Talk:Berkeley Software Distribution
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theBerkeley Software Distribution article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Am not sure why this was entered under "Berkeley_System_Distribution"but the NetBSD documentation1has the S standing for Software, and that seems to be thepredominate usage (even in the article itself, leading to the odd situationin which the article and article title don't match). --JoeAnderson
In the early days it was called "Berkeley Source Distribution". This was certainly the case still in 1984. It has changed at some stage since then, but i don't know why or when.
the /usr/share/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/unix-license.html file ("Unix from a BSD Licensing Perspective") on FreeBSD 6.3 (on the 6.3-RELEASE-i386-docs.iso ISO at[1]) says "Berkeley Standard Distribution":
Unix author Ken Thompson returned to his alma mater, University of California Berkeley (UCB), in 1975 and taught the kernel line-by-line. This ultimately resulted in an evolving system known as BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution).
It goes on to mention enhancements such as the TCP/IP stack and then licensing issues with AT&T.The file is also available underftp://ftp.FreeBSD.org/pub/FreeBSD/doc/
—Precedingunsigned comment added byRamorum (talk •contribs)06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial BSD's shouldn't be listed at the same precedence as the 3 major ones. Relevance. I'd be suprised if more than a few hundred (or in some cases, dozen) people run the smaller ones.
I've changed theBSD page from a redirect to a disambig, including theBirsa Seva Dal expansion recently mistakenly added to this page.yes—Precedingunsigned comment added by220.149.93.122 (talk)07:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there a FOSS Licenses called BSD?
The current history section is extremely skimpy and mostly ignores the actual historic bits (1BSD, 2BSD, 3BSD, 4BSD, 4.1BSD, 4.2BSD, and 4.3BSD). A capsule summary of the history is available in the intro to McKusicket al,The Design and Implementation of (insert flavor here). I may write this some day, but anyone else out there should feel free to preempt me.18.26.0.18 03:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is a particular since I read it was the Vax that it which sort of ignore 2.1 for example. We should review the family treetree of unixes perhaps and make it consistent.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-39514-26 (talk)05:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Taxman writes, "if you have something that shows standards compliance is untruthful bring it to talk", so...
Just how many years have BSD systems been intentionally failing to support the "ps -ef" command?This is not merely a bug. This is willful violation of the POSIX and UNIX standards.
Yet another willful violation: "ps -u root"
There are many more... those are just the most glaring ones.
It's not right to claim that "the BSD operating systems are notable for their standards conformance" when they are notable for theirlack of standards conformance.
The article could say "the BSD operating systems might someday be notable for their standards conformance", but it seemed more polite to just quietly delete that section. If you want to air the dirty laundry though, be my guest.— Precedingunsigned comment added by65.34.186.143 (talk)18:17, 26 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to read about tha famous BSD-style ports and was amazed that I haven't found any, only a short paragraph under FreeBSD. Would someone please create an article?Helix84 18:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"(The release was not called 5BSD to avoid confusion with AT&T's UNIX System V release.)"
This is bunk. SysV wasn't on the roadmap in 1981. Who is claiming this?
I've never heard that about 4.1, but I have heard that was a reason with 4.2 (however, I can't track down a solid ref). However, Don Libes' "Life with UNIX" says on pg. 18 says 4.2 was originally slated to be 5 BSD, but they would have had to relicense it with AT&T according to university rules.--Agarvin23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
System V was concurrent with BSD 4.1 and 4.2. We ran BSD in our department at Bell Labs in Murray Hill in the mid 1980s, and we were asked several times why we were not running System V. It should be noted that John Reiser's version of VAX UNIX in Bell Labs did have virtual memory, well before Berkely's system did.DonPMitchell (talk)19:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is awful and I feel the content favors a loyalty perspective to informative facts. Furthermore, it completely re-lists the bulleted summaries of the major goals of each distro.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by24.136.239.88 (talk • contribs) 13:05, Jun 20, 2005.
There is a mistake in timeline. FreeBSD was forked after NetBSD. First NetBSD release was in 1993 April, FreeBSD was in 1993 December. Probably need to fix it?
