Re: Binary Compatability

That means that the linux libraries packaged to provide a userland for the linux syscall emulator are fedora 10. They probably should've updated to ``11'', but then again it's not that big a deal: The commercial software that this is there to support also tends to lag. And you're quite free to update in the meantime. In fact, it isn't all that difficult provided the ports collection catches on. But then I used to run a FreeBSD shop, so maybe my experience just makes it seem easy.

And yes, ``unix-like'' is the correct term. ``Unix'', nowadays, is a trademark and it costs a pretty penny to pass the tests and gain the right to get called ``unix''. Donate the dosh to FreeBSD and I'm sure they'll be happy to fix the oversight.

Still and all, we could colloquially just call all of them ``unix'' and mean ``linux'' with it too, so we can drop that silly ``unix/linux'' you see popping up everywhere. Just as silly as ``C/C++'', which goes to zero as C goes to infinity. More nitpicking? What, this wasn't enough? Alright, it's ``4.4BSD'', not ``BSD4.4''. And the settlement agreed that there was no original at&t unix copyrighted file left after 4.4BSD-lite. The rest is left as an excercise.

nice summary

A nice summary is here: http://www.evilcoder.org/2009/11/27/welcome-to-freebsd-8/

@Cazzo Enorme

"Although the BSD's can claim a lineage back to the early variants of Unix, they cannot actually be called by that name because of the tortuous trademark and licensing of the Unix brand. So, to call them Unix-like is correct."

If it's all about trademark wrangles then "correct" doesn't come into it. "Allowed by a bunch of lawyers" is more like it.

The naming is interesting

But, personally I use UNIX for UNIX, and Unix for UNIX-like. Linux is a kernel not an operating system, once you realise that, then GNU/Linux makes more sense but easier to say Linux distro or Linux System. If you just say Linux and don't supply context then it is assumed you are talking about the Linux kernel.

UNIX is very POSIX, and the BSDs are all quite UNIX-like, but Linux is part of the Unix family.

See, that looks quite neat.

There are a few books that use the Unix name, such as Unix Shell Programming and it would look a little daft to have UNIX-like scattered around there. Absolute BSD brings forth the UNIX-like idea, and the older books tend to use UNIX for UNIX.

The history is actually quite illuminating, coming from MULTICS, UNIX was a one user stripped down version of it. So whilst it came from multi user, it actually was a single user operating system running on a PDP-7, and hence was actually called UNICS to mean a castrated MULTICS a pun on Eunuchs, the spelling was later changed to UNIX.

BSD = Unix

"nowadays, is a trademark and it costs a pretty penny to pass the tests and gain the right to get called ``unix''. Donate the dosh to FreeBSD and I'm sure they'll be happy to fix the oversigh"

Um since BSD contributes to the Unix code base, and since the last official release of UNIX is based of of UNIX , it is UNIX .

@AC -HyperV

No, sorry, you've lost me. Why would you want to use a good operating system with a microsoft product? Shirley that's defeating the object of using a decent OS in the first place.

Unix-like or *nix

NetBSD defines it such:

If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it?

The answer, of course, depends on whether or not the name `duck' is a trademark! If it is, then the closest that something can get, without permission of the owner of the trademark, is `duck-like.'

I think it was even "paid for"

The big deal about BSDi was that it was a purchased license to develop and support the original UNIX code. When Microsoft needed to get on the Internet, they purchased code for the TCP/ip stack from BSD. That is why TRACERT looks so much like TRACEROUTE (or was it traceroute?)

My screaming fast top of the line Pentiun 90 ran BSD i386. I recall spending about $700 for it!

It supported about 8 simultaneous dialups, and the email and web hosting needs of 80 or so customers.

When it was time to build new servers, we chose freeBSD, mostly because i already was familiar with the commands. I recall there were legal threats to larger companies using LINUX flavors, based on UNIX software patents. SCO was the most notorious, every lost SCO UNIX install cost them $7000.

Of course the suits got it wrong.

@Disco-Legend-Zeke

I don't think Microsoft paid anything. See the BSD licence.

They paid hommage

as you must with a BSD license (there is an s in there somewhere by the way).

Apart from a few comments, it is all a bit geeky and nerdy this thread, FreeBSD is for tech and not the support variety. Take your geekiness and nerdiness and off to Windows 7 and Ubuntu with you.

"Unix-like"

FreeBSD has a source code ancestry that can be traced back to Sixth Edition UNIX from 1975. Unlike Linux, which started off as UNIX reinvented badly, to paraphrase Henry Spencer.