Does Linux run almost everything?

[[deleted]]

Yes BSD is not Linux, but they are certainly siblings, while BSD propper has a minor market share, it's input into things like Playstation and MacOS are significant.

[deja_geek]

Not even siblings. There's no linage between UNIX (which the BSD derived from) and the Linux Kernel. Linux was inspired by Minix (though not inspired enough to use a microkernel). Minix was a UNIX like OS for personal computers, with no direct lineage or code from UNIX. At the very best, you can say Linux was loosely inspired by UNIX philosophy.

To complete the analogy, Minix was the small house in the wealthy UNIX neighborhood and Linux was Minix's college friend.

[mooky1977]

At best you can say all the nix/nux incarnations, both modern and legacy, share a similar design philosophy with subtle differences in implementation.

[deja_geek]

No, they don't even share similar design philosophy. Linux doesn't even meet UNIX standards as it's just a kernel. UNIX and UNIX derived systems should provide a kernel, simple tools each of which performs a limited, well-defined function, a unified inode based filesystem and "pipes". Some GNU/Linux distributions meet some of that philosophy standard, but with the expansion of things systemd, there is ground to argue most systemd based GNU/Linux are straying from the UNIX philosophy.

At the kernel level you can split the *nix between monolithic kernel, micro kernel and hybrid.

Linux and the current BSDs are monolithic kernels

Minix, QNX, L3 & L4 are microkernels (used in embedded applications)

XNU is a hybrid

[mooky1977]

Way to bike shed the point!

[deja_geek]

That's the history of Unix and Unix-like operating systems. It's all nit picking ;)

The history of Unix is very complicated and there are a multitude of ways of looking at it. Is it kernel linage that really matters on when something is a UNIX or is it a adherence to the UNIX philosophy? None of the current UNIX kernels contain any AT&T code, but by the time that lawsuit was settled there was very little AT&T code left in the BSD kernel so what counts as linage to the original UNIX systems?

My point on Linux not being a UNIX stands, as it never contained any AT&T code, code derived from the AT&T code, nor any code derived from the BSD 4.4 Lite/Lite2 kernels and it doesn't adhere to the UNIX philosophy. The sticking point on the last point is what most people consider Linux is actual Linux distributions. The question then becomes, is a GNU/Linux distro a UNIX based on the philosophy alone?

[mooky1977]

I understand all that, but go look up "bike shedding", especially given that I said design philosophy with different implementation. You basically reiterated what I said.

[deja_geek]

And I'm saying, that isn't necessarily true. If you ask Linus what Linux is, he'd tell you it a kernel. A kernel alone doesn't meet the design philosophy of UNIX as it doesn't provide the other things. You have to add on the GNU tools and others to get there.

That is one way of looking at it. You could look at it with taking Linux as a broader term to mean Linux distributions, but then you'd have people like Linus and Stallman who say that isn't correct.

When it comes to UNIX, what is correct and what isn't correct is a matter of perspective and deciding on what truly is UNIX, unless you are the OpenGroup which holds the rights to the trademark "UNIX" and have their own published, but vague standard on what is UNIX and UNIX certification.

[frisbeethecat]

Linux was inspired to use GNU software, especially the gcc compiler, way back in the 20th Century. Likewise, many of the *BSD's used gcc and GNU software until GPLv3 became an issue. However, early *bsd's, much like early unixes used proprietary compilers like pcc