Linked by ZacharyM on Fri 19th Nov 2010 23:50 UTC
NetBSD Another version of the extremely portable unix-like operating system NetBSD was released today. This release fixes many security issues and bugs. It also includes a good amount of new features. Please read the announcement here.
Thread beginning with comment 450735
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Unix-like??
by MobyTurbo on Sun 21st Nov 2010 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unix-like??"
MobyTurbo
Member since:
2005-07-08

"By your logic, Tru64 isn't Unix then.


Huh? I didn't state that certified Unix wasn't Unix. The only thing you can say by my logic is that any descendant of Unix is Unix. Tru64 is obviously Unix. Genetically as well as certified. That said I don't consider all certified Unicen for Unix. OS X is not Unix in my mind, even though it is certified Unix. Compatibility layers are not enough for me ;)
"

Arguably MacOS is the compatibility layer on OS X, not the NeXTStep bits that include a BSD personality of CMU Mach.

(OSF/1, DEC's own Unix which became Tru64, and some other commercial Unixes use it - CMU Mach with a Unix personality was arguably the most standard SysV configuration at the time NeXT was popular). It's entirely possible to run OS X's "Darwin" without some of the MacOS bits, hence the Darwin distributions.

Perhaps, next you're going to argue that CMU Mach disqualifies these SysV Unixes as Unix, or perhaps the mere presense of the NeXT Frameworks on the system does (please don't install GNUstep then, it'll make your Linux stop being a Unix clone. ;-) )

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Unix-like??
by MobyTurbo on Sun 21st Nov 2010 16:08 in reply to "RE[3]: Unix-like??"
MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

I would add that I agree that Unix certification isn't enough, however, after all, we all can agree that IBM OS/390 isn't Unix. :-)

Edited 2010-11-21 16:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Unix-like??
by fithisux on Sun 21st Nov 2010 17:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Unix-like??"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

It's entirely possible to run OS X's "Darwin" without some of the MacOS bits, hence the Darwin distributions.


Are there any Darwin distributions?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Unix-like??
by Drumhellar on Tue 23rd Nov 2010 06:28 in reply to "RE[4]: Unix-like??"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

There's PureDarwin (www.puredarwin.org)

Though, the latest bit of activity on the page I can find is from May 32, 2010.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Unix-like??
by Lazarus on Sun 21st Nov 2010 18:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Unix-like??"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

[(OSF/1, DEC's own Unix which became Tru64, and some other commercial Unixes use it - CMU Mach with a Unix personality was arguably the most standard SysV configuration at the time NeXT was popular). It's entirely possible to run OS X's "Darwin" without some of the MacOS bits, hence the Darwin distributions.

Perhaps, next you're going to argue that CMU Mach disqualifies these SysV Unixes as Unix


Mach was originally derived from the 4.2BSD kernel. All the things one thinks of when talking about Mach the microkernel were added, then most of the BSD bits were removed as Mach evolved into a microkernel.

Later on other people and projects added a (then) more up to date BSD kernel layer (based on 4.3BSD and some time after 4.4BSD) on top of Mach either as a 'single server' or integrated back into the microkernel.

Reply Parent Score: 2