To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
According to Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix, you are wrong. ( http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html )
"During one of our weekly group meetings at the CSRG, Keith Bostic brought up the subject of the popularity of the freely-redistributable networking release and inquired about the possibility of doing an expanded release that included more of the BSD code. Mike Karels and I pointed out to Bostic that releasing large parts of the system was a huge task, but we agreed that if he could sort out how to deal with reimplementing the hundreds of utilities and the massive C library then we would tackle the kernel. Privately, Karels and I felt that would be the end of the discussion.
Undeterred, Bostic pioneered the technique of doing a mass net-based development effort. He solicited folks to rewrite the Unix utilities from scratch based solely on their published descriptions. Their only compensation would be to have their name listed among the Berkeley contributors next to the name of the utility that they rewrote. The contributions started slowly and were mostly for the trivial utilities. But as the list of completed utilities grew and Bostic continued to hold forth for contributions at public events such as Usenix, the rate of contributions continued to grow. Soon the list crossed one hundred utilities and within 18 months nearly all the important utilities and libraries had been rewritten.
Proudly, Bostic marched into Mike Karels' and my office, list in hand, wanting to know how we were doing on the kernel. Resigned to our task, Karels, Bostic, and I spent the next several months going over the entire distribution, file by file, removing code that had originated in the 32/V release. When the dust settled, we discovered that there were only six remaining kernel files that were still contaminated and which could not be trivially rewritten. While we considered rewriting those six files so that we could release a complete system, we decided instead to release just what we had. We did, however, seek permission for our expanded release from folks higher up in the University administration. After much internal debate and verification of our method for determining proprietary code, we were given the go-ahead to do the release."
Regarding UNIX amd OSRs, "The UNIX system family tree: Research and BSD" is very interesting. You can find it on any FreeBSD installation or live system CD (FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, FreeSBIE, PC-BSD, DesktopBSD etc.) in /usr/share/misc/bsd-family-tree or http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/share/misc/bsd... (text file with ascii diagram).







Member since:
2006-06-12
"Really, BSD would probably be one of the best candidates for "recreation of unix""
Correct me if I am wrong, please, but BSD was not a recreation of Unix. It IS Unix.
BSD was developed at Berkeley based on the Bell Labs project. Bell's Unix included the source code. Berkeley built on this and over the years because BSD.
Bell Labs (or AT&T) and Berkeley went to court over who owns BSD. They settled out of court....
Nice little diagram:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Unix_history-sim...