If Microsoft really wanted to base their OSes on Unix, they wouldn't mess with Linux. Any of the BSDs would suffice. The BSD license is much less restrictive than the GPL and doesn't require the commercial party to release the source code! Microsoft could, for instance, take the latest snapshot of FreeBSD, make an MS-BSD and end up with an OS that runs BSD, SCO and Linux binaries!
Differences between releases
on
FreeBSD Updated
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget "soft updates" in the file system! This gives near 'async' performance with 'sync' stability...
I don't normally pick on someone this way -- most Internet posters are sloppy when it comes to spelling. It's just that I don't think any of bluGill's posting have ever been free of misspellings. It's true that some of the mistakes can be attributed to typing too quickly. But many are blatant mistakes. Maybe Rob can run our comments through ispell.
People, people, people...
If Microsoft really wanted to base their OSes on Unix, they wouldn't mess with Linux. Any of the BSDs would suffice. The BSD license is much less restrictive than the GPL and doesn't require the commercial party to release the source code! Microsoft could, for instance, take the latest snapshot of FreeBSD, make an MS-BSD and end up with an OS that runs BSD, SCO and Linux binaries!
Don't forget "soft updates" in the file system! This gives near 'async' performance with 'sync' stability...
Everytime bluGill misspells a word, take a drink!
I don't normally pick on someone this way -- most Internet posters are sloppy when it comes to spelling. It's just that I don't think any of bluGill's posting have ever been free of misspellings. It's true that some of the mistakes can be attributed to typing too quickly. But many are blatant mistakes. Maybe Rob can run our comments through ispell.
The Linux zealots are going to go ballistic over this "prediction"...