Which is the point, when he's says it's not UNIX'y, he means it doesn't play well with the environment; he's not talking about philosophy, he's talking about the implementation so saying it's philosophically the same is missing the point.
My point is that the original article was saying its "UNIX'y" in philosophy. So the commenter you're discussing is the one who is missing the point, in my opinion. It's a moot point anyway, we're being needlessly pedantic here.
