Discussion:
Win 8 and other versions
(too old to reply)
Anthony
2014-06-24 18:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I have a friend who seems to think that Win 8 and other versions past
NT4 are Unix/Linux-based. I don't know why this ridiculous thing
bothers me, but it does. Of course, I know better, but I am looking for
rock solid proof this isn't the case.

Anyone know of such a thing?
Eric Weaver
2014-06-24 19:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony
I have a friend who seems to think that Win 8 and other versions past
NT4 are Unix/Linux-based. I don't know why this ridiculous thing
bothers me, but it does. Of course, I know better, but I am looking for
rock solid proof this isn't the case.
Anyone know of such a thing?
He is maybe getting things confused.

The guy who headed DEC's VMS project also ran the NT project at
crime-o-soft, but neither of those had anything to do with Unix in any
of its forms. VMS ran on the "VAX" line, and so did Unix, but a
computer only ran one or the other.

Ain't no Unix (or Linux or anything else derived from it) in Windows
Anything.
(null)
2014-06-24 21:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Weaver
Ain't no Unix (or Linux or anything else derived from it) in Windows
Anything.
Hang on. What about the BSD TCP/IP stack?
Eric Weaver
2014-06-25 14:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by (null)
Post by Eric Weaver
Ain't no Unix (or Linux or anything else derived from it) in Windows
Anything.
Hang on. What about the BSD TCP/IP stack?
OK, that maybe. But that's about it. The kernel, scheduler, memory
management and security model all work on very different design principles.
Steve Pope
2014-06-25 17:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Weaver
Post by (null)
Hang on. What about the BSD TCP/IP stack?
OK, that maybe. But that's about it. The kernel, scheduler, memory
management and security model all work on very different design principles.
During Windows 8 development there were persistent rumors that
it was "Unix based". I don't think that's technically true,
however.

Steve
(null)
2014-06-25 23:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Weaver
Post by (null)
Post by Eric Weaver
Ain't no Unix (or Linux or anything else derived from it) in Windows
Anything.
Hang on. What about the BSD TCP/IP stack?
OK, that maybe. But that's about it. The kernel, scheduler, memory
management and security model all work on very different design principles.
OK, so I think we can agree that the claim by OP's friend has *some* merit
(very little, but non-zero nonetheless) depending on interpretation.
David Kaye
2014-06-26 02:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by (null)
OK, so I think we can agree that the claim by OP's friend has *some* merit
(very little, but non-zero nonetheless) depending on interpretation.
But isn't that like saying that Windows is Unix-based because both have
command line interfaces?




---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
(null)
2014-06-26 02:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kaye
Post by (null)
OK, so I think we can agree that the claim by OP's friend has *some* merit
(very little, but non-zero nonetheless) depending on interpretation.
But isn't that like saying that Windows is Unix-based because both have
command line interfaces?
No. If you examine the Microsoft Windows copyright it
includes a BSD license disclosure indicating its Unix ties.
These disclosures are evident in the headers for the Windows networking API
as well as in the hexdumps of many of the networking binary executables.
No such disclosures are in say COMMAND.COM or CMD.COM
Rob Warnock
2014-06-26 09:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
(null) <***@sonic.net> wrote:
+---------------
| David Kaye <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >"(null)" <***@sonic.net> wrote
| >> OK, so I think we can agree that the claim by OP's friend has *some* merit
| >> (very little, but non-zero nonetheless) depending on interpretation.
| >
| >But isn't that like saying that Windows is Unix-based because both have
| >command line interfaces?
|
| No. If you examine the Microsoft Windows copyright it
| includes a BSD license disclosure indicating its Unix ties.
| These disclosures are evident in the headers for the Windows networking API
| as well as in the hexdumps of many of the networking binary executables.
+---------------

Uh... Just because there is a *BSD* license *DOES NOT* mean
that there is any "Unix" code involved!! In particular, the
BSD networking code (kernel + user-mode) has *NO* connection
with Unix per se, as evidenced by the fact that the BSD "Net-2"
release was recognized by all parties in the various lawsuits
back in the day as being uncontaminated by AT&T Unix source code.

