4

More specifically, is it a goal to make Linux match up to the Single UNIX Specification?

Additional details would be nice, for example.

  • Is Linux hopelessly far, or somewhere nearby the SUS?
  • Is the SUS considered pointless?
  • Has Linus said anything about it?
700 Software
  • 487
  • 5
  • 16
  • 5
    This is just how I see it, but turning Linux into Unix would be a step backwards. – rubixibuc Dec 30 '11 at 18:44
  • possible duplicate of [Why isn't GNU/Linux SUS v3+ compliant?](http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/6171/why-isnt-gnu-linux-sus-v3-compliant) – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Dec 30 '11 at 21:39
  • See also [Is Linux a Unix?](http://unix.stackexchange.com/q/4091) – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Dec 30 '11 at 21:39
  • This is bordering on trolling or spam for SUS. – XTL Mar 23 '12 at 06:49
  • 1
    There are actually [Linux distros that are Unix-certified](https://github.com/sirredbeard/Awesome-UNIX#unix-certified-linux-based-operating-systems). The list of certified products can be found on [Opengroup's website](https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/). [Is there a linux distro that's UNIX certified?](https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/293396/44425) – phuclv Oct 22 '18 at 04:02

2 Answers2

2

The truth is Linux does not need SUS certification and does not want to become Unix. And it doesn't lack in anything by doing so.

You need to pay in order to become SUS-certified, and it's actually very expensive. This is what BSD-like and GNU/Linux operating system vendors don't apply to it.

Most of all the GNU/Linux distribution follows the Linux Standard Base, that is free of charge and recognized by almost all the Linux vendors.

See: Why isn't GNU/Linux SUS v3+ compliant?

Community
  • 1
harish.venkat
  • 7,313
  • 2
  • 25
  • 30
  • 6
    I don't think it's meaningful to talk about what Linux does or does not "want". Linus Torvalds might want something, but the kernel by itself couldn't be certified. A vendor *could* submit a particular distribution for certification, and I wouldn't be astonished to see that happen, but apparently it hasn't been worth the cost so far. – Keith Thompson Dec 30 '11 at 20:03
  • 2
    Since this answer is almost word for word the same as the accepted answer for the cited question, if it gets accepted wouldn't that make a very convincing argument for closing the question as a duplicate? I don't think it helps to have duplicate answers scattered all over. Should this be discussed on meta? – jw013 Dec 31 '11 at 01:51
  • most don't need the certification, but some distros might have incentives to do that [Is there a linux distro that's UNIX certified?](https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/293396/44425) – phuclv Oct 22 '18 at 04:04
0

No. If anything, in practice UNIX(tm) systems have been becoming more and more GNU/Linux with time. Some in look and API, most by actually offering ports of GNU software for their system.

Most importantly, Linux is just the kernel and there's a crazy number of "operating systems" built with it. Some of them might indeed be interested in pursuing a certification, but it would probably not be worth the effort. Most wouldn't want to be bound by any antiquated spec anyway.

The LSB is a more open effort and many will happily break even that to follow their own ideas.

XTL
  • 1,112
  • 1
  • 10
  • 18
  • the answer is actually yes since 14-Dec-2012: [Is there a linux distro that's UNIX certified?](https://unix.stackexchange.com/q/293396/44425) – phuclv Oct 22 '18 at 04:03
  • Interesting. That still leaves the answer to the question at 'no', though it seems to be possible to build something with Linux in it that can be certified. – XTL Nov 02 '18 at 19:00