Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:32:21 -0800 From: Milo Hyson <milo@cyberlifelabs.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what's unix and what's not Message-ID: <3FC410B5.6050807@cyberlifelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <20031126012951.GC1068@dds.nl> References: <000701c3b2ef$a617a080$7ffc2dd5@workstation> <20031126012951.GC1068@dds.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alex de Kruijff wrote: >On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 02:01:24AM +0100, .VWV. wrote: > > >>what's unix and what's not? >> >> > >I feel that *anything* that is based up on the orginal Unix version >should be called Unix. So I would say Linux should also be called UNIX >or UNIX-BASES, just as *BSD is. Another reason why this difference realy >souldn't be thare is that Linux have copies source from BSD in to it own >source. > It is my understanding that the Linux kernel was built from scratch. It may be patterned after UNIX, but it wasn't based on it. BSD, on the other hand, is derived (indirectly) from the original work by Ritchie and Thompson. Of course, I may be on crack.... -- Milo Hyson Chief "Mad" Scientist and Director of Asian Operations CyberLife Labs, LLC
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FC410B5.6050807>