jeremy ardley <jeremy.ard...@gmail.com> writes: > On 7/7/23 21:05, jeremy ardley wrote: >> >> On 7/7/23 20:47, Nate Bargmann wrote: >>> What MS has done has never been relevant to the creation of GNU, X, or >>> the Linux kernel. >> >> >> Agreed, those technologies were mostly independent of anything >> Microsoft has done. >> >> GNU is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but >> not much like Unix. >> >> Note Windows NT was built to be Posix compliant which is a Unix >> derived standard. >> >> X is a product well left alone by MS. >> >> The Linux Kernel is one of several options including at least one >> GNU kernel. All are designed to run under a GNU framework. >> >> One option I've not seen yet is a MS kernel running with a GNU >> framework. It's entirely feasible, but unlikely to date. >> > > My error: > > I should have said > > "Linux is a clone of Unix so a derivative. MS is also a derivative but > not much like Unix. " > > I should also have noted FreeBSD and other clones of Unix that also > rely on a GNU framework
I could be accused of nitpicking here, however; I'd suggest that GNU was inspired by the original UNIX rather than being a clone. A clone in the original biological context refers to an exact genetic copy - "byte for byte" if you like. As for the *BSDs; OpenBSD most certainly does *not* rely on a GNU framework.
