Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [solarisx86] MEDIA: What Happens Now in the HP-Oracle Lawsuit Over Itanium?

Expand Messages
  • Bob Friesenhahn
    ... Linux is heavily derived from Unix (especially SunOS) but not copied from it except for the interface definitions. It is basically (originally) a clone
    Message 1 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Keith Bierman wrote:
      >> Funny. So since Linux was not submitted for the conformance tests it
      >> is not Unix whereas Apple's OS-X is Unix, even though it has no
      >> lineage from AT&T commercial Unix code.
      >>

      > But it does have BSD (as well as Mach) bits. Linux has nothing from
      > Unix (directly as in copied or derived). So not funny at all. I
      > don't doubt they could submit and with enough fixes pass but they
      > have never expressed any interest in doing so

      Linux is heavily derived from "Unix" (especially SunOS) but not copied
      from it except for the interface definitions. It is basically
      (originally) a clone of Unix.

      There has not been any AT&T Unix bits in *BSD since at least 1994.
      This was ultimately determined by a court of law.

      >> I don't think that passing the certification conformance test is what
      >> people in the media and industry 'analysts' are meaning when they use
      >> the term "Unix".
      >>
      > BSD was quite influential. Your insistence on "commercial" and AT&T seems odd to my ears

      I am trying to understand the industry analysts.

      Bob
      --
      Bob Friesenhahn
      bfriesen@..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
      GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
    • Stefan Teleman
      On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Bob Friesenhahn ... No. It is not derived from SunOS at all, if by SunOS you mean Sun s initial BSD-4.x derived
      Message 2 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
        <bfriesen@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Linux is heavily derived from "Unix" (especially SunOS) but not copied
        > from it except for the interface definitions. It is basically
        > (originally) a clone of Unix.

        No. It is not derived from SunOS at all, if by SunOS you mean Sun's
        initial BSD-4.x derived implementations. It has nothing in common with
        the Solaris kernel either, and by that I mean the SunOS 5.x release
        versions.

        Linux is not derived from any of the recent (post AT&T lawsuit) BSD's either.

        Linux is a completely original, written from scratch, implementation
        of a virtual memory, demand-paging, preemptive sceduling kernel. It is
        not a UNIX clone, and it makes a very explicit point of NOT being a
        UNIX clone.

        --Stefan

        --
        Stefan Teleman
        KDE e.V.
        stefan.teleman@...
      • Keith Bierman
        On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
        Message 3 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
          bfriesen@...> wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > ...
          >
          > Linux is heavily derived from "Unix"
          >

          I suppose it depends on how you "construe" (to use the Legal jargon) the
          term derived. IANAL but as I understand their formal use of the word, it's
          not a derived work. From an engineering perspective, looking at the
          internals, it's not derived either. You are right, it is intended to
          provide an outside the black box perspective that is very similar. I have
          no doubt a distribution could easily pass the conformance suite, but as I
          said there isn't any sign that any of the commercial Linux vendors feel any
          pressure to do so, and as Alan aptly noted, it costs $$.


          >
          > There has not been any AT&T Unix bits in *BSD since at least 1994.
          > This was ultimately determined by a court of law.
          >

          Yes, I never claimed it's AT&T bits. My point is that AT&T is NOT the only
          Unix(tm). It's not the only source, etc. BSD variations are all
          legitimately called Unix (in an engineering sense; in the Legal sense, only
          if they have passed the certification and paid for listing).


          > ...
          > I am trying to understand the industry analysts.
          >
          > Well that's either easy or intractable ;>

          Easy: {HPUX, AIX, Solaris, SCO (if any left)} == Unix for the great
          unwashed masses of "analysts" that don't have a clue

          & {BSD variations} for those that have a clue

          Intractable: what they "really" mean, since the term 'Industry Analyst" is
          usually self awarded, and spans people who really know something to those
          that are paid shills for one company or another, or simply megaphones who
          repeat whatever someone has told them.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Keith Bierman
          Note that counts are probably off, as some systems that rely on BSD Unix don t necessarily advertise it. If you log in as root on an Isilon storage array, I
          Message 4 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Note that counts are probably off, as some systems that rely on BSD Unix
            don't necessarily advertise it. If you log in as root on an Isilon storage
            array, I think you will find it's running BSD. EMC doesn't advertise this,
            and "analysts" are probably not counting Isilon boxes as part of "Unix"
            volume shipments.

            Just an example.

            As you note, the OpenSolaris based systems are probably not being counted
            either.

            But this harks back to my "construing" the term "Industry Analyst" ;>


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Bob Friesenhahn
            ... Yet the user interfaces, initialization sequences, APIs, config file formats, commands, and system services are the same. Most of it was copied from Unix.
            Message 5 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Stefan Teleman wrote:
              >
              > Linux is a completely original, written from scratch, implementation
              > of a virtual memory, demand-paging, preemptive sceduling kernel. It is
              > not a UNIX clone, and it makes a very explicit point of NOT being a
              > UNIX clone.

              Yet the user interfaces, initialization sequences, APIs, config file
              formats, commands, and system services are the same. Most of it was
              copied from Unix. Some of it was copied from Windows XP or from the
              Apple MacOS or OS X.

              It quacks like a duck. Must be a duck.

              You make it sound like Linux was not designed to be like Unix when
              even the most casual observer would decided that it is so.

              Bob
              --
              Bob Friesenhahn
              bfriesen@..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
              GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
            • Keith Bierman
              ... Or is a man blowing a duck call. Surely there is more to being a duck than making duck-like sounds. ... Unix by your definition. That s pretty broad, and
              Message 6 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                >
                > Yet the user interfaces, initialization sequences, APIs, config file
                > formats, commands, and system services are the same. Most of it was
                > copied from Unix. Some of it was copied from Windows XP or from the
                > Apple MacOS or OS X.
                >
                > It quacks like a duck. Must be a duck.
                >
                Or is a man blowing a duck call. Surely there is more to being a duck than
                making duck-like sounds.

                >
                > You make it sound like Linux was not designed to be like Unix when
                > even the most casual observer would decided that it is so.
                >
                >
                > Well, by that definition ANY system which is POSIX 1003.x compliant is
                "Unix" by your definition. That's pretty broad, and would include a variety
                of very non-Unix systems which provide(d) a POSIX compliance mode. If your
                goal is to understand how "Industry Analysts" define it, that's pretty out
                of the ballpark. I recall various Mainframe and even some versions of M$
                software which sometimes purported to have such modes (I didn't use them
                enough to form an opinion about how solid they were).

                So let's try again, what are we trying to establish? That "Unix" expertise
                applies to the entire set of {Linux,AT&T, BSD, any SUS}? That Industry
                Analysts are a bunch of turkey's who can't (or don't count) accurately?
                That OpenSolaris == Linux in some metaphysical sense?


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Stefan Teleman
                On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Bob Friesenhahn ... These were not copied from any UNIX or from any other OS. They were written from scratch, and have
                Message 7 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
                  <bfriesen@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Stefan Teleman wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Linux is a completely original, written from scratch, implementation
                  > > of a virtual memory, demand-paging, preemptive sceduling kernel. It is
                  > > not a UNIX clone, and it makes a very explicit point of NOT being a
                  > > UNIX clone.
                  >
                  > Yet the user interfaces, initialization sequences, APIs, config file
                  > formats, commands, and system services are the same. Most of it was
                  > copied from Unix. Some of it was copied from Windows XP or from the
                  > Apple MacOS or OS X.

                  These were not copied from any UNIX or from any other OS. They were
                  written from scratch, and have absolutely nothing to do with Linux.
                  The Standard C Library's Interfaces are mandated by an Industry
                  Standard. That Standard has nothing to do with UNIX, or with any other
                  operating system for that matter. The GNU Userland utilities were,
                  until their interfaces became part of several Industry Standards (most
                  notably POSIX), incompatible with their BSD or AT&T UNIX equivalents.

                  You appear to be extremely confused about the differences between an
                  operating system, a kernel, the Standard C Library, userland API's and
                  CLI's and any additional utilities or services.

                  You should also be a lot more careful when stating " [ ... ] user
                  interfaces, initialization sequences, APIs, config file formats,
                  commands, and system services are the same. Most of it was copied from
                  Unix" on a public forum. The term "copying" has a very precise and
                  well defined meaning - which apparently escapes you. I would not want
                  to be in your shoes if someone from the Linux kernel, or one of the
                  Linux-based distros took you to task for accusing them of plagiarizing
                  on a public mailing list.

                  > It quacks like a duck. Must be a duck.

                  Colorado has tall mountains, rivers, and spruce trees. So does
                  Switzerland. Therefore, Colorado is Switzerland, or, at a minimum, it
                  must have copied Switzerland.

                  > You make it sound like Linux was not designed to be like Unix when
                  > even the most casual observer would decided that it is so.

                  You are correct for once [ a broken clock is right twice a day ].
                  Linux was never designed to be UNIX.

