There is a difference between sharing kernel ancestry, and actually being a BSD.
And what, pray tell, would that be?
Mach + BSD layer was built intentionally as a drop-in replacement for the BSD kernel.
BSD today doesn't have a lot in common with BSD of yesteryear... in fact, Darwin is probably closer (in terms of features and common code) to today's FreeBSD than FreeBSD is to 4.4BSD.
Does this mean that FBSD based on the Mach 3 kernel? That is news to me
Huh? No.
It just means that if you go back to a time before Mach even existed, and look at BSD's kernel, it was very different than the current FreeBSD kernel.
Nitpickers like to say that Mach+BSDs (such as NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X) aren't "true BSDs" because they replaced the BSD kernel. Well then, by those standards, FreeBSD isn't a "true BSD" either.
OSX is doing great (Score:0, Interesting)
Oh, he forgot that one.
Re: (Score:1)
There is a difference between sharing kernel ancestry, and actually being a BSD.
Re: (Score:0)
And what, pray tell, would that be?
Mach + BSD layer was built intentionally as a drop-in replacement for the BSD kernel.
BSD today doesn't have a lot in common with BSD of yesteryear... in fact, Darwin is probably closer (in terms of features and common code) to today's FreeBSD than FreeBSD is to 4.4BSD.
Re:OSX is doing great (Score:2)
Stunningly stupid, oxymoronic comment.
Because over a decade ago a kernel was based on a decades-old "drop-in replacement" that's specifically NOT BSD, OS X is BSD.
Re: (Score:0)
Uh, no, because GP implied that to be a "true BSD" you can't ever replace things like the kernel.
Today's FreeBSD kernel is not the same as it was before Mach came along, does that mean FreeBSD isn't a "true BSD"?
Hell, the original BSD came about largely because of a new kernel that supported VM.
Re: (Score:0)
The device driver API is so radically different than any other BSD.
It's more of an OpenStep than it is a BSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Today's FreeBSD kernel is not the same as it was before Mach came along
Does this mean that FBSD based on the Mach 3 kernel? That is news to me
Re: (Score:0)
Huh? No.
It just means that if you go back to a time before Mach even existed, and look at BSD's kernel, it was very different than the current FreeBSD kernel.
Nitpickers like to say that Mach+BSDs (such as NeXTSTEP and Mac OS X) aren't "true BSDs" because they replaced the BSD kernel. Well then, by those standards, FreeBSD isn't a "true BSD" either.