Comments by "TheEvertw" (@TheEvertw) on "ATu0026T Archives: The UNIX Operating System" video.

@luimu It most certainly is. It complies with (most of) the Posix standard, and is thus a UNIX-compatible OS. So functionally you are wrong. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck. The differences between Linux and any other version of UNIX are no greater than between different versions of UNIX itself. Historically you are wrong also: without UNIX, Linux would never have happened. Torvals wanted to run UNIX on his new 80368, and didn't like Minix because it didn't use the 80368 HW efficiently, so he implemented the Posix standard himself. He did reference the standard while implementing it, so there is a definite dependency there. For copyright purposes, you are of course right: there is no (proprietary) UNIX code in Linux.
4
@lightfox11 As I understand it, the "NOT UNIX" bit in GNU is to make clear that there are no financial and copyright dependencies between GNU and UNIX. The name was coined at the height of the UNIX wars, when UNIX was strongly anti Open-Source, each vendor trying to corner its own market. GNU was born in protest to that: Stalman believes everybody should be free to share code without any restrictions.
3
While the capabilities of computers have increased about 6 orders of magnitude over its lifetime, and while the lifetime of a new computing technology is about 20 years, UNIX after 50 years remains the best OS available for almost all computing platforms, with the only exception the very smallest devices. That is saying something.
2
@helmetvanga5170 MULTICS is more an anti-pattern for UNIX. It was a design-by-committee steaming hot mess. The only thing that was good about it, was that it promised interactive computing for everybody. But if couldn't deliver on that promise. That goal was then actually implemented with UNIX, using a very different approach.
1