                  --Stefan

                  --
                  Stefan Teleman
                  KDE e.V.
                  stefan.teleman@...
                • Bob Friesenhahn
                  ... Absolutely nothing to do? Your statements are about as believeable as that in most movies which include extra-terrestrials, the extra-terrestrials have a
                  Message 8 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Stefan Teleman wrote:
                    >>
                    >> Yet the user interfaces, initialization sequences, APIs, config file
                    >> formats, commands, and system services are the same. Most of it was
                    >> copied from Unix. Some of it was copied from Windows XP or from the
                    >> Apple MacOS or OS X.
                    >
                    > These were not copied from any UNIX or from any other OS. They were
                    > written from scratch, and have absolutely nothing to do with Linux.

                    Absolutely nothing to do?

                    Your statements are about as believeable as that in most movies which
                    include extra-terrestrials, the extra-terrestrials have a profoundly
                    humanoid form. Given the hundreds of millions of light years
                    separating the planets, it is just not reasonable that
                    extra-terrestrials would look like humans. Similarly, it is not
                    reasonable that Linux would implement all of the commands in my
                    O'Reilly "Unix in the Nutshell" book (which pre-dates Linux) if it did
                    not intend to duplicate the functionality of Unix.

                    Note that POSIX is clearly based on Unix interfaces so that even if
                    Linux is based on POSIX, it is still based on Unix interfaces.

                    Bob
                    --
                    Bob Friesenhahn
                    bfriesen@..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
                    GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
                  • Stefan Teleman
                    On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn ... Nope, nothing. Hint: we provide most of the GNU Userland utilities in Solaris. ... Planets?
                    Message 9 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
                      <bfriesen@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Stefan Teleman wrote:

                      > > These were not copied from any UNIX or from any other OS. They were
                      > > written from scratch, and have absolutely nothing to do with Linux.
                      >
                      > Absolutely nothing to do?

                      Nope, nothing. Hint: we provide most of the GNU Userland utilities in Solaris.

                      > Your statements are about as believeable as that in most movies which
                      > include extra-terrestrials, the extra-terrestrials have a profoundly
                      > humanoid form. Given the hundreds of millions of light years
                      > separating the planets, it is just not reasonable that
                      > extra-terrestrials would look like humans. Similarly, it is not
                      > reasonable that Linux would implement all of the commands in my
                      > O'Reilly "Unix in the Nutshell" book (which pre-dates Linux) if it did
                      > not intend to duplicate the functionality of Unix.

                      Planets? Extraterrestrials?

                      Sorry, I only rely on horoscope chart readings for my sources of
                      information. My Chariot's in the Moon, but my House is in Uranus.

                      --Stefan

                      --
                      Stefan Teleman
                      KDE e.V.
                      stefan.teleman@...
                    • John D Groenveld
                      In message , Bob ... I don t understand Hesseldahl s self-censorship. To not mention that
                      Message 10 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In message <alpine.GSO.2.01.1208081257230.17319@...>, Bob
                        Friesenhahn writes:
                        >I am trying to understand the industry analysts.

                        I don't understand Hesseldahl's self-censorship.
                        To not mention that Oracle's Ed Zander-esque low-volume, high-margin
                        Exa appliances run on top of high-volume, low-margin x64 processors
                        and OpenSolaris when discussing HPQ's port of HPUX to x64 seems to be
                        a disservice to those following the latest battle in the mainframe
                        wars.
                        All the other hacks in my Google News queries either quoted his
                        words or provided less informative reporting.

                        John
                        groenveld@...
                      • Keith Bierman
                        On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
                        Message 11 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
                          bfriesen@...> wrote:

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > ....
                          > >
                          > > These were not copied from any UNIX or from any other OS. They were
                          > > written from scratch, and have absolutely nothing to do with Linux.
                          >
                          > Absolutely nothing to do?
                          >


                          Let's step back so we stop talking past one another. We're all folks of
                          goodwill (as far as I can tell ;>). What is the purpose of this discussion?
                          Come to a consensus meaning for the sake of this group for what "derived"
                          means (there's Legal and Engineering definitions that are fairly well
                          known; that are different in key ways)? If so, to what end?



                          >
                          > Your statements are about as believeable as that in most movies which
                          > include extra-terrestrials, the extra-terrestrials have a profoundly
                          > humanoid form. Given the hundreds of millions of light years
                          > separating the planets, it is just not reasonable that
                          > extra-terrestrials would look like humans.
                          >


                          Well that depends a lot on one's theory about how life forms, is spread
                          etc. Charles Stross's universe where the book Singularity plays out has a
                          good explanation for why so many aliens look like us. Nice read.
                          "Mutineer's Moon" (I forget the author) also, different solution

                          ...
                          >
                          > Note that POSIX is clearly based on Unix interfaces so that even if
                          > Linux is based on POSIX, it is still based on Unix interfaces.
                          >
                          >
                          > based on, derived, all have technical definitions. In this day and age of
                          litigation even Engineers need to learn how to speak Legalese sometimes.

