3 ms·
This is really not a correct statement beyond the fact that both are a type of Unix.
by angry_octet 6mo ago
This is really not a correct statement beyond the fact that both are a type of Unix.
- cluckindan 6mo agoLinux is not Unix: it is not derived from AT&T Unix.
- ahartmetz 6mo agoLinux 2.2 or 2.4 or so (possibly only Suse Linux) even had a kernel startup message "Unix compliance testing by UNIFIX" or something, back when Unix was considered more prestigious than Linux. It is / was by some official definition "a Unix", though not "UNIX the trademark by AT&T".
- cluckindan 6mo agoI’m fairly certain they’re referring to POSIX compatibility, not calling a Linux a Unix.
- ahartmetz 6mo agoOh damn, you are probably right.
- angry_octet 6mo agoBy that definition, nor is BSD. It's kind of their whole raison d'étre.
- cluckindan 5mo agoBSD was originally a derivative of AT&T Unix.
- angry_octet 5mo agoYou should read some BSD history.
- cluckindan 5mo agoStill originally a derivative of AT&T Unix. :)
- ahartmetz 6mo agoWhat are the differences? I think of both as Unix-type sytems with macrokernels. I have no practical experience with BSDs.
- ahartmetz 6mo agoJeez, care to reply instead of downvoting? I would really like to know. I do keep an eye on the BSDs as a good example in some areas where Linux is bad.
- unethical_ban 6mo agoDidn't downvote. But if you don't know the difference, then you seemed pretty confident in describing their differences. BSDs are an actual fork of UNIX from the 90s. Linux is a kernel whose code is not forked from UNIX. The userland is most often GNU, which stands for GNU's Not Unix.
- ahartmetz 5mo agoThat's not an architectural difference though. The way that the systems are technically structured seems very, very similar to me. There are quality differences (BSD generally better) and feature and performance differences (Linux generally better), but not basic approach differences - is that wrong?