[GNUz] O/S compare

[Jim Cheetham]

On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 01:41:28PM +1300, Rik Tindall wrote:
> So OS/X is 'a Mach', more closely related to (Debian/) GNU/Hurd <http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/> than to either *BSD 

Well, it's got the same microkernel architecture as The Hurd, but I very
much doubt that there is any code sharing.

> I haven't 
> heard that OS/X's Mach kernel is open-source yet, tho Wes put up the MIT (BSD-like) license that showed it needn't be.

What's your definition? MIT license is "OSI Open Source"
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ ... isn't their definition a sub-set
of "open-source"?

I know you like to play with definitions ... and in the culture many of
these definitions have grown into people's understandings, and are
therefore inadequately expressed for newcomers.

So, to establish your license-tolerance level, here's a question. Is
qmail open-source? (Go to google, qmail is an MTA - mail server)

Actually, judging by some of the discussion here, are you trying to
compare kernels, distributions or licenses?

Personally, I think that the kernel is significally important only to a
small group of people, usually the "extreme system administrators" or
embedded system developers. As you have seen recently, you can get
pretty much the same user-experience with BSD/X/Gnome as you do with
Linux/X/Gnome ... and I can get pretty much the same experience from
Darwin/Quartz/Aqua (i.e. OS X) ... and at a push, enough from
XP/Win/Cygwin!

> Where are you writing from now Jim? I hope the move goes/went well.

I'm in Wellington now, although I am back in Christchurch for about 3
weekends a month up until Christmas ... Still trying to sort out
accommodation, but covered for the time-being ...

-jim