Hi,
Actually, in the Open Source book by O' Reilly, Linus himself
answers this question : all other variants of UNIX were actually derived
from the AT&T and (eventually) BSD source code. Linux was written from
scratch and is not based off of the AT&T or BSD sources. So Linux is
really a UN
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Alisdair McDiarmid wrote:
> > Mark Wright writes:
> > > Did someone register FreeBSD? If you check out FreeBSD.org, they say
> > > "FreeBSD is an advanced BSD UNIX operating system".
> >
> > They don't need anyone's permission to call FreeBSD UNIX. They aren't
> > selling it
I wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> > Mark Wright writes:
> > > Did someone register FreeBSD? If you check out FreeBSD.org, they say
> > > "FreeBSD is an advanced BSD UNIX operating system".
> >
> > They don't need anyone's permission to call FreeBSD UNIX. They aren't
> > selling it.
>
> I don't th
> Mark Wright writes:
> > Did someone register FreeBSD? If you check out FreeBSD.org, they say
> > "FreeBSD is an advanced BSD UNIX operating system".
>
> They don't need anyone's permission to call FreeBSD UNIX. They aren't
> selling it.
I don't think that's anything to do with it. BSD UNIX *i
Mark Wright writes:
> Did someone register FreeBSD? If you check out FreeBSD.org, they say
> "FreeBSD is an advanced BSD UNIX operating system".
They don't need anyone's permission to call FreeBSD UNIX. They aren't
selling it.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
From: Ted Harding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|On 08-Jun-99 Mark Wright wrote:
|> I've checked the FAQs, and I can't seem to find a good answer to this:
|> why is Linux not refered to as a flavor of Unix? On Linux.Org, it's
|> referred to as "Unix-like", and this hedging seems pretty universal.
|> Is th
On 08-Jun-99 Mark Wright wrote:
> I've checked the FAQs, and I can't seem to find a good answer to this:
> why is Linux not refered to as a flavor of Unix? On Linux.Org, it's
> referred to as "Unix-like", and this hedging seems pretty universal.
> Is there some Unix standard that Linux does not
>
> I've checked the FAQs, and I can't seem to find a good answer to this: why
> is Linux not refered to as a flavor of Unix? On Linux.Org, it's referred to
> as "Unix-like", and this hedging seems pretty universal. Is there some
> Unix standard that Linux does not adhere to. Is there some lic
8 matches
Mail list logo
