Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:17:33 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Duke Normandin <01031149@3web.net> Cc: Alejandro Ramirez <ales@megared.net.mx>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD = Unix ??? Message-ID: <20000203101733.J55303@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <000a01bf6d7d$05897fa0$a99bc5d1@webserver> References: <000a01bf6d7d$05897fa0$a99bc5d1@webserver>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, 2 February 2000 at 5:55:07 -0700, Duke Normandin wrote: > On Tuesday, February 01, 2000 6:07 PM Greg Lehey wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 1 February 2000 at 17:41:00 -0700, Duke Normandin wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 01, 2000 12:50 PM Alejandro Ramirez wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, February 01, 2000 1:36 PM, J McKitrick wrote: >>>>> I just read Greg's article on BSD advocacy. Just a question: Linux is >>>>> actually a Unix clone. Can BSD be called Unix? Or are we just Unix >>>>> compatible, or Unix-based? >>>> >>>> Unix its a trademark, and the owner righ now I think its Santa Cruz >>>> Operation, and all the systems that wants to be called unix, have to pay for >>>> the use of the name. >>> >>> Putting aside politics, copyrights etc., can BSD rightly be called >>> Unix? So my question then begs another: What are the ``core'' >>> characteristics identifying an OS as Unix? How does BSD deviate from >>> these? >> >> This is very much a matter of definition. Recall that BSD one *was* >> called BSD UNIX, which I think is a very good reason to believe that >> the only reasons are because of copyright. Those were the reasons >> given in the "cease and desist" notices from USL, anyway. On the >> other hand, things like the Single UNIX Specification and UNIX 95% >> contain requirements which (IIRC) BSD doesn't fulfil. > > Given your last sentence, would it be more accurate to define BSD as > a Unix-based OS? I've been trying to find a good, accurate, succinct definition of the relationship for some time. I'm still working on it. The best I can see at the moment is that BSD is one of the UNIX family, maybe a disowned son :-) > By definition, it certainly can't be called a clone, if certain > components are missing. I don't agree with that. Linux was called a clone long before it offered all the features of UNIX System V. > Be-that-as-it-may, IMHO BSD appears to have evolved to the point of > offering the majority of the "key" functionality that Unix offers, > which are so appealing and necessary in this day-and-age. It's more the other way round: BSD has typically had more features than System V. It's only since the introduction of System V.4 (admittedly a long time ago now) that System V caught up--by incorporating all the BSD code. > It's a bit like the early '80s with PC-DOS w/ Basic A and MSDOS w/o > -- not quite compatible, but almost ;) Well, I don't think the comparison quite fits. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key See complete headers for address and phone numbers 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?20000203101733.J55303>