Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.apps:1664 comp.os.386bsd.development:3166 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5310 comp.unix.bsd:16110 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!jbotz From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Cannons Away: Vote NO on newsgroup reformation. Date: 10 Feb 1995 21:57:56 GMT Organization: Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA, USA Lines: 26 Message-ID: <3hgnh4$ff7@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu> References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <kaleb.792343226@exalt> <3hebt1$1r2@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792415474@fedora.x.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: orixa.mtholyoke.edu In article <kaleb.792415474@fedora.x.org>, Kaleb KEITHLEY <kaleb@fedora.x.org> wrote: >[...] >0.9 are all derivative works from the Berkeley UNIX Net/2 release, >[...] >FreeBSD 2.x and NetBSD 1.x are derivative works of of Berkeley UNIX 4.4, There is no such thing as "Berkeley UNIX(tm) 4.4" or "Berkeley UNIX(tm) Net/2". The names of the things you are trying to refer to are "Berkeley Software Distribution". "Berkeley UNIX" is a colloquialism. In particular Net/2 can't be UNIX (with or without the TM) if for no other reason that it's not even an operating system. >let's have it. But in the mean time McKusick, Bach (under the AT&T >bannerhead no less, when AT&T still owned the UNIX trademark) and a >whole raft of other recognized authorities are on the record as saying >that BSD is UNIX, so until one of them tells me otherwise, I discount >your assertion that *BSD is not BSD UNIX. It isn't for them to say, is it? It's was for USL to say, and USL has given that priviledge to X/Open which says that it's UNIX(tm) if it conforms to Spec 1170. BSD doesn't. End of argument. 'nix it.