Linked by David Adams on Wed 10th Aug 2011 17:12 UTC, submitted by R_T_F_M
Permalink for comment 484810
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-01-09
I don't call Android a Linux (where Linux is defined as Linux distro the likes of Fedora, Ubuntu, etc). Sure it uses the Linux kernel and some userspace utils are common, but otherwise the Android userspace is very different from traditional Linux distros. Particularly in the area that matters most - the application framework.
Same with BSD and OSX - the application framework on OSX (Cocoa and the Core* stuff) is very different from the BSDs, which are more similar to Linux distros in that regard actually. "
Congratulations, you've just proved that the userland is a horrible way to determine what family an OS is in. Afterall, OS/2 isn't Windows 3.1, but you can run programs written for Windows 3.1 on it. You can run Linux programs on FreeBSD, that doesn't give Linux & FreeBSD family ties. The fact of the matter is that BSD & Mach DNA (figuratively) are in the core of MacOS X. Really, that's all that matters. In matters of genealogy, it's not what you have now, it's what you started with.