Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:56:24 +0000 From: Mike Bristow <mike@urgle.com> To: Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> Cc: arief_mulya <arief@bna.telkomsel.co.id>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tech@openbsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, tech-kern@netbsd.org Subject: Re: Technical Differences of *BSD and Linux Message-ID: <20030124225624.GB23410@lindt.urgle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0301240937270.18483-100000@vespasia.home-net.icnt.net> References: <3E30C2A5.5040502@bna.telkomsel.co.id> <Pine.NEB.4.33.0301240937270.18483-100000@vespasia.home-net.icnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Reply-To set to me: This is probably off topic for all of the lists: all of the ones I read, anyway. ] On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:03:53AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote: > > 2. How does it differ? What are the technical reasoning > > behind the decisions? > > They differ in most technical areas. Mainly as the *BSD kernels were > derived from 4.4-Lite, and Linux was derived, I believe, from Minux. Point of order: Linux was a cleanroom implementation, using IIRC Minux as the host OS until such time as it became self-hosting. -- You can't do maths without e -- David Walters To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030124225624.GB23410>