Windows 8 Consumer Preview - One word: fail

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Oh gawd! Here we go again... just connect the dots.

Linux is based on Minix

BSD is based on Unix

Minix was re-licensed under the BSD license since April 2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX

Re-licensing under the BSD license type does not make Minix based on
BSD - it most emphatically was not and is not. If you don't understand
what a license type is, perhaps this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

Especially, you should read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

There are many pieces of software released under the BSD license, but
that does not make them based on BSD. Just like there are many pieces
of software released under the Apache license that are not based on
Apache.


Likewise, Linux was not based on Minix. Inspired by, sure. Based on,
no - Linux was written from scratch and does not share code with BSD,
Minix, or any other *ix for that matter.

--
Zaphod

Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster: A cocktail based on Janx Spirit.
The effect of one is like having your brain smashed out
by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick.

 

[Laszlo Lebrun]

Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its use of the BSD core code, and
it jealously guards its "intellectual property" in OS-X.

The most important thing in BSD was their BSD license allowing to make
derivates proprietary, which is the very reason for that choice.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:42:39 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox

[snip]

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything - it
was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike Unix
for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other *ix code.

That says that it was based on the UNIX design.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[John Williamson]

Re-licensing under the BSD license type does not make Minix based on
BSD - it most emphatically was not and is not. If you don't understand
what a license type is, perhaps this will help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

Especially, you should read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

There are many pieces of software released under the BSD license, but
that does not make them based on BSD. Just like there are many pieces
of software released under the Apache license that are not based on
Apache.


Likewise, Linux was not based on Minix. Inspired by, sure. Based on,
no - Linux was written from scratch and does not share code with BSD,
Minix, or any other *ix for that matter.

Correct. The original Linux kernel was written by Linus Torvalds as a
college project to replace the Minix used by his college at that time.
It was completely new code, but also completely compatible as far as OS
function calls went. The original Linux system could boot and run from a
floppy.

What most people refer to now as Linux is the whole package, which is
more properly known as GNU/ Linux. All open source, and not based on any
other OS or program, although often inspired by them. It is all licenced
under the GPL, which is also open source and available for all to use.
Some distributions contain proprietary code, which is not released under
the GPL.

 

[BillW50]

In

in
article <[email protected]>...

In Wolf K wrote:
On 03/04/2012 7:51 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ray wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:30:21 -0500, milt wrote:

[...]
Why bother with Apple developers when Apple is nothing more
than an OS (based on Linux) running on (overpriced) Intel
hardware? Seems like that would be the last thing they need!

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

IIRC, BSD is a "flavour" of Unix that was branched off by U-Cal
Berkeley sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, when AT&T was still
willing to let other people tinker with Unix. In any case, that
BSD is copyright by Berkeley. There is a FOSS version, which was
still being worked on last time I looked, but it's fast becoming
an historical footnote. Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its
use of the BSD core code, and it jealously guards its
"intellectual property" in OS-X. OTOH, if you know Unix in
sufficient detail (which I don't claim to), you can apparently
hack OS-X so that you can run Unix (and Linux) apps on OS-X. Which
Apple does not approve of.

Linux is a from-the-ground-up version originally built by Linus
Torvalds, and since built on and adapted by many hands/minds. But
the kernel is still AFAIK under Linus's control. I have no idea to
what extent it's a variation of the original Unix source code, but
AFAIK it is a 100% work-alike. So IMO "based on Unix" is somewhat
misleading.

Wolf K.

Oh come on! Give us a break! That is like saying Windows 8 isn't
based on Windows 95! Look, if you can use one of the following:
Linux, Unix, BSD, or OS-X; it isn't a far stretch to use one of the
other three. It is true for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7
and 8 too. Hell there are lots of things found in Windows 3.xx that
are still found in modern Windows today. ;-)

"Is Similar To" != "Is Based On"

Linux "Is similar To" Unix, but was written from scratch and as I
understand it, shares no code with Unix. As such, it is not "Based
On" Unix.

Apple's Mac OS "Is Based On" BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution)
Unix (with current versions adopting code from other BSD variants,
including FreeBSD and NetBSD). It shares no code with Linux
whatsoever, and as such, is not "Based On" Linux.

You are not telling the story correctly. Linux was based on Minix.
BSD was based on Unix. And Minix is under the BSD license. All
sounds like one big huge soap opera to me. ;-)

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything -
it was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike
Unix for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other
*ix code.

As much as I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a reference, in this case it
appears to be complete and accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

In addition to the well-crafted version history map, see especially
the Licensing note which reads:

"Linux was inspired by MINIX and Unix, but Linux and GNU code was
written from scratch."

