term planning), a variety of
insecurities, high competition pressure, lack of real-world practice?

andrew

Jun 13 '06 #12

P: n/a
"Andrew" <ha*****@flight.us> wrote in message
news:11**********************@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
Xah Lee wrote:
less on scalability. It would consists of many small programs, as
opposed to one large system with inter-dependent components.


How would such software rate on the "modular is good" scale?

"many small programs" seems to suggest modularity. If so, what makes
this "student software" undesirable, in spite of its (perhaps pseudo-)
modularity?


I agree with all your other comments, but I'd like to add a bit here...

OSS (and the base Unix OS) tends towards lots of little tools that the user
can combine to solve any problem, provided he can figure out how to use each
of them individually (or even which tools to use).

Commercial software tends towards one huge tool that can be used to
accomplish pre-planned tasks with virtually no training, but which is
difficult to use for (if not completely incapable of) solving new tasks.

Of course, there's plenty of exceptions, but those are definite trends.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jun 13 '06 #13

P: n/a
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
"Andrew" <ha*****@flight.us> wrote in message
news:11**********************@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
Xah Lee wrote:
less on scalability. It would consists of many small programs, as
opposed to one large system with inter-dependent components.


How would such software rate on the "modular is good" scale?

"many small programs" seems to suggest modularity. If so, what makes
this "student software" undesirable, in spite of its (perhaps pseudo-)
modularity?


I agree with all your other comments, but I'd like to add a bit here...

OSS (and the base Unix OS) tends towards lots of little tools that the
user can combine to solve any problem, provided he can figure out how to
use each of them individually (or even which tools to use).

Commercial software tends towards one huge tool that can be used to
accomplish pre-planned tasks with virtually no training, but which is
difficult to use for (if not completely incapable of) solving new tasks.

Of course, there's plenty of exceptions, but those are definite trends.

I agree with your assessment and have linux on my mind today as I
endeavor to create a linux partition. If I have a criticism of the
linux, it's the something_for_nothing philosophy, an attitude, which I
believe only redistributes costs. I paid $25 for a disk that I believe
will provide me with a c99 compiler. I'm all about open source, but I
claim that, e.g. Cbfalconer gets a better world when you get his
ggets(). It is not the people who give that bother me, though. That
something 'should' be free is philosophically incomprehensible. frank
Jun 13 '06 #14

P: n/a
Frank Silvermann <in*****@invalid.net> writes:
I agree with your assessment and have linux on my mind today as I
endeavor to create a linux partition. If I have a criticism of the
linux, it's the something_for_nothing philosophy, an attitude, which I
believe only redistributes costs. I paid $25 for a disk that I
believe will provide me with a c99 compiler. I'm all about open
source, but I claim that, e.g. Cbfalconer gets a better world when you
get his ggets(). It is not the people who give that bother me,
though. That something 'should' be free is philosophically
incomprehensible. frank


You didn't terraform this planet did you? Would you God to present
you the invoice for the air, the heath, the gravity?

That's something shouldn't be free, this is philosophically incomprehensible!
The more so when this something is Speach.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

NOTE: The most fundamental particles in this product are held
together by a "gluing" force about which little is currently known
and whose adhesive power can therefore not be permanently
guaranteed.
Jun 13 '06 #15

P: n/a
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
Frank Silvermann <in*****@invalid.net> writes:
I agree with your assessment and have linux on my mind today as I
endeavor to create a linux partition. If I have a criticism of the
linux, it's the something_for_nothing philosophy, an attitude, which I
believe only redistributes costs. I paid $25 for a disk that I
believe will provide me with a c99 compiler. I'm all about open
source, but I claim that, e.g. Cbfalconer gets a better world when you
get his ggets(). It is not the people who give that bother me,
though. That something 'should' be free is philosophically
incomprehensible. frank


You didn't terraform this planet did you? Would you God to present
you the invoice for the air, the heath, the gravity?

That's something shouldn't be free, this is philosophically incomprehensible!
The more so when this something is Speach.

Speach lacks moral agency. frank
Jun 14 '06 #16

P: n/a
Andrew wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
The Nature of the "Unix Philosophy"

Oh, PLEASE, not another one
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ============

jue
Jun 14 '06 #17

P: n/a
# Commercial software tends towards one huge tool that can be used to

Except for Linux and BSD, Unix is commercial software.

