In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>you write:
> Mo McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, what I find more amusing is the fact that BSD is a free
> > replacement for UNIX. Which is exactly what the GNU project aims for,
> > albeit with different licensing terms. I fail to see how BSD *can* be
> > "pure UNIX", when "pure UNIX" is exactly what BSD was created to provide
> > an alternative for.
>
> Wrong. Or rather, we are talking about different things. You are talking ab
> out
> "BSD derivatives" like BSDI and Free/Net/OpenBSD. I'm talking about the act
> ual
> BSD, i.e., Berkeley Software Distribution, the 9-track tape shipped from UC
> Berkeley for bootstrapping huge 3-phase VAXen. That one *is* pure UNIX: it
> is
> an incremental improvement on V7 and 32V, has 100% of Ritchie and Thompson'
> s
> original UNIX code in it just like V7 and 32V, is 100% faithful to pure UNI
> X in
> ideology and all design decisions, and requires a UNIX source license (pure
> UNIX does not exist in binary-only form, never did, and never will). And it
> isn't free in terms of power alone. Have you ever seen an electric bill for
> a
> VAX-11/780?
Can we please take this discussion elsewhere. This has nothing to do with
GCC or autoconf.
I'm sure there's a more appropriate place y'all can discuss the virtues of
historical versions of Unix.
jeff