A little history lesson here. IBM created the IBM-PC from off of the
shelf parts. There was nothing proprietary except the BIOS. IBM thought
they were protected against IBM clones since the clones were worthless
without the IBM BIOS. And the only way you could get one is to buy the
whole IBM-PC machine anyway.

Now comes legal reverse engineering. You can't peek at the source code
(like you could get it anyway) and you write a BIOS from the ground up.
And this reversed engineered BIOS uses none of the source code
whatsoever. Although it works just like the proprietary IBM BIOS. Now
you have a cloned non-proprietary IBM BIOS that IBM can't stop you from
using.

And that is the problem I am having here. I don't care if none of the
source code is the same or not. As that really doesn't matter. And you
can't say that a cloned BIOS isn't based on a real IBM BIOS. Because it
is based on the IBM BIOS and yet they still doesn't share any source
code between them.

One can say that Unix, BSD, OS-X, Linux, and what have you can't share
the same applications. So there!

Well, well, well! There are what hundreds on Linux distros out there and
very few of them can share applications either. Yet they are all still
based on *nix, are they not?

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:42:39 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox

[snip]

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything - it
was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike Unix
for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other *ix code.

That says that it was based on the UNIX design.

[snip]

I'd say inspired by the Unix design (in this case, as embodied in
Minix). To me, "based on" means it is a derivative, which it is not.

--
Zaphod

Adventurer, ex-hippie, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
manic self-publicist, terrible bad at personal relationships,
often thought to be completely out to lunch.

 

[Andy Burns]

A little history lesson here. IBM created the IBM-PC from off of the
shelf parts. There was nothing proprietary except the BIOS. IBM thought
they were protected against IBM clones since the clones were worthless
without the IBM BIOS. And the only way you could get one is to buy the
whole IBM-PC machine anyway.

Now comes legal reverse engineering. You can't peek at the source code
(like you could get it anyway)

Oh, so what's that assembler listing of the BIOS in the IBM PC XT
Technical Reference Manual that's been hiding in my attic for the past
20+ years?

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

In

message in
article <[email protected]>...

In Wolf K wrote:
On 03/04/2012 7:51 AM, BillW50 wrote:
In ray wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:30:21 -0500, milt wrote:

[...]
Why bother with Apple developers when Apple is nothing more
than an OS (based on Linux) running on (overpriced) Intel
hardware? Seems like that would be the last thing they need!

No, it is not based on Linux. It is based on BSD Unix.

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

IIRC, BSD is a "flavour" of Unix that was branched off by U-Cal
Berkeley sometime in the late 60s/early 70s, when AT&T was still
willing to let other people tinker with Unix. In any case, that
BSD is copyright by Berkeley. There is a FOSS version, which was
still being worked on last time I looked, but it's fast becoming
an historical footnote. Apple AFAIK pays no licence fees for its
use of the BSD core code, and it jealously guards its
"intellectual property" in OS-X. OTOH, if you know Unix in
sufficient detail (which I don't claim to), you can apparently
hack OS-X so that you can run Unix (and Linux) apps on OS-X. Which
Apple does not approve of.

Linux is a from-the-ground-up version originally built by Linus
Torvalds, and since built on and adapted by many hands/minds. But
the kernel is still AFAIK under Linus's control. I have no idea to
what extent it's a variation of the original Unix source code, but
AFAIK it is a 100% work-alike. So IMO "based on Unix" is somewhat
misleading.

Wolf K.

Oh come on! Give us a break! That is like saying Windows 8 isn't
based on Windows 95! Look, if you can use one of the following:
Linux, Unix, BSD, or OS-X; it isn't a far stretch to use one of the
other three. It is true for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7
and 8 too. Hell there are lots of things found in Windows 3.xx that
are still found in modern Windows today. ;-)

"Is Similar To" != "Is Based On"

Linux "Is similar To" Unix, but was written from scratch and as I
understand it, shares no code with Unix. As such, it is not "Based
On" Unix.

Apple's Mac OS "Is Based On" BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution)
Unix (with current versions adopting code from other BSD variants,
including FreeBSD and NetBSD). It shares no code with Linux
whatsoever, and as such, is not "Based On" Linux.

You are not telling the story correctly. Linux was based on Minix.
BSD was based on Unix. And Minix is under the BSD license. All
sounds like one big huge soap opera to me. ;-)

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything -
it was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike
Unix for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other
*ix code.

As much as I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a reference, in this case it
appears to be complete and accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

In addition to the well-crafted version history map, see especially
the Licensing note which reads:

"Linux was inspired by MINIX and Unix, but Linux and GNU code was
written from scratch."

A little history lesson here.

No need for a lesson, I lived the history, thanks.