*Lots* of people, not just Microsoft, used the BSD Net-2 networking
code in various operating systems and embedded systems, *precisely*
because it was both free and uncontaminated by AT&T Unix.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock <***@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403
Eric Weaver
2014-06-26 14:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rob Warnock
Uh... Just because there is a *BSD* license *DOES NOT* mean
that there is any "Unix" code involved!! In particular, the
BSD networking code (kernel + user-mode) has *NO* connection
with Unix per se, as evidenced by the fact that the BSD "Net-2"
release was recognized by all parties in the various lawsuits
back in the day as being uncontaminated by AT&T Unix source code.
*Lots* of people, not just Microsoft, used the BSD Net-2 networking
code in various operating systems and embedded systems, *precisely*
because it was both free and uncontaminated by AT&T Unix.
Now that's an interesting point. I guess one might properly call the
BSD TCP stack "an independently developed networking layer that was both
incorporated into Berkeley Unix and distributed separately."
(null)
2014-06-26 20:45:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eric Weaver
Post by Rob Warnock
Uh... Just because there is a *BSD* license *DOES NOT* mean
that there is any "Unix" code involved!! In particular, the
BSD networking code (kernel + user-mode) has *NO* connection
with Unix per se, as evidenced by the fact that the BSD "Net-2"
release was recognized by all parties in the various lawsuits
back in the day as being uncontaminated by AT&T Unix source code.
*Lots* of people, not just Microsoft, used the BSD Net-2 networking
code in various operating systems and embedded systems, *precisely*
because it was both free and uncontaminated by AT&T Unix.
Now that's an interesting point. I guess one might properly call the
BSD TCP stack "an independently developed networking layer that was both
incorporated into Berkeley Unix and distributed separately."
Uh oh. We must be entering a gray area because he's bringing in the lawyers
and citing multiple lawsuits. My spidey sense is telling me I should
bow out of this discussion.

But before I depart, was the OP's friend talking about AT&T Unix or
Unix in general (including BSD Unix)?
Steve Pope
2014-06-26 21:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by (null)
Post by Eric Weaver
Post by Rob Warnock
Uh... Just because there is a *BSD* license *DOES NOT* mean
that there is any "Unix" code involved!! In particular, the
BSD networking code (kernel + user-mode) has *NO* connection
with Unix per se, as evidenced by the fact that the BSD "Net-2"
release was recognized by all parties in the various lawsuits
back in the day as being uncontaminated by AT&T Unix source code.
*Lots* of people, not just Microsoft, used the BSD Net-2 networking
code in various operating systems and embedded systems, *precisely*
because it was both free and uncontaminated by AT&T Unix.
Now that's an interesting point. I guess one might properly call the
BSD TCP stack "an independently developed networking layer that was both
incorporated into Berkeley Unix and distributed separately."
Uh oh. We must be entering a gray area because he's bringing in the lawyers
and citing multiple lawsuits. My spidey sense is telling me I should
bow out of this discussion.
Your spidey sense is accurate. For the most part, BSD Unix was
considered a flavor of Unix to the rank and file. Until a certain
point in time where is became energetically favorable to _not_
condense out of the vacuum as that particular particle.


Steve
Anthony
2014-06-28 07:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by (null)
Post by Eric Weaver
Post by Rob Warnock
Uh... Just because there is a *BSD* license *DOES NOT* mean
that there is any "Unix" code involved!! In particular, the
BSD networking code (kernel + user-mode) has *NO* connection
with Unix per se, as evidenced by the fact that the BSD "Net-2"
release was recognized by all parties in the various lawsuits
back in the day as being uncontaminated by AT&T Unix source code.
*Lots* of people, not just Microsoft, used the BSD Net-2 networking
code in various operating systems and embedded systems, *precisely*
because it was both free and uncontaminated by AT&T Unix.
Now that's an interesting point. I guess one might properly call the
BSD TCP stack "an independently developed networking layer that was both
incorporated into Berkeley Unix and distributed separately."
Uh oh. We must be entering a gray area because he's bringing in the lawyers
and citing multiple lawsuits. My spidey sense is telling me I should
bow out of this discussion.
But before I depart, was the OP's friend talking about AT&T Unix or
Unix in general (including BSD Unix)?
Unix in general.


Thanks everybody for this discussion BTW.

Loading...