Linked by David Adams on Tue 8th Apr 2008 16:33 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 308843
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Darwin's position within the BSD family tree
by memson on Wed 9th Apr 2008 10:15
in reply to "RE: Darwin's position within the BSD family tree"
I would go further than that... Darwin is based on the core of NEXTSTEP and OPENSTEP. The FreeBSD parts only happened when Apple replaced/updated *STEP components with them, or extended the core in to areas that the *STEP's didn't cover. The "comes from FreeBSD" is factually incorrect. "Converged with FreeBSD from disparete trunks of the same overall base" would be more correct.
RE[2]: Darwin's position within the BSD family tree
by Doc Pain on Wed 9th Apr 2008 18:08
in reply to "RE: Darwin's position within the BSD family tree"
that timeline completely ignores mach, nextstep and openstep. you might get the wrong impression that osx is only a fork of freebsd.
This impression should not be concluded from the timeline. Darwin and Mac OS X are no forks of BSD, but they have a strong relationship to BSD. Maybe this is not clearly shown by this timeline.
Yes, this one is much better and saves you from buying expensive wallpaper for your coding booth. :-)




Member since:
2007-07-27
that timeline completely ignores mach, nextstep and openstep. you might get the wrong impression that osx is only a fork of freebsd. this big unix timeline is much better:
http://www.levenez.com/unix/