Someone needs to do a recursive diff between 0.1 and 1.0. I wonder if they took any of the patches that were sent to them before everyone gave up and forked NetBSD and FreeBSD?
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Sunday October 09, 2016 @10:53AM (#53041777)
What you "know" is incorrect.
NetBSD and FreeBSD absolutely were forks of 386BSD, which itself was largely derived from the Berkeley Net 2 code base – Bill Jolitz just filled in the missing pieces.
(FWIW, I actually ran 386BSD, and later FreeBSD, on my home machine.)
For various legal reasons FreeBSD pretended it was based on 4.4BSD-Lite for a long time. The NetBSD guys went as far as settling out of court and deleting 386BSD stuff from their cvs history. See eg. http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdwe... [netbsd.org]
It is better to never have tried anything than to have tried something and
failed.
- motto of jerks, weenies and losers everywhere
Why bother? (Score:0)
ROTFLMAO.
Someone needs to do a recursive diff between 0.1 and 1.0. I wonder if they took any of the patches that were sent to them before everyone gave up and forked NetBSD and FreeBSD?
Re: Why bother? (Score:0)
Forked? afaik non of them are forks of 386bsd but of sysv unix, hence the lawsuit from att
Re: Why bother? (Score:0)
What you "know" is incorrect.
NetBSD and FreeBSD absolutely were forks of 386BSD, which itself was largely derived from the Berkeley Net 2 code base – Bill Jolitz just filled in the missing pieces.
(FWIW, I actually ran 386BSD, and later FreeBSD, on my home machine.)
Re: (Score:1)
For various legal reasons FreeBSD pretended it was based on 4.4BSD-Lite for a long time. The NetBSD guys went as far as settling out of court and deleting 386BSD stuff from their cvs history. See eg. http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdwe... [netbsd.org]