                          Anyway, using the definition the Lawyers have coached me on, I have to
                          agree with Alan, that only things that have passed certification and paid
                          the registration fees are Unix(tm). That's the Law. Doesn't matter what the
                          code says or comes from.

                          Using the Engineering/historical definitions, there are two core legs, the
                          BSD leg and the AT&T leg. Code bases which are clearly derived (in the
                          engineering sense) from these, are generally called Unix (ignoring the
                          trademark violation issues).

                          Linux is neither of things. It is highly similar in many ways, it clearly
                          was inspired by it (as Unix was inspired by Multics; but even moreso).

                          Beyond that, please articulate a definition of the words, derived, based
                          on, etc. and some rationale for why this is a productive discussion.

                          Not attempting to be rude; but I don't think this is the best use of the
                          group energy. I could be persuaded otherwise, if I had the foggiest idea of
                          what we were trying to accomplish and why.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • John D Groenveld
                          In message ... Does Oracle license a RHEL conformance suite from Redhat so that Judith Sim
                          Message 12 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In message <CAHSokPx9dRQPRgWb=G4Na_ffguReOU1dRNiiL5=b7R=T2ADr2Q@...>
                            , Keith Bierman writes:
                            >provide an outside the black box perspective that is very similar. I have
                            >no doubt a distribution could easily pass the conformance suite, but as I
                            >said there isn't any sign that any of the commercial Linux vendors feel any
                            >pressure to do so, and as Alan aptly noted, it costs $$.

                            Does Oracle license a RHEL conformance suite from Redhat so that
                            Judith Sim and company can claim that John Fowler and company's
                            high-volume, low-margin Unbreakable Linux conforms to the
                            Redhat industry standard?

                            John
                            groenveld@...
                          • Bob Friesenhahn
                            ... We headed down this hole while trying to figure out why and how industry analysts treat Unix as a special category while they apparently lump Linux and
                            Message 13 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Keith Bierman wrote:
                              >
                              > Linux is neither of things. It is highly similar in many ways, it clearly
                              > was inspired by it (as Unix was inspired by Multics; but even moreso).
                              >
                              > Beyond that, please articulate a definition of the words, derived, based
                              > on, etc. and some rationale for why this is a productive discussion.
                              >
                              > Not attempting to be rude; but I don't think this is the best use of the
                              > group energy. I could be persuaded otherwise, if I had the foggiest idea of
                              > what we were trying to accomplish and why.

                              We headed down this hole while trying to figure out why and how
                              industry analysts treat "Unix" as a special category while they
                              apparently lump Linux and Windows into the same category (as
                              non-Unix).

                              If vendors like Hp, Dell, or Oracle sell x86 iron equally capable of
                              running Linux, Solaris, *BSD, or Windows, then how do these astute
                              analysts classify a system sale?

                              Is it possible that the claimed death of Solaris and the claimed death
                              of Unix is partially due to the inaccurate classification methods used
                              by these industry analysts?

                              Bob
                              --
                              Bob Friesenhahn
                              bfriesen@..., http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
                              GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
                            • Keith Bierman
                              On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
                              Message 14 of 25 , Aug 8, 2012
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
                                bfriesen@...> wrote:

                                > **
                                >
                                >
                                > On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Keith Bierman wrote:
                                > >... how
                                > industry analysts treat "Unix" as a special category while they
                                > apparently lump Linux and Windows into the same category (as
                                > non-Unix)....
                                >
                                Is it possible that the claimed death of Solaris and the claimed death
                                > of Unix is partially due to the inaccurate classification methods used
                                > by these industry analysts?


                                Well, the short answer is yes, and because they are "journalists".

                                The longer answer, mine (not representing any past, present or future
                                employer or consulting clients):

                                The major "analyst" (Market Research) organizations publish very large,
                                very detailed reports for $$$$. The primary customers are:

                                1) Vendor's Marketing Departments

                                Because if the report(s) say anything nice, for a larger fee one can quote
                                them in one's Marketing
                                collateral; if they say anything nasty, one's competitor's will quote it,
                                so one must have the appropriate Spin and Answers ready to roll

                                2) Customer CIO|CTO|their staff

                                To bake into Long Term plans for technology refresh cycles

                                (1) Vendors will buy the reports in any event, so no special Marketing is
                                required to them (at least for the major houses and major vendors)
                                (2) $$ may be scarce, so it is critical to convince them that they NEED to
                                buy the full reports.

