Mike McCarty wrote: > Skunk Worx wrote: > > [snip] > >> Kudos to RedHat for sticking to their guns. Unix predates MS-anything >> by decades so it's all kind of humorous. > > I'm not sure this is true, but even if it were, Linux is not UNIX. > What we commonly call Linux is actually Linux (the kernel) which > doesn't predate MS products, and GNU, which, as we all know, means > GNU is Not UNIX. So, Unix dates have nothing to do with this discussion. Actually, my recollection is that I started using Linux 0.12 some time in the 1992 time frame. About this time Windows 286 and Windows 386 were the MS offerings along with their DOS 3.x, 4.0x products. UNIX had been around quite a long time at that point. I had been using versions SunOS at work since 1985 or so. It wasn't until Windows for Workgroups (and DOS 5.0? or 6.0?) that MS had an OS that was worthy of running in a professional office networked environment and even then you had to find/install their TCP/IP network drivers to get interoperability with "real" networked computers. Even so, MS didn't have a complete OS and system until they released Windows 95 so in that regard, Linux does predate Windows 95, even if the recent kernels do not. And Unix certainly does pre-date most of Windows, getting its start on some early DEC computers. I remember there being some UNIX computers when I was in college (1974-1978). In fact, some UNIX features (like file units and pipes) made it into CP/M, CP/M-86 and PC-DOS (before it became MS-DOS). While the exactness of the OP's statement is probably hard to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, I do believe his statement that "Unix predates MS-anything" is generally true. > Mike -- Kevin J. Cummings kjchome@xxxxxxx cummings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cummings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org)
