9 ms·
The BSD family tree
- reirob 10y agoThere is also http://www.quicklycode.com/infographics_posters/unix-history-poster http://www.quicklycode.com/infographics_posters/unix-history...
- knz42 10y agoThere's also https://www.levenez.com/unix/ https://www.levenez.com/unix/
- emmelaich 10y agoSunOS should be in there too, not exactly sure where. -Off NET/2 or Reno probably.- Correction, off 4.0.something or earlier. See wikipedia.
- drewg123 10y agoAlong with DEC Ultrix, and (kind of OSF/1, Tru64, etc). There were lots of other proprietary BSD based systems in the 80s as well.
- emmelaich 10y agoYeah, certainly Ultrix was one of the closest. Many diverged heavily though - HP/UX etc. I guess they're confining the history to non-commercial (albeit semi-closed source) versions.
- NelsonMinar 10y agoUltrix forked off BSD 4.2. It was the Unix I learned first, and working with it when the civilized world was working off BSD 4.3 variants made life really awkward.
- drewg123 10y agoUltrix was my 2nd unix, after SunOS 4.1 on a massively over-committed Solbourne. I preferred Ultrix just because the machines were in a closed lab, and "faster" because there weren't 300 undergrads trying to compile their projects all at the same time on an overheating Solbourne...
- elvinyung 10y agoHeh. Between NetBSD 1.4 and Darwin/Mac OS X there's an entry that just says "(?)". It's probably pretty well-known that question mark is NeXTSTEP, which was built at NeXT, the company that Steve Jobs founded after he left Apple the first time around. NeXTSTEP was built around BSD mostly because of Avie Tevanian's involvement in CMU's Mach kernel project.
- walrus01 10y agothere's incredible similarity under the hood between the first version of OSX 10.0 server and nextstep. How this was missed in the diagram is puzzling to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Server_1.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_Server_1.0
- megabytemike 10y agoWikipedia mentions Rhapsody being developed off 4.4BSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#Unix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP#Unix
- djsumdog 10y agoI was wondering about that; didn't realize it was NeXT. A friend of mine still has his original NeXT box for the short time he worked on it. I was also surprised at the origins of DarwinBSD. I never really looked up the history and didn't realize it forked some of the code off FreeBSD. It's interesting to note that the PS4 OS is also a forked FreeBSD variant as well.
- reavon 10y agoJordon Hubbard even worked at Apple for a bit.
- digi_owl 10y agoKinda funny watching him getting rebuffed when trying to convince FreeBSD to adopt Launchd. Sometimes i wish the same kind of attitude towards stability would be a prevalent in the Linux world, rather than the magpie like chase of shinies.
- lobster_johnson 10y agoHere's a much bigger one that takes lots of Unix variants into account: https://www.levenez.com/unix/unix.png https://www.levenez.com/unix/unix.png (from here [1]). Also available as a big PDF. Edit: Updated with newest version. [1] https://www.levenez.com/unix/ https://www.levenez.com/unix/
- tiffanyh 10y agoWow, looking at the family tree above - I can't help but think how this has fractured the BSD development community. Unlike Linux, with has a viral license which essentially forces people to work on the same code base - BSD doesn't, which from a technical standpoint causes way more forking and less contributions back to a main tree.
- kryptiskt 10y agoHow would a GPL license have prevented any split between the open source variants of BSD? Why would it have made Theo happy to stay with NetBSD? Also, Linux have longstanding forks, the Android kernel and the real-time tree to take two prominent examples.
- tedunangst 10y agoGPL, dude. It solves all the problems.
- na85 10y agoThere seems to be a large(ish?) portion of the free software community that devotes a large amount of its time and energy to handwringing and general agitating about licenses. I really don't get it: Companies are routinely shown to be ignoring GPL and other licensing with zero consequence and your average computer user probably doesn't even understand the concept of a source code license. Does anyone really think that if OpenBSD had some GPL'ed code in there, and $company was taking that code and distributing it closed-source, that there would be any consequences whatsoever? If so, why does this never make the news? If not, then why do these people bother?
- bootload 10y ago"4.4BSD Lite2 -> OpenBSD 2.3" What happened with the 4.4BSD lite to OpenBSD fork? The next OBSD is a parent of NetBSD.
- tedunangst 10y agoThe openbsd 2.3 label is duplicated to prevent too many lines.
- bootload 10y agothx @tedunangst probably should have duplicated the txt diagram with a proper diagram. A jump could be shown with a "<" or "(".
- sverige 10y agoI love the BSDs. I just took a personal tour of the current state of affairs in BSD-land. I can't get WiFi to work with OpenBSD on an old Thinkpad T60 I recently got, so I've been trying all the other BSDs on it to see what works. A couple of them won't boot at all. WiFi works best with FreeBSD and HardenedBSD, which is unusual on laptops in my experience.
- JdeBP 10y agoI've just had a similar experience with an old 32-bit CPU Acer Aspire One. I tried what modern 32-bit BSDs I had, including GhostBSD and OpenBSD. Only FreeBSD 10.3 drove the WiFi network adapter. Interestingly, FreeBSD 11 did not. So there's a regression of some sort in there, somewhere.
- liopleurodon 10y agowhere's bitrig?
- tedunangst 10y agoIt's dead, Jim.
- drewg123 10y agoIt is funny.. I was just combing through old BSDs earlier today. I'm giving an internal talk next week about some changes I've been making to mbufs, and I was trying to find out when mbufs were introduced. They've been around since before I wrote my first FreeBSD, Tru64, and BSDI drivers in the 90s. The earliest I can find is 4.1c from 1983, but that looks more fully formed that I expected. And there is a fragment in a 2.9 from 1982, but I think that leaked in from 4.1.
- cat199 10y ago3BSD-4.2 sounds about right - My thinking w/o references (enthusiast but was not 'there' at the time) is that this was introduced with either the 32Bit VM system, FFS implementation, or BSD network starck - probably the McCusick FFS papers [ed: are worth a read]. Really it's kind of nuts how 'usable' and 'current' a load of 4.3BSD on a VM load feels out of the box.
- drewg123 10y agoIf you ever get a chance to hear Kirk talk about the history of BSD, I highly recommend it. He tells some great stories about the TCP bakeoff, the history of the VAX context switch code, etc.
- kps 10y agoThe Unix Heritage Society¹ has earlier: http://www.tuhs.org/ http://www.tuhs.org/
- aninteger 10y agoThis is missing a lot of BSDs. Now granted some of them are dead, some inactive, some just missing. The ones I can think of off the top of my head: PC-BSD/TruOS, MirBSD/MirOS, Bitrig, HardenedBSD.
- sverige 10y agoGhostBSD, MidnightBSD, DragonflyBSD, FuguIta...
- X86BSD 10y agoMost of those are just FreeBSD. Pulling from the FreeBSD tree for their base.
- JoachimSchipper 10y agoMirBSD and BitRig (which looks very dead?) are OpenBSD forks.
- partycoder 10y agoSomeone should convert it to graphviz.
- ksec 10y agoSo what happened to NextBSD, has FreeBSD 12 essentially replaced it?