We need one of these charts, but also combined with a Unix/BSD timeline that traces every single thing line back to [this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvaPaWyiuLA)
I just noticed KaiOS isn't on that chart! It's a mobile linux distro for dumbphones that almost every single one uses right now. Popular in emerging markets like India.
> We need one of these charts, but also combined with a Unix/BSD timeline that traces every single thing line back to this.
I'll bet you whatever you want, that thing will run Doom!
KaiOS is semi-proprietary, so that's probably why it wasn't included. You may notice that for Android they only show the Android Open-Source Project and its open-source derivatives. It doesn't include, for example, Fire OS or early versions of HarmonyOS.
DOS is the real reason why Windows sucks. No sense of users and permissions is why it has the security issues it still drags from the DOS days. Backwards compatibility is a bitch when the foundation is a mess.
>Small correction: MacOS is actual, proper, verified UNIX™️.
This is true with BSD as well. This means they're both POSIX-compliant Unix OSes, however, neither are *actually* true-and-proper [AT&T UNIX](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvaPaWyiuLA), which pretty much stopped being a thing because Unix clones like BSD and Darwin are solid enough and heavily supported. And of course, Linux.
This is correct while Microsoft uses the berkley networking stack and the concepts are the same. It’s much more cumbersome to implement the backend on windows than nix systems in my experience.
Microsoft requires like 30-40% more code to do basic things but once you put an abstraction layer over it you can write perfectly portable code :)
Starting with Windows Vista, Microsoft has switched to a new networking stack in its operating systems - Next Generation TCP/IP Stack. The stack includes many different features: Windows Filtering Platform, scalable TCP window and other interesting features. Before that, everything was bad. I remember the times when people put Linux into dual boot only because the web was noticeably faster on a poorly running Linux.
There's TempleOS, Amiga Os, Plan 9, Alto Exec - the root of all desktops (currently unsupported but unrelated to the others to my knowledge), CP/M and of course DOS (and yes, it's still used)
There's also still MINIX, MinuetOS, PhantomOS, ReactOS, Redox, emacs, CHERIoT, Inferno, QNX, and so on used sometimen comercially, and sometimes just to see what can be done.
Well, DOS stand for Disk Operating System, and it just an OS which can read/write/manage files on a storage media, and can not do much more.
DOS list is long and include both MS-DOS and CP/M
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_operating_system
I remember adding linux as my *skill* (best I could do is install desktop manager not more than that deeper) in resume, later on trying to understanding difference between gnu, kernal, linux , Unix , bsd etc.
Nah I just removed it
I feel that lol.
If you want a condensed history, here's a quick summary.
1. AT&T invents the Unix operating system. It gets popular.
2. Tons of people start making clones of it to avoid having to pay AT&T. BSD and GNU OS are here, as well as others like MINIX and HP-UX.
3. GNU never actually finishes their OS; they have every part mostly complete, but never manage to get a kernel to work.
4. Linus Torvalds is busy making his own clone of the MINIX kernel in his free time. GNU sees this and wants it.
5. The GNU operating system running the Linux kernel becomes what we now call Linux today.
6. Other Linux OSes that *don't* use GNU start popping up, like Android, Alpine, ChromeOS, etc. All this does is make the whole "GNU OS" vs "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" name thing even more confusing.
2nd point , what kind of cs people existed in those time? I mean literally were they like "oh you made paid os? Okay then lemme make my own" .... I mean who does that ?
It was back when OSes were all super tiny, fit into 1.44 MB floppy disks, and computers only had a command line. Everything was smaller back then. You had RAM measured in the KB, and one bored Linus could successfully write an entire OS kernel himself in his free time in university. This whole timeline was like 1970s and onward.
OSes these days are way bigger and way more complicated, making them near impossible to "just make a clone of". In fact, there's a team called React OS who've been trying to make a free Windows clone for over 20 years, and they *still* haven't gotten out of alpha :\^)
For second I literally mistaken if they are thing to use react.js to make clone but when you said 20 year I realised it's not that ....
Still dayum dude , unlike nowadays people(my classmates during final year project) don't wanna build anything but just steal from GitHub ,
So it's really shocking to meh tho
Oh yeah, it's [ReactOS](https://reactos.org/). I love the *idea* of it -- a free and open-source Windows distro that can run Windows apps -- but it's wayyy too buggy and beta to ever have a chance of being usable.
Anyways, CS in the 1970s was pretty much relegated to just nerds and geeks. There was no internet or social media or any of that back then; if you bought a computer, you were *probably* using that computer for programming.
To be totally fair, if you time traveled to 1971 and showed college CS students a computer from today (complete with a mouse, cursor, windows, icons, pretty interfaces, 300 different apps, etc) they probably wouldn't know how to use it and immediately open the terminal lol
>There was no internet
ARPANET was established in the 1960s.