And that is the problem I am having here. I don't care if none of the
source code is the same or not. As that really doesn't matter. And you
can't say that a cloned BIOS isn't based on a real IBM BIOS. Because it
is based on the IBM BIOS and yet they still doesn't share any source
code between them.

Yes, I certainly can say it is not based on the IBM BIOS. You are
using a very loose definition of "based on", I am using a strict one.
Speaking of "Legal" (since you brought it up), no one could legally
claim that the reverse engineered BIOSes were based on the IBM BIOS, or
IBM would have won the lawsuits.

One can say that Unix, BSD, OS-X, Linux, and what have you can't share
the same applications. So there!

Well, well, well! There are what hundreds on Linux distros out there and
very few of them can share applications either. Yet they are all still
based on *nix, are they not?

We will have to agree to disagree since our definitions of what the
phrase "based on" means are too different to reconcile.

--
Zaphod

Adventurer, ex-hippie, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
manic self-publicist, terrible bad at personal relationships,
often thought to be completely out to lunch.

 

[BillW50]

In

Oh, so what's that assembler listing of the BIOS in the IBM PC XT
Technical Reference Manual that's been hiding in my attic for the past
20+ years?

Oh ok you are right! I guess it was easily attainable now that I think
about it. But you couldn't use any of it to be a legal clone. ;-)

 

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:42:39 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox

[snip]

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything - it
was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike Unix
for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other *ix code.

That says that it was based on the UNIX design.

To me, it says it was inspired by, not based on, the Unix design.
There's a big difference.

 

[Char Jackson]

I must say my satisfactory with both Windows 7/8 has been dropping
steadily in the last few days. Something that I never got working right
lately under Windows 7/8 is AOL email accounts (Gmail isn't doing well
either). It doesn't matter which email reader I use or what settings...
sometimes it picks up my email and sometimes it doesn't.

AOL? Are they still around? Anyway, look for a logging function in
your email client and see what it tells you. I suspect your problems
have very little to do with the OS, especially since a few million
other people seem to have things working ok.

Funny, I have been using Windows 7 since mid-2009 and Thunderbird used
to pick up email pretty well until some Windows updates came along.

I don't believe you when you attempt to blame your problems on Windows
updates. You've cried wolf way too often. Just troubleshoot the issue
and fix it.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:42:39 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox

[snip]

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything - it
was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike Unix
for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other *ix code.

That says that it was based on the UNIX design.

[snip]

I'd say inspired by the Unix design (in this case, as embodied in
Minix). To me, "based on" means it is a derivative, which it is not.

Isn't it? It is a UNIX-design derivative.

And there is nothing wrong with doing that. That is what one
does when using a standard.

"based on" is taking it very close. "What are the parameters for
that API call? Right. I can do that."

"inspired by" is a lot vaguer. "Oh, interesting. Well, I can
borrow some of that, but I will do it my way."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

AOL? Are they still around? Anyway, look for a logging function in
your email client and see what it tells you. I suspect your problems
have very little to do with the OS, especially since a few million
other people seem to have things working ok.


I don't believe you when you attempt to blame your problems on Windows
updates. You've cried wolf way too often. Just troubleshoot the issue
and fix it.

+1

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:23:06 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox

[snip]

Yes, I certainly can say it is not based on the IBM BIOS. You are
using a very loose definition of "based on", I am using a strict one.
Speaking of "Legal" (since you brought it up), no one could legally
claim that the reverse engineered BIOSes were based on the IBM BIOS, or
IBM would have won the lawsuits.

As I recall, it was done with two teams. One team took apart the
BIOS and developed a spec based on it. This was passed to the other
team who wrote a BIOS based on the spec. The teams were not allowed
to talk to each other.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[BillW50]

In

No need for a lesson, I lived the history, thanks.

<snip>

Ok. ;-)

Yes, I certainly can say it is not based on the IBM BIOS. You are
using a very loose definition of "based on", I am using a strict one.

Wait a minute here. If you replaced a real IBM-BIOS with a clone BIOS,
then:

1) The hardware didn't know the difference

2) The OS didn't know the difference

3) Applications didn't know the difference

4) Most users didn't know the difference

5) End result, true compatibility!

Speaking of "Legal" (since you brought it up), no one could legally
claim that the reverse engineered BIOSes were based on the IBM BIOS,
or IBM would have won the lawsuits.

Wait a second! If it wasn't based on the IBM-BIOS, what was it based on?
As whatever the real IBM-BIOS could do, the cloned BIOS mirrored. What
do you mean it wasn't based on the IBM-BIOS? Sure it was. It wasn't
based on anything else.

And IBM couldn't sue anybody over a legal clone is because the clone did
not use any of the original source code. As the source code was legally
protected, but nothing else was.

We will have to agree to disagree since our definitions of what the
phrase "based on" means are too different to reconcile.

No, I am totally flexible and I have no opinions cast in stone. Plus I
am using devil's advocate and logically taking the other side. I find
this is most helpful for all opened minded individuals to see the whole
picture.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 12:42:39 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox

[snip]

No, I believe you are mistaken. Linux was never based on anything - it
was written completely from scratch. It was written as work-alike Unix
for x86 systems. It has never used Unix, Minix, or any other *ix code.

That says that it was based on the UNIX design.

[snip]

I'd say inspired by the Unix design (in this case, as embodied in
Minix). To me, "based on" means it is a derivative, which it is not.

Isn't it? It is a UNIX-design derivative.

And there is nothing wrong with doing that. That is what one
does when using a standard.

"based on" is taking it very close. "What are the parameters for
that API call? Right. I can do that."

"inspired by" is a lot vaguer. "Oh, interesting. Well, I can
borrow some of that, but I will do it my way."

"Based on the same publicly published API calls as Minix is based on",
OK sure. But to me, that still doesn't make Linux "based on" Minix or
any other Unix derivative. It shares none of the same code, therefore
it is not a derivative.

As with BillW50, we'll have to agree to disagree since our definitions
of "based on" are too dissimilar.

 

[Wolf K]

On 03/04/2012 1:36 PM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]

And that is the problem I am having here. I don't care if none of the
source code is the same or not. As that really doesn't matter. And you
can't say that a cloned BIOS isn't based on a real IBM BIOS. Because it
is based on the IBM BIOS and yet they still doesn't share any source
code between them.

[....]

For most people "based on X" means something different than "works like
X" or "looks like X" or :"was inspired by X", etc.

If you want to use "based on" differently, then be prepared for
disagreements. You're arguing about semantics. There are few things as
boring as arguments about what words "really" mean.

HTH,
Wolf K.

 

[Nil]

BSD is based on Unix. Linux is based on Unix. HELLO?

You have evolved from a blob of protoplasm. That cockroach has evolved
from a blob of protoplasm. You are a cockroach.

HELLO!

 

[BillW50]

In

"Based on the same publicly published API calls as Minix is based on",
OK sure. But to me, that still doesn't make Linux "based on" Minix or
any other Unix derivative. It shares none of the same code, therefore
it is not a derivative.

As with BillW50, we'll have to agree to disagree since our definitions
of "based on" are too dissimilar.

Another history lesson:

Apple sued Microsoft for Windows which used a GUI OS just like the Apple
Mac. What this went on for something like 7 years in the courts.

Apple claimed the GUI was theirs and you can't copy the look and feel of
it. Remember Microsoft used no Mac source code in the look and feel.

Microsoft charged Apple of stealing (yes stealing) the GUI from Xerox
Parc. So Apple had no right to claim it as their own. Thus had to legal
right to protect it.

Now you would think Xerox could step in here and say, yes! The GUI is
our creation and Apple and Microsoft had now stolen it. The problem was,
the Statue of Limitations (aka SOL, which is funny since that has two
totally different meanings and they both apply) had run out for them to
do anything legally to either.

I am not a lawyer, but this seemed like a total stalement to me. So why
bother? Yet Apple was hell bent on winning. Sure if they ever won they
could take Microsoft and bankrupt them. Then the only computers you
could basically buy worth a darn were Apples and nobody else.

Apple kept this nonsense up until Apple was flat broke (they really
pushed this as far as they could go). Apple gambled and lost and was
weeks away from closing their doors.

And who was it who bailed Apple out from closing its doors? Microsoft of
all people!

Now let's go back to *nix stuff. If it looks the same, works the same,
and acts the same... then what is the difference? Sure you can find some
like the source code isn't the same and all. And let's say you decided
that Unix is for you and not Windows. So far ok. Now could you use BSD,
Linux, Minix, OS-X, or something else instead? Probably.

 

[BillW50]

In

On 03/04/2012 1:36 PM, BillW50 wrote:
[....]

And that is the problem I am having here. I don't care if none of the
source code is the same or not. As that really doesn't matter. And
you can't say that a cloned BIOS isn't based on a real IBM BIOS.
Because it is based on the IBM BIOS and yet they still doesn't share
any source code between them.

[....]

For most people "based on X" means something different than "works
like X" or "looks like X" or :"was inspired by X", etc.

If you want to use "based on" differently, then be prepared for
disagreements. You're arguing about semantics. There are few things as
boring as arguments about what words "really" mean.

There is an old saying: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck..." Well then it is a duck right?

What you are saying that it isn't true. So please help all of the
intelligentials who are not as smart as you how that is possible?