                                The full reports typically are very detailed, with reams of data (or at
                                least what appears to be data) as well as conclusions. The data is often
                                sliced and diced different ways, or available (for an additional fee) in
                                raw form.

                                In order to get (2) to buy, the Analyst House will reveal part(s) of the
                                data and conclusions to the Trade Press. Obviously, the Press could buy the
                                report(s) for $$ but seldom do. So rather than doing their own analysis of
                                the raw or even partially processed data, they make do with the freebie
                                extracts. Knowing this, the extracts are greatly simplified, and generally
                                tell a story which fits into some neat narrative designed to scare the
                                CIO|CTO|et al into buying the complete report.

                                The data can be sliced and diced to support a variety of narratives.

                                So put yourself into the CIO|CTO|et al shoes. Would a story that the status
                                quo is stable get you to buy an expensive report? Would a story that some
                                fraction of Windows servers are displaced by Linux|Unix? (well, perhaps
                                once upon a time, but that's an old story now, so not worthy of spending $$
                                for details). But if you are the CIO|CTO|et al of a Fortune 500 company,
                                chances are you have one or more traditional piles of Iron.

                                1. If it's a mainframe, its probably an IBM (nearly everyone else is in
                                the noise) and if it isn't, you've stuck with it against all odds for so
                                many technology cycles, this isn't the time to switch. If it's an IBM you
                                probably "bleed true blue" and aren't moving. Similarly for the
                                AS400 descendants, etc. All the moreso if you have multiple
                                levels/generations/models of various IBM kit. The convergence on Power
                                provides a relatively smooth upgrade path, and you don't need to pay $$$ to
                                the Marketing Research firms to know this.
                                2. If it's pure AIX, HPUX, or Solaris you may well be wondering if it is
                                finally time to plunge into the "mainstream" so you'll pony up $$$ for the
                                report(s)


                                So put yourself into the Research firms shoes, which way of slicing the
                                data and categorizing things is most apt to get Press? Most apt to get
                                Press which will drive $$$ of revenue into your pockets?

                                So there is a "natural" bias towards the narrative you've described, which
                                can only be told if one categorizes the data points in the fashion you
                                outline.

                                That the Press then repeats it endlessly rather than doing their own
                                analysis, research or even spending the $$$ for the full reports is a
                                reflection of what "Trade Press" and "Journalist" mean.

                                In this sense, you are right, one could take the same data, and tell the
                                story of relatively stable zOS and IBM "minicomputers" vs. the sum of {AIX,
                                Solaris, HPUX, Linux, BSD, HPUX} (growing) vs. Windows (probably stable on
                                the desktop, although the version mix may be of critical interest; possibly
                                declining overall, especially in the Cloud). But would that sell more
                                copies of the complete reports?

                                The MR firms complete data may be incomplete or even be inaccurate (indeed,
                                how could it be otherwise, since most of the data they most want isn't
                                public, but needs to be estimated by various means, or begged from the
                                Vendors who have little incentive to provide complete data) but the full
                                reports are often worth reading. Especially when they provide enough of the
                                data for one to draw one's own conclusions rather than having it all
                                predigested, pre-categorized, etc.

                                There is no technical rationale for blending "Windows+Linux" as they have
                                nothing in common; other than they both run on commodity (read x86/x64)
                                hardware. That's enough of a justification for making the
                                "right" narrative, so that's what they do.

                                There is no need, or benefit to debating "is Linux == Unix" with Engineers
                                or Lawyers. Even if the result were "yes" it would not change the Market
                                Research house(s) summary categorization for the Press.


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Laurent Blume
                                ... I can t wait for the second part, when we discuss about Sun s plan to make Solaris LSB-compliant and if that would have allowed it to be called Linux(tm).
                                Message 15 of 25 , Aug 9, 2012
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On 08/08/12 22:42, Keith Bierman wrote:
                                  > Not attempting to be rude; but I don't think this is the best use of the
                                  > group energy. I could be persuaded otherwise, if I had the foggiest idea of
                                  > what we were trying to accomplish and why.

                                  I can't wait for the second part, when we discuss about Sun's plan to
                                  make Solaris LSB-compliant and if that would have allowed it to be
                                  called Linux(tm).

                                  </troll>

                                  Oh, I'll just shut up :-P

                                  Laurent
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.