Re: Open source Ada OS?

[anon@att.net]

From: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/
       as well as 
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd

States the Hurd is a (AT&T OS) like kernel. Aka it is like Linux a derivative 
kernel that does not share the old code! 

On the GNU site it states that it derivative from the March kernel. Mach 3
was developed as a replacement for the kernel in BSD. And any kernel 
replacing an existing kernel that uses the same API is in some way is based 
or derivative from the replacing kernel. Aka Hurd is based or derivative from 
AT&T OS.

Being that OpenVMS is derivative from VMS. If you go back to the late 1980s 
and read about VMS guy that quite DEC and created NT for Microsoft which 
now has been updated to the current version called Windows 7. You will see 
that he states VMS and NT uses a number of features that were derivative 
from BSD. And the orginal Windows was created at IBM and they used a 
number of feature that were also design for AIX (IBM's version of AT&T OS).
Aka Windows and OpenVMS (VMS) are based or derivative in some way from 
AT&T OS.

The sad point is that it has been said by a number of OS designers like 
Microsoft that the core of the major OSs that are being created since the 
1980s are all derivative from BSD aka AT&T old OS. Just like the major 
language to write these OSs is C (AT&T created in 1974 for their OS), 
instead of "C++", or other languages.  With most OS limiting the the 
usage of assembly to small footprints which allows easily altering to 
other CPUs.

One reason for the design is that the OS classes uses information 
and books that used initially BSD code and now Linux. 

And at this movement there are programmers writting kernels that will 
be openSource later. Some for classes while others are created for fun.  
And these programmers will never use a VCS of any kind and if they release 
the code they will simply put the compressed archive file on some free site 
or maybe their homepage with little or no documentation.

Now, since you are a Ada maintainer you might download each version of 
a set of packages or use GIT but others aka the greeks have projects they 
are working on so they do not spend all their time just downloading every 
version of GCC.  And I believe that if you had a HD crash or other damage 
to your system where the data or source code may have been currupted you 
would start with initially downloading the compressed archive then go back 
to downloading using VCS or others for updates. But most people are not 
maintainer they prefer a clean and working copy of the software and that 
includes greeks. 


In <82e67804-b143-45da-bd3a-d05c7ffc077f@k30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>Anon wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>> Dirk Heinrichs writes:
>>>a...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>>> Most open OS that use CVS/SVN/GIT are based on BSD or LINUX or the AT&T
>>>> old OS system.
>>
>>> RTEMS, Haiku, Marte, Lovelace, Hurd? Based on Linux? Based on BSD? I gue=
>ss
>>> not.
>>
>> First, there are 100s of openSource OS. A lot of them just store the sour=
>ce
>> code in archived files such as zip or tar (gz or bz2) or etc. =A0
>
>Wrong. They don't "just" store the source; they use a proper VCS for
>development and publish snapshots as tarballs. Whether the VCS is
>public or private is another matter. And this is true for almost all
>software, whether proprietary or not. Software developers who don't
>use any VCS are simply novices and you should not run their software
>on your machine.
>
>> Even closed source like Apple's OSX is directly based on BSD since Apple'=
>s
>> Steve Job help create the openSource version of BSD and Apple admits that
>> OSX is directly linked to BSD. Which also means that OSX is direcly based
>> on AT&T old OS from 1969.
>
>OK, so MacOS X is a derivative of UNIX.
>
>> Linus Torvalds wrote Linux ( L plus an anagram of the true name of AT&T
>> old OS that I nolonger use) to be a alternative to the high priced AT&T
>> old OS with all of the features of AT&T old OS. And any OS that uses
>> Posix, System V Api or other programs that was develope for an OS version
>> that is based on BSD or AT&T old OS is directly or indirecly linked to
>> BSD and AT&T old OS.
>
>OK, so Linux is a derivative of UNIX, although it does not share any
>source code with UNIX. It does share part of the design and the native
>API, though.
>
>> RTEMS =A0 =A0-- Includes supports for Posix and BSD sockets and
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 GNU based toolset GCC C and GNAT.
>
>Just because an OS is POSIX-compliant does not make it a derivative of
>UNIX.
>
>Proof:
>IBM's MVS is POSIX-compliant but is not a derivative of UNIX.
>Microsoft Windows has a POSIX-compliant API but is not a derivative of
>UNIX.
>OpenVMS is POSIX-compliant but is not a derivative of UNIX.
>GNU HURD is POSIX-compliant but is not a derivative of UNIX (it shares
>neither the design nor the sources of UNIX).
>
>> Torvalds may have create GIT. but when one downloads the Linux kernel
>> one downloads the compress tar file. =A0That saves traffic because at
>> the movement the current compress source kernel is around 50 MB and
>> uncompress it could be 100 .. 200 MB worth of files to be downloaded.
>
>No, I for one do not download the compressed tar file. I update my git
>mirror. This saves a lot more bandwidth.
>
>> Plus, except for Linux distro maintainers most people do not download
>> each updated copy of the Linux kernel. Most may install two or three
>> kernel within the life of the hardware to many changes to the kernel
>
>Most people do not download the sources of the kernel at all. In fact
>they do not download the kernel at all; they install the one from the
>CD-ROM their geek friend gave them instead.
>
>> for a simple patch it better just to download the complete current
>> stable file.
>
>By definition, the "complete current stable file" does not include the
>"simple patch". The "simple patch" must be downloaded on top of the
>"complete current stable file"; that's why it is called a "patch". If
>you upgrade from one "stable" relase of the kernel to a later one just
>because you need a "simple patch", you're doing it wrong. The new
>"stable" release will contain many changes you are not interested in,
>do not know about and may introduce new bugs.
>
>--
>Ludovic Brenta.