Wrong, as usual. I've said Linux is a UNIX, as in UNIX-like. I have never used "Linux" when referring to another UNIX-like operating system or in reference to all UNIX operating systems. That is the practice I complained about. But instead of noticing a possible point of agreement between us you decided to attack.
I understand this upsets you , but if you have some other reason you think I was unfair to IBM let's hear it.
It doesn't upset me at all. I have no interest in IBM's success, except that they make the chips in my Wii, PS3 and 360. You were unfair to IBM about Project Monterey. Let's look at your post:
IBM almost single-handedly destroyed UNIX, dropping their development agreements with SCO while using some of those same developers to build equivalence in Linux.First, an already seriously hurting Old SCO dropped out of the UNIX business before IBM dropped out of Monterey. Second, SCO's successor-in-interest (Caldera/New SCO) also had developers already working with IBM, HP, Intel and others on a competing Linux IA-64 port (Monterey was initially an IA-64 project) and completed it before Monterey died. You also leave out that the software was already in beta but Intel wouldn't have the chip for which it was designed for another two years, thus no sales to recoup in the meantime.
So if indeed the death of Monterey almost killed UNIX, which is highly doubtful, there's plenty of blame to go around among the major players. Caldera/SCO's former CEO is even on record saying he was pleased Project Monterey died, letting IBM focus back on AIX-5L. Most definitely not even close to "single-handedly."
I don't like it when people say "Linux" instead of "UNIX"
Then in your very next post, quote:
I've said Linux is a UNIX
So, you "don't like it when people say 'Linux' instead of 'UNIX'," but you yourself have quote "said Linux is a UNIX." Quite obviously you have a confliction within yourself, no wonder you constantly talk in circles.