[oldskool]

[But ultimately, they still have a terminal, run open source software, and work off of the Linux kernel.]

....except BSD is not based from the Linux kernel. It is Unix-based, as has been WELL-DOCUMENTED here already. If you check the links I posted, there is mention of the Linux kernel and BSD base are different, yet they are both Unix-based, which has been mentioned umpteen times already. My glaring mistake was not mentioning Linux was Unix-based originally. But Linux isn't BSD ! NO matter how you slice it, it has enough different components and characteristics to be different.

It's like saying a zebra and horse are the same. Different DNA, look the same, came from the same place at some point no doubt, but different.

So to analogize the car thing, the Honda (BSD) and the Chevy (Linux) have two wheels, steering wheel, etc., but two different engines, but both inspired by Unix (Ford). .

[Saxon]

OK let me step in for clarification:
BSD was partially developed by AT&T an Bell lab's as a successor to the original UNIX, it was also sponsored to be developed by UC Berkeley for general public release when AT&T an Bell decided that they didn't like some of the more open aspects of the BSD license the FreeBSD project had to rewrite most of the OS to remove the proprietary code.
This gave Linux a chance to take market share, linus originally did not intended the kernel to be as popular as it is, the only reason his kernel became so popular was that at the time FreeBSD 3.x was fighting for it's very existence and newbuilds where getting released almost daily and that the time that was hard to keep up with, but at the time the GNU project had everything but the kernel so people took linus's work an matched it to the gnu software and linux and we have the whole mess we have today.

In short, the unix family tree goes:
Unix, BSD, Solaris, Linux.....

[Jayce]

Originally Posted by oldskool

....except BSD is not based from the Linux kernel. It is Unix-based, as has been WELL-DOCUMENTED here already. If you check the links I posted, there is mention of the Linux kernel and BSD base are different, yet they are both Unix-based, which has been mentioned umpteen times already. My glaring mistake was not mentioning Linux was Unix-based originally. But Linux isn't BSD ! NO matter how you slice it, it has enough different components and characteristics to be different.

It's like saying a zebra and horse are the same. Different DNA, look the same, came from the same place at some point no doubt, but different.

So to analogize the car thing, the Honda (BSD) and the Chevy (Linux) have two wheels, steering wheel, etc., but two different engines, but both inspired by Unix (Ford). .

Whoa, whoa there brother.

Read closely:

Originally Posted by Jayce

Using the Linux fork to further build on this example, you could add on by bringing out Jeep (Suse), Cadillac (Mandriva), Pontiac (Debian), Oldsmobile (Fedora), GMC (Ubuntu).

I left BSD at Honda and that was it. I only built on the Linux side of things. Honda is still off doing its "Honda" thing (BSD) while Linux (General Motors) is handling GMC, Buick, etc. That's what I was getting at.

[oldskool]

No, Jayce, I got that, really. I was just trying to distinguish that BSD and Linux are different. Plain and simple. Came from the same stock (Unix), YES ! We all know that by now. But I did actually understand your post, maybe I just relayed it back a little bit unclearly, but as I understand it, it is as you said....I think Saxon clarified it all - in fact, it is actually from corresponding with him re: BSD that I know they are different, albeit Unix-derived. Ok, I have kicked this dead dog enough. *Signing off this thread*

[Jayce]

Originally Posted by oldskool

No, Jayce, I got that, really. I was just trying to distinguish that BSD and Linux are different. Plain and simple. Came from the same stock (Unix), YES ! We all know that by now. But I did actually understand your post, maybe I just relayed it back a little bit unclearly, but as I understand it, it is as you said....I think Saxon clarified it all - in fact, it is actually from corresponding with him re: BSD that I know they are different, albeit Unix-derived. Ok, I have kicked this dead dog enough. *Signing off this thread*

You say you do. Yet you quoted me as if you didn't...

Anyways, I edited my original post so nobody will be confused in the future.

[oldskool]

Ok, I have kicked this dead dog enough. *Signing off this thread*

Done with it personally. You know, Mak, I never meant to pick it all apart, it's just that inbeing trying to explain my snafu for not being specific originally, now I find myself in a maze of posts trying to clarify something that as I even stated myself, was off-topic and that I am now done with this. Excusing myself from this and all threads henceforth.

[Mak213]

Oldskool,

Please forgive me. It is I who should back out and shut up. I started this by making the stupid post that Linux is a Unix variant and i should have just left it with your post stating that BSD is not technically Linux.

I am the one who started the topic down its current path and i shouldnt have done it. It is i who is mistaken in this not you. Please dont think that i want you to back out of anything. I want you and your input. I should have jsut kept my mouth shut for a change....

[oldskool]

Mak, please see your PM inbox. Thanks.