--
SM Ryan http://www.rawbw.com/~wyrmwif/
You hate people.
But I love gatherings. Isn't it ironic.
Jun 14 '06 #18

P: n/a
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>,
SM Ryan <wy*****@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
# Commercial software tends towards one huge tool that can be used to Except for Linux and BSD, Unix is commercial software.


Linux is not UNIX. BSD isn't either.

UNIX is a trademark of The Open Group (www.opengroup.org); see
www.unix.org for OpenGroup's unix section.

No Linux or BSD systems have passed the UNIX certification programs.
The list is: http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/
and can be summarized as: Solaris, AIX, UnixWare (SCO),
HP-UX, IRIX (SGI), NCR UNIX, UX (NEC)

There is a Linux Base certification from OpenGroup that 12 different
companies have passed.
--
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes
Jun 14 '06 #19

P: n/a
John Bokma: What the fuck is this?

Not that I support Xah, but obviously you are the main dick in this
thread.

24-May . [ 48: John Bokma ]> Re: John Bokma harassment
24-May . < 23: John Bokma > `->
24-May . < 39: John Bokma > `->
23-May . < 35: John Bokma > `-> Re: Software Needs
Philosophers
24-May . < 40: John Bokma > `-> Re: John Bokma
harassment
29-May . < 22: John Bokma > `->
24-May . < 12: John Bokma > `->
30-May . < 15: John Bokma > `->
30-May . < 23: John Bokma > `->
25-May . < 13: John Bokma > `->
24-May . < 65: John Bokma > `->
24-May . < 17: John Bokma > `->
25-May . < 16: John Bokma > `->
30-May . < 14: John Bokma > `->
24-May . < 12: John Bokma > `->
24-May . < 32: John Bokma > `->
25-May . < 12: John Bokma > `->
24-May . < 31: John Bokma > `->
26-May . < 24: John Bokma > `-> Re: OT: Quote ?
26-May . < 32: John Bokma > `-> OT: Navarth
26-May . < 14: John Bokma > `-> Re: John Bokma
harassment
24-May . < 50: John Bokma > `->
26-May . < 31: John Bokma > `-> Re: OT: Quote ?
26-May . < 59: John Bokma > `-> Re: John Bokma
harassment
27-May . < 41: John Bokma > `->

Jun 14 '06 #20

P: n/a
SM Ryan wrote:
# Commercial software tends towards one huge tool that can be used to

Except for Linux and BSD, Unix is commercial software.


Speaking strictly of the OS, yes (for most derivatives of BSD,
excepting, of course, Apple Mac OS X)

But the discussion encompassed both the OS and applications, i thought.
Although, I don't know the statistics on the crossover -- what
percentage of, say, SCO Unix users install OSS applications today? (And
which apps?) My guess is that such hybridizing is widespread; I mean,
why would they hesitate to take advantage of free, quality apps, even
if they *are* on a proprietary OS?

Anyone have data on that?

andrew

Jun 14 '06 #21

P: n/a
On 14 Jun 2006 06:44:47 -0700, lu*******@latinmail.com wrote:
John Bokma: What the fuck is this?

Not that I support Xah, but obviously you are the main dick in this
thread.


Both John Bokma and dicks are off-topic in comp.lang.c.

Please take your spat elsewhere.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Jun 14 '06 #22

P: n/a
ed
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:40:58 +0000 (UTC)
ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>,
SM Ryan <wy*****@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
# Commercial software tends towards one huge tool that can be used
to
Except for Linux and BSD, Unix is commercial software.


Linux is not UNIX. BSD isn't either.

UNIX is a trademark of The Open Group (www.opengroup.org); see
www.unix.org for OpenGroup's unix section.


Anyway SUS/POSIX is a better guide to the OS rather.
No Linux or BSD systems have passed the UNIX certification programs.


Why would they want to? The BSD kernel is closer to what UNIX was than
it has become in the past decade. The Linux kernel has never tried to
be either.

--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.gnunix.net
just another c++ person
braaaaaaains....
Jun 15 '06 #23

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.