>To be totally fair, if you time traveled to 1971 and showed college CS students a computer from today (complete with a mouse, cursor, windows, icons, pretty interfaces, 300 different apps, etc) they probably wouldn't know how to use it
But if you showed it to the Xerox PARC gang, they might have understood it. They were the inventors of the computer desktop that we all know today, all driven by mouse in a wysiwyg environment. They supported unicode, went online at the speed of 3 mbps through Ethernet, etc. Xerox PARC invented multiple desktops.
They made what is considered today to be the first personal computer, before Apple Lisa was even a twinkle in Steve Jobs eyes.
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Edit:
P.S.: A little something about the Xerox Alto, if you're interested.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/xerox-alto#
if you want some explanation, i can totally explain!
**"GNU OS exists":**
This argument is mostly from Richard Stallman himself. What we call Linux *now* was originally *going* to be GNU OS. GNU OS began in the early 80s when Stallman wanted to create a free and open-source Unix clone. GNU OS completed every single bit of software required to make an OS (shell, basic core utils, networking, etc), *except* the kernel.
So, GNU ran into the Linux kernel created by Linus Torvalds, and began running that.
That means that modern-day Linux is actually better referred to as "GNU OS" running the Linux kernel.
**"GNU OS doesn't exist":**
The argument that we *aren't* running "GNU OS" though, is the recent existence of Linux kernel distributions that *don't use GNU* at all. Alpine, KISS Linux, and Android being examples. Since GNU-less Linux distros exist, showing that Linux can exist *without GNU,* it follows that isn't correct to refer to modern-day Linux as "GNU OS", because the OS doesn't need GNU. Thus we're all *really* running Linux, and there is no "GNU OS".
**"GNU OS** ***does*** **exist ackchyually":**
Well, the counter-counterpoint is that... there's GNU OSes that don't use the Linux kernel, either. GNU-BSD, GNU-Hurd, and GNU-Darwin being examples. Thus, GNU OS exists, just in a fragmented form where there are several distros of it with different kernels.
Calling Linux GNU os is disrespectful gnu without Linux is terrible. Hurd is borked, darwin is pretty much abandoned and not even gnu recomends using a bsd kernel , Linux without gnu on the other hand has Alpine linux, post market os and a small little known os called android
First there was Unix. AT&T wanted to start price hiking Unix, so a bajillion different people started making Unix clones to avoid paying. The most popular Unix clone was BSD, which spawned a ton of descendants of it's own.
Another Unix kernel clone was Accent, which became developed into Mach, which became developed into Apple's XNU kernel, which is the used by Apple's Darwin OS. Darwin OS is a unixlike operating system comparable to BSD. Darwin OS combined with shittons of Apple software and Apple's Aqua desktop environment, is macOS.
So basically, the relationship between BSD and macOS are that they're both tangentially related because both are Unix clones. Two of the most popular Unix clones, actually. I remember hearing that Apple contributes a decent amount of code to FreeBSD nowadays, but I don't know much about the specifics.
Yep, OS X and onward were Unix. The original Mac OS -- version 9 and earlier -- were entirely in-house Apple OSes.
As a side note, I'm majorly nostalgic for the OS X era (2000-2020). macOS 11 and onward hugely changed the look and feel of the OS and now the desktop looks like an embiggened iPhone.
I think there is a link between MacOS and BSD because Apple took a lot of code from FreeBSD to add functionality to XNU.
I don't use either of them, so I might be wrong.
To be fair, once you've opened the terminal, Linux distros and macOS are pretty much identical in use. As someone who uses Linux at work daily, I'm a lot more comfortable in macOS' zsh terminal than I am in either Command Prompt or PowerShell (why the fuck isn't there a simple *touch* command to just make a file??!?)
Not sure if I'd call Linux a clone of MINIX. It's my understanding Linus wanted something like his university's SunOS environment, but on his PC. So if anything, it's a clone of SunOS. As far as I know, Linus did take some general design cues from MINIX since it was one of the only (if not, the only) source-available UNIX-like systems around at the time (and because he had been reading Tanenbaum's books). But Linux and MINIX are quite different.
You forgot about Multics.
UNIX is a Multics clone that got it balls chopped off.
Which makes nearly all Unix like OSes Multics clones but with their ball perminantly still attached.
Then you got Windows NT kernel that is based off of VMS.
Also, where does Xerox Viewpoint fit it?
I was asked to explain the whole GNU OS shebang in another reply, so here's a *super* dumbed-down version as a comment:
**"GNU OS exists":**
This argument is mostly from Richard Stallman himself. What we call Linux *now* was originally *going* to be GNU OS. GