🚀 go-pugleaf

I missed part of this thread, but back a while the topic was more about
kernel technology than the OS as a whole.  The following article seems to
change direction and has some mis-statements in it...

GB> gbrown@raven.ctr.columbia.edu (Glenn Brown) writes:

GB> Also, Suns are BSD machines but run SunOS.

Well, only to a point.  Actually SunOS (up to 4.1.3) has taken most of the
better "features" of both BSD and SysV.  I believe that a _long_ time ago
they started w/ BSD code ('cause it was cheap ;-), but through the years they
have drifted towards the SysV side of things.  

One point I wanted to make is that SunOS ?.? (Solaris 2.0) is going to be
entirely SysV-ish.  IMHO, this is BAD; Certain features of BSD "features"
(group permission semantics being my biggest sticky point) are going away in
favor of SysV mechanisms.  (but I'm more of a admin/user than a OS or kernel
guru, so my opinions start from a diffferent vantage point.)

GB> So, BSD must be a standard that can be layered on top of different  
GB> operating systems (e.g. NT, SunOS, and Mach).

This is where I think your terminology is off;
  SunOS _IS_ the Kernel/OS.
  BSD _IS_ a Kernel -&- OS.
  (NT is _NOT_ an OS ;-).  
  NeXTOS is a Mach (a micro/mini-kernel) which runs a(some) process(es) that
  looks like BSD

I believe the key point is that I could write a SysV like "process" that runs
on Mach if I wanted (and had a bit more knowledge ;-)

Somebody who knows more about NeXTOS and Mach can correct my terminology if
needed.

Of course, these statements are all my personal opinion; 
Eric
--
Eric Engstrom, Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Mpls, MN, USA
engstrom@src.honeywell.com  -or-  NeXTMail: eric%basilisk@src.honeywell.com
     < I eat from the four food groups: Barley, Hops, Yeast, Water. >