Re: why bookworm isn't called deb12?
jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> writes:
> On 7/7/23 21:05, jeremy ardley wrote:
>>
>> On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>>> What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or
>>> the Linux kernel.
>>
>>
>> Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything
>> Microsoft has done.
>>
>> GNU is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but
>> not much like Unix.
>>
>> Note Windows NT was built to be Posix compliant which is a Unix
>> derived standard.
>>
>> X is a product well left alone by MS.
>>
>> The Linux Kernel is one of several options including at least one
>> GNU kernel. All are designed to run under a GNU framework.
>>
>> One option I've not seen yet is a MS kernel running with a GNU
>> framework. It's entirely feasible, but unlikely to date.
>>
>
> My error:
>
> I should have said
>
> "Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but
> not much like Unix. "
>
> I should also have noted FreeBSD and other clones of Unix that also
> rely on a GNU framework
I could be accused of nitpicking here, however; I'd suggest that GNU was
inspired by the original UNIX rather than being a clone. A clone in
the original biological context refers to an exact genetic copy - "byte
for byte" if you like.
As for the *BSDs; OpenBSD most certainly does *not* rely on a GNU
framework.
Reply to: