3 ms·

You sound like you were a hobbyist. > {{citation needed}} We didn't take surveys back then. It's success is enough of a citation. > That is not fair or reaso

You sound like you were a hobbyist. > {{citation needed}} We didn't take surveys back then. It's success is enough of a citation. > That is not fair or reasonable or accurate for the time. Yes, it absolutely is. It claimed to be a UNIX clone. Having Borne shell and UUCP doesn't make it UNIX. Stallman was responsible quite a bit of the standards for UNIX. Coherent did its own thing. Coherent didn't have STREAMS, how could it be UNIX w/o STREAM? How about symbolic links? What? No links? What about TLI? What no TLI? How about any functioning IPC mechanism. 16 character file name max? Common. You have no idea what you're talking about. You ran a BBS. > This was a 1980s product. No 1980s Unix was compatible with any other. That's why the iBCS existed: This is not true. See Stallman's work on the IEEE committee. The push for standardization began in the early 1980s. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You link the ABI, yet, that had nothing to do with the standardization. Coherent was release in the early 1980s. Everything you discussed came well after UNIX started losing market share to Linux. It's pointless to discuss this w/ someone like you.

lproven 3y ago
The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are stupid or wrong. > You sound like you were a hobbyist. Professionally deploying, maintaining and supporting SCO Xenix in 1989 and working with Unix ever since. Have worked with and supported SCO Xenix, SCO Unixm, IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, and of course Linux since Slackware 2 or so. Currently the Linux and FOSS reporter for a major UK/US IT news website. Unlike you, I'm using my real name. Look me up. Nothing to hide here. So, I'd say no to that. > We didn't take surveys back then. Some certainly did. > It's success is enough of a citation. 1. That should be "its". 2. It was a large commercial success, as evinced by AT&T sending the co-creator of UNIX itself to verify that it was clean code. I call utter BS on both. > Stallman was responsible quite a bit of the standards for UNIX. Coherent did its own thing. Yeah it did, but that's neglecting the real history and unfairly distorting the picture. You are attempting to misrepresent history. IEEE Standard 1003.1-1988, known for short as "POSIX", was published in 1988. It's there in the name. Coherent had been out for eight years by then. The effort only started in 1984: https://sites.google.com/site/jimisaak/posix-impact https://sites.google.com/site/jimisaak/posix-impact Coherent was already on release 2.4 by the time the POSIX standardisation effort started: https://books.google.im/books?id=amQldGdl9LkC&pg=RA1-PA250&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.im/books?id=amQldGdl9LkC&pg=RA1-PA250&r... It is not possible to comply with a standard that does not exist yet. Coherent 3.0 was released in 1990: https://www.autometer.de/unix4fun/coherent/ https://www.autometer.de/unix4fun/coherent/ That is a year before Linux 0.01, 2 years before 386BSD, and three years before FreeBSD and NetBSD. It was different to Unix because the company went to some lengths to prove that it wasn't a Unix. The standards compliance you demand did not exist yet. These claims and demands are unreasonable, unfair, and misleading. As the previous link says: « In 1994 Mark Williams released COHERENT 4.2, with STREAMS, POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 compatibility » Once these standards were real and out there, Coherent complied. > It's pointless to discuss this w/ someone like you. It's not pointless: your flailing and your ad hominem attacks, followed by your failure, can always serve as an example of what not to do. :-)

lproven 3y ago

The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are stupid or wrong. > You sound like you were a hobbyist. Professionally deploying, maintaining and supporting SCO Xenix in 1989 and working with Unix ever since. Have worked with and supported SCO Xenix, SCO Unixm, IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, and of course Linux since Slackware 2 or so. Currently the Linux and FOSS reporter for a major UK/US IT news website. Unlike you, I'm using my real name. Look me up. Nothing to hide here. So, I'd say no to that. > We didn't take surveys back then. Some certainly did. > It's success is enough of a citation. 1. That should be "its". 2. It was a large commercial success, as evinced by AT&T sending the co-creator of UNIX itself to verify that it was clean code. I call utter BS on both. > Stallman was responsible quite a bit of the standards for UNIX. Coherent did its own thing. Yeah it did, but that's neglecting the real history and unfairly distorting the picture. You are attempting to misrepresent history. IEEE Standard 1003.1-1988, known for short as "POSIX", was published in 1988. It's there in the name. Coherent had been out for eight years by then. The effort only started in 1984: https://sites.google.com/site/jimisaak/posix-impact https://sites.google.com/site/jimisaak/posix-impact Coherent was already on release 2.4 by the time the POSIX standardisation effort started: https://books.google.im/books?id=amQldGdl9LkC&pg=RA1-PA250&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.im/books?id=amQldGdl9LkC&pg=RA1-PA250&r... It is not possible to comply with a standard that does not exist yet. Coherent 3.0 was released in 1990: https://www.autometer.de/unix4fun/coherent/ https://www.autometer.de/unix4fun/coherent/ That is a year before Linux 0.01, 2 years before 386BSD, and three years before FreeBSD and NetBSD. It was different to Unix because the company went to some lengths to prove that it wasn't a Unix. The standards compliance you demand did not exist yet. These claims and demands are unreasonable, unfair, and misleading. As the previous link says: « In 1994 Mark Williams released COHERENT 4.2, with STREAMS, POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 compatibility » Once these standards were real and out there, Coherent complied. > It's pointless to discuss this w/ someone like you. It's not pointless: your flailing and your ad hominem attacks, followed by your failure, can always serve as an example of what not to do. :-)