"Joe Dunning" <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote in message
news:6sjsb.125793$mZ5.866660@attbi_s54...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:38:47 GMT, JamesDad
> <mewnewsARROGANCE@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <mike@tkg.ca> wrote:
> >>Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.
> >>http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html
> >>Mike
> >
> >I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
> >that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
> >could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based
on
> >what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
> >the responses, I was even more convinced of it.
> >
> >Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
> >Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit,
SCO,
> >and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.
>
> Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
> The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
> the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
> clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.
>
Interesting, I have always believed that AT&T developed Unix as well as C.
They may hsve given the name to Open Group but that doesn't mean they didn't
develop it and design telephone switching computers running Unix. Remember
their 3B series of Unix Boxes?