FreeBSD version 8.0 lands FreeBSD has released version 8.0 of its beefy Unix-like operating system. The outfit has published a long list of improvements and new features that have been added to the OS. Notable highlights in the latest release include binary compatibility with Fedora 10 Linux software and network stack virtualisation. Version 13 of the …
FreeBSD is not "Unix-like", Kelly. It *is* UNIX.
The various BSDs -- FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD -- all share the same parentage. They are derived from the BSD4.4 release produced at the University of California, Berkeley in the late 1990s. Those UCB releases extended the original version of Unix from Bell Labs.
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.
I completely agree with the couple of comments above.
The projects may not be able to officially call themselves Unix, but that doesn't mean they're not!
I hate all this *nix and unix-like crap - call a spade a spade - BSD is Unix. As is Solaris (ok - I know it's Sys V, but even so), AIX, etc.
The only system I wouldn't call Unix is Linux and that's because it's such a muddled mess (Flame ON!), but event that is called something irritating like GNU/Linux. WTF??? Hey, Linux also makes use of BSD stuff so why not call it BSD/GNU/Linux? Then again, I'm sure the BSD projects wouldn't want to be associated with Linux in this way,
"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.
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.
"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 .
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.'
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.
I just upgraded from FreeBSD 7.2 and the upgrade went okay. It didn't tell me that I needed to uninstall the 'usblib' port and I had problems upgrading 'hal', but apart from that I'm pleased with it.
Whatever anyone says FreeBSD *is* UNIX, unlike GNU/Linux. If you want to go down the whole 'modern BSD is a descendant of BSD4.3/4.4 which is a descendant of System V' path, Mac OS X is a bastardisation of FreeBSD, the Mach kernel and NextStep but Apple have the money to get it certified as 'proper' UNIX.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
