Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.se.dataphone.net!nntp.uio.no!newsfeeds.sol.net!worldnet.att.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!165.254.2.53!nonexistent.com!not-for-mail From: le@put.com (Louis Epstein) Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD (or something else?) Followup-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc X-Nntp-Posting-User: le Message-ID: <E87A0D.2pq@nonexistent.com> References: <332c9a76.3278270@news.adelaide.on.net> <01bc32f2$3783f300$04000001@Colin> <E79F14.n7z@forthdv.pfm-mainz.de> <332f5ffb.519605@news.sprynet.com> <5h51ma$b1u$2@kayrad.ziplink.net> <3337e3ad.1847437@news.sprynet.com> <5hbh2g$gah$1@kayrad.ziplink.net> <333990e3.2587820@news.sprynet.com> <333EE698.41C67EA6@kzin.dorm.umd.edu> <3343cbbf.1091644@news.sprynet.com> <5i1216$gc4$1@news3.realtime.net> <33457087.6003026@news.sprynet.com> <E84Kwp.8ox@nonexistent.com> <3346646b.68448149@news.sprynet.com> <E84y X-Trace: 860302956/1194 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: main.put.com Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:02:37 GMT Lines: 32 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.os.linux:19841 comp.os.linux.misc:168180 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38530 08.JqI@nonexistent.com> <5i6u6g$ilb$1@newsy.ifm.liu.se> Organization: Putnam Internet Services Distribution: Lines: 26 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Per Lewau (perle@compisII.rydnet.lysator.liu.se) wrote: : In article <E84y08.JqI@nonexistent.com>, le@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes: : |> Goatboy (lcappite@sprynet.com) wrote: : |> : >If you want to look at the UNIX family tree,you trace back to Multics, : |> : >of which Unics(as it was first spelled) was a single-processor version : |> : >(so is SMP UNIX really Multix?);if you do the same for NT,you get : |> : >Seattle Computer's Quick and Dirty Operating System for 8088s, : |> : >designed to make CP/M apps portable for an 8-bit data line leading : |> : >into 16-bit logic. : |> : : |> : NT was not even remotely based on Q-DOS. : |> : |> Q-DOS->MS-DOS->W*nd*ws->NT. : |> Where do you see a lack of continuity? : : Rather: : : Q-DOS->MS-DOS->W*nd*ws->Win95 : Multics -> Unix -> VMS -> Digital NT kernel -> M$ Win NT : : That's actually closer to the truth. M$ devised NT to run Win and DOS programs. However they recoded it,the relationship is there. (As I said to someone in email,is a 64-bit Unix not a descendant of a 32-bit Unix?)