Sometimes straightforward facts and definitions can seem like that to those who have absolutely no knowledge of the subject. Now, care to explain mixing up POSIX and UNIX standards compliance if you had supposedly known what you were talking about? It shows very well that you don't. I also notice a progression of yours during the conversation, from thinking UNIX meant only the original code, then when told the owners of the name don't require original code, switching to that definition.
Your ignorance is strewn throughout this thread, picking up knowledge from me along the way to try to look like you know the subject. But I refuse to continue educating such an obstinate student anymore.
I’ve been very consistent in this thread depite your typical strawmen diversions, attempted subject changes, and circle talk. And when I pressed you to finally admit what your specific point supposedly was, you said quote “Linux is a UNIX”. Which is of course bogus, and you’ve provided no evidence it is correct other than another bogus claim you keep repeating that “Unix-like” and “UNIX” are synonymous. Funniest of all are your delusions of granduer, since you can’t even tell the differences between UNIX and Unix-like, or between UNIX and Linux.
I’m sure you’d like to keep talking in circles and keep telling us how smart you think you are LOL, but I have better things to do than listen to someone so pathetically confused about such basic terminology. I suggest you contact kernel.org, or gnu.org, and argue with them that you think they are UNIX even though they know they’re not, and even have “NOT UNIX” in their name. They probably won’t let you bloviate as long as I have though, because they probably won’t find it near as funny LMAO.