[buug] (no subject)

Johan Beisser jb at caustic.org
Fri May 8 12:00:23 PDT 2009


Somehow, I managed to screw up replying to the list.

Sorry for spamming you, Rick.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Johan Beisser <jb at caustic.org>
Date: Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [buug] (no subject)
To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>


Comments in line. Perhaps a differing view.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Quoting william benton (webenton at hotmail.com):
>
>> If I want to put a unix os on a pc(not linux), is a unix os(not linux)
>> available as freeware? what is the best source? Is berkeley unix
>> available as freeware? Is BSD berkeley unix? I mean is it exactly like
>> what you would get if you went to the university and logged on to their
>> machine?
>
> 1.  There are a variety of modern, PC-compatible operating systems that
> are fairly classifyable as Unixes.  They fall into a number of families.

There's a few that are true UNIX(R), as well. BSD/OS, (from BSD, Inc),
was one of them. AT&T had a full SystemV on PC hardware in the 90s,
mostly used for embedded systems. Related, was a fully registered
POSIX compliant version of QNX for x86 hardware, and ran fairly
snappily as an 'embedded OS' on 386s.


> 2.  The term "freeware" is ill-defined.  If you mean "available without
> expenditure other than download time", the answer is yes, you can do
> that.  Note that downloading isn't often a really efficient way to
> acquire very large codebases, but whatever floats your boat, and that is
> certainly situation-dependent.

I have to disagree. "Open Source Software" has the vague definition of
"Freeware" while not really being exclusive. "Freeware" harkens back
to the "Shareware" software of the 80s and 90s. Essentially you were
permitted to share with your friends, family, etc, and there was a
request you send money to the author.

Freeware was the "free to use, free as in beer" software that many
people used. It's a foundation of GNU Software, but not always as
virally infective with the license, and the tradition predates
Stallman's founding of GNU. Quite a few Freeware authors put no limit
on what could be done with the software at all.

> 3.  You might wish to consider that whether you can initally acquire
> something at cost is an orthogonal question to the much more
> interesting question of what you and others are then permitted (and
> enabled) to do with it.  For that reason, it's common nowadays to
> distinguish _two_ orthogonal scales of gradation.
>
> One is costs a great deal, costs little, costs nothing.[1]  Which might be
> the spectrum you're thinking of when you say "freeware".

I really disagree. "Freeware" is "Free as in beer." It costs nothing
for the software, but might cost you for the transport and acquisition
of it (internet hookup fees, email fees, storage until you could grab
it all fees).

"Open Source" doesn't mean Free at all. It just means the source code
is available to you to tinker and modify if you'd like.

> The other is proprietary on one end, various types of open source (aka
> "free software") on the other.  This is a metric of how much freedom
> (and source code availability) you and others enjoy to redistribute, to
> independently modify and develop and release variation.

See above.

> 4.  The various BSD descendents are indeed Unixes in any useful sense of
> the term.   That is also true of Unixes based on the Linux kernel, and
> Unixes based on the OpenSolaris kernel, and so on.  Tastes Differ[TM],
> of course.

Yes, although the history is a little more muddled than that. BSD
really is more than just the kernel at this point, with the "Big 3"
versions (FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD) having differences in userland
utilities as well. I freely admit I get frustrated at the stupidity of
"more" on Linux, when I expect "less" like behavior after coming off
of my BSD based firewall. Yes, on my Kubuntu laptop, I have "more"
aliased to "less."

> 5.  I'm having a difficult time parsing your question "What is the best
> source?"  If you're asking where's the best place to acquire
> installation media, etc., then it depends.  You may need to get a better
> idea of what you want to try first, before that question can be usefully
> answered.
>
> The fact that you're still stuck on the quaint "Is it really Unix"
> question suggests that you might need to back up a bit.

It's Unix-Like, and that's usually enough. Striving for POSIX
compliance means there's a principle of least surprise when bouncing
from one Unix to the next. It still means each flavor of Unix has it's
own idiosyncrasies, and it's just about what you're comfortable with
and what you enjoy.

For what it's worth, MacOS 10.5 is POSIX compliance and a certified Unix(R).




More information about the buug mailing list