At Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:18:47 -0500, Nikolas Britton wrote: > > On 8/20/05, Jeremy C. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Aug 2005, Nikolas Britton wrote: > > > > > What defines Berkeley UNIX from SysV style UNIX and Linux?... What > > > makes BSD BSD and SysV SysV. We have the lineage from 4.4BSD-Lite but > > > what else? > > > > Licensing. > > > > Central development of libraries (like libc) and kernel and more (central > > per project). > > That's one of the things I really like about the *BSDs. Could we just > take the 2.6 kernel and develop it as are own like we do with BIND and > Sendmail, fork it? and keep the FreeBSD libs, just port them to the > new kernel?
I don't really see the point in this. I can't think of any reason to do this other than to have application compatibility with games and Cedega. (in which case, you might as well make a stable wine distribution instead) If you made such drastic modifications to Linux, I think it would take a lot of code to get most applications working again, and the result would be really messy. Not to mention trying to figure out which lines of code were BSD licensed and which were GPL licensed. The MirBSD/Linux project does something like this, but based on what I've discussed with the author, it isn't necessarily going to run most applications. Quoted from his page "purely as a quick and weird idea, qua the absolute contrary of Debian GNU/NetBSD." --Tim _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