Why is Mac OS X not included in the timeline? It definitely is a Unix system.—Precedingunsigned comment added byMijter (talk •contribs)20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Devilette is a keen glance brunette woman dressed like BSD Daemon:
Somebody please contact copyright owners and upload these pictures to WikiCommons :-)Vugluskr15:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know. The purpose of featuring an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain the feature for a week or so. The previous feature wasMySQL.Gronky10:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it goes
1986
1988
1987
This conference seems worth mentioning, but I don't know much about it.Gronky13:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Bob Fabry should be added to the BSD history on this page. Peter Salus has some info on him inA Quarter Century of UNIX. Fabry secured the grants that allowed Unix development to occur at Berkeley, and supervised it. He had the vision that UCB could make a big difference in Unix. He was responsible for getting Bill Joy involved. Bill Joy lucked into the environment that Prof. Fabry set up. Without Fabry therw ould have been no BSD Unix. -Lentower21:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem, in my opinion at least, that this does not have many citations or reliable sources mention in the article. I would add them myself, but I'm really not much of an BSD guy and would not know where to look. Just delete this message if it is unneeded or useless.Zen Clark (talk)00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, in the 1980s, when BSD with virual memory came out, the story we heard was that this code was developed elsewhere (Ohio I think) and incorporated by Berkeley without proper attribution. Does anyone have some evidence for this or know where the VM code came from?
I do know for a fact that UC Berkeley did plagiarize some code. The program vroff (troff for the Versetac printer) was written at the University of Toronto. The BSD version of this program was exactly the same source code, but the names of the authors at Toronto was removed and a UCB copyright boilerplate put in its place.DonPMitchell (talk)19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states:
It was an interim release during the early development of 4.4BSD, and its use was considered a "gamble", hence the naming after the gambling center of Reno, Nevada.
However I think there is more to the name Reno than that. Please see[2] which currently states:
First there was 4.3. Then there was 4.3 Tahoe. And then there was4.3 Reno.
Tahoe was so named because one of the things it added was support forthe CCI machines which were code named "Tahoe". Reno was called Renoas a joke based on its predecessor Tahoe.
See also[1]--129.35.87.198 (talk)12:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
His name is mentioned only in the "See Also" section -- if he's important to the development, his part should be mentioned inline somewhere, and if not, he shouldn't be in See Also.128.135.8.108 (talk)21:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved toTalk:Mac OS XI propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics.MFNickster (talk)03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article says it was in 2BSD in 1978. But according to apublished email, 22 Apr 2009 by Kirk McKusick, csh was already in 1BSD in 1977. Can anyone supply anything more authoritative? (I'm working on thecsh article and I'd like to get the date right.)Msnicki (talk)02:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According tohttp://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~piaip/docs/short_bsd_specific_unix_essay-thompsl3.pdf 1BSD came out on March 9 1978.What is the source for the 1977 date in the article?★NealMcB★ (talk)01:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims:
The license used in net/1 reads (randomly chosen from ping.c):
/* * Copyright (c) 1987 Regents of the University of California. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, * advertising materials, and other materials related to such * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed * by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */
(years used in the copyright statement include 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988)While clearly ancestral to the BSD license, the language is different; notably it does not use the 4-clause format.~10nitro (talk)01:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BSD from Berkeley in '77 to '95 did support IA-32's x86, and few other platforms, but modern BSD, like FreeBSD, supports many other architectures.— Precedingunsigned comment added by169.139.19.117 (talk)20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone should cleanup & clarify what 'Significant' means here. It seems more than a few listed don't qualify as significant, or if they do it should be explained because its not clear. For example: MicroBSD? That died in 2002 with no fanfare; EkkoBSD died the year it was born and OPNSense is barely a year old fork pfsense with 82 downloads on sourceforge (not the best metric, i know)... --Strangerpete (talk)12:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence of the introduction currently reads: “These, in turn, have been incorporated into proprietary operating systems including Microsoft Windows[1] and Apple's macOS and iOS.[2]”
I think the sentence is confusing, especially when both operating systems are put side by side. It looks like it asserts that both Windows and MacOS are derived from BSD, which is not true. While MacOS truly derived from BSD, Windows was created independently, and only later, it reused some BSD code for its network stack. Therefore, I suppose that it is important to emphasize this difference. What about the following reformulation?
“These, in turn, have been used by proprietary operating systems, including Apple's macOS and iOS[2] which derived from them, and Microsoft Windows[1], which used a part of its TCP/IP code.”— Precedingunsigned comment added byMainMa (talk •contribs)07:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that the Berkeley Software Distribution names were always lower case, e.g.,4.2bsd.Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)18:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly these three observations show that v8 was based on a BSD version before 4.1c BSD:
SeeTalk:Research_Unix#v8_is_based_on_4.1c_BSD?
.svg){kind=logo}
