FreeBSD vs. RedHat

[Erik Steffl]

Jerry McAllister wrote:
>>
>>
>>SoloCDM wrote:
>>
>>>Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
>>>to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD?  I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
>>>and its tarballs.
>>>
>>>Does FreeBSD offer all the packages from A to Z in their CDs?
>>
>>There are some packages which are only available through FTP.  Some 
>>packages aren't included on CDs because 3 cds is a little excessive.
>>
>>>Does FreeBSD come with an installation package?
>>>
>>>Is FreeBSD Linux or UNIX?
>>>
>>
>>FreeBSD is a child of System V, so UNIX.  Linux was written from scratch 
>>by Linus with the GNU Public License, as opposed to FreeBSD which 
>>originated from BSD, which originated from System V.
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt you will hear a lot of corrections to your statement.
> That is because it is not true.    First of all, System V is a UNIX,
> but UNIX is not a System V.   You sound like you have confused which
> set is the larger and contains the other set.   The set of all UNIX 
> contains System V (and BSD and Linux).   The set of all System V does

   you can't say that linux is unix. both legally (somebody would have 
to pay) and because it's independent implementation. you can call them 
unix-like

...
> Linux started with supposedly a "clean" (in the same sense that BSD
> was cleaned of Bell Labs code) System V type of kernel and people then
> added on all the rest of the stuff, also supposedly clean code.  Now
> Linux seems to be in the same place BSD was years ago proving they
> are clean and not using any code now owned by SCO.   I have no idea
> how clean it really is or how seriously SCO is in its claims or if
> it is just trying to position itself into a marketable position.

   the difference is that linux started from scratch while bsd started 
from bell code. not that it makes one or the other better but you can 
say that bsd IS unix (one of them) but you cannot say that linux is unix.

	erik