Well, what I was thinking was that since BSD was derived from AT&T code but Linux was developed from scratch, then the BSD lineage would be ...
uh ... more "pure" so to speak.
. . . Hey, did anybody check out those 20 GB hard drives on sale at Fry's this weekend? (:-P
-David
George Toft wrote:
> Uh, what defines "true Unix"? If you follow the history of Unix
> from the makers of Unix (http://www.bell-labs.com/history/unix/),
> they indicate Novell UnixWare is the current state of Unix. (Novell
> sold UnixWare to SCO, which was bought by Caldera.) BSD was developed
> from AT&T code in 1978
> (http://pluto.phys.nwu.edu/~zhaoyj/learn/Unix-system/ch01.htm)
> and so was Solaris.
>
> To chaos to the otherwise orderly description above, consider this
> figure: http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/ix_unix_net_pic.html
>
> Even though AIX and Linux are on opposite ends on the chart, Linux looks
> and feels more like AIX than Solaris. This will be even more so after
> IBM releases AIX-5L (yes, the L is for Linux).
>
> So what is "true Unix"?
>
> I say, "There is no such thing."
>
> George
>
> Tom Bradford wrote:
> >
> > "David P. Schwartz" wrote:
> > > I'm not being "pro-Apple" here, just pointing out what might not be obvious to some folks. I understand that OS-X has a pretty complete
> > > *nix implementation under it's skins -- I seem to recall it might be a FreeBSD derivative -- with a Mach microkernel at its core.
> >
> > Actually, it's probably a more complete implementation, since FreeBSD is
> > more a true UNIX than Linux is. But I haven't played with it, so I
> > can't so that with any authority.
> >
(text/plain)