Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 05:17:36 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Konrad Heuer <kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de> Cc: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: 4.4BSDLite (was Re: BSD Strains) Message-ID: <15012.51024.938212.113209@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0103061136130.44137-100000@gwdu60.gwdg.de> References: <15012.4172.716615.331667@guru.mired.org> <Pine.BSF.4.31.0103061136130.44137-100000@gwdu60.gwdg.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Konrad Heuer <kheuer@gwdu60.gwdg.de> types: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > > BSD Lite is really only of historical interest. > I'm not sure whether 4.4BSDLite is of historical interest only. I think > there's a lot of code from 4.4BSD still important for FreeBSD & Co. What's > about lots of man pages, much userland code and our famous C library libc > and others? Sure, the code from 4.4BSD Lite plays a large part in most BSD distributions. That's what provides the interest - if it weren't a major part of the history of the BSD distributions, there would be no "historical interest" for the FreeBSD community. The "only" applies to the distribution. It's not a complete OS distribution as is, because it's missing the parts that AT&T had a copyright on. A lot of the code is now outdated. While much of the code in FreeBSD is based on 4.4BSD Lite, that integration happened with FreeBSD 2.0. What interest other than historical is there in FreeBSD 2.0? There should be more such interest than in 4.4BSD Lite, as FreeBSD 2.0 has more code in common with 4-STABLE than 4.4BSD Lite. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15012.51024.938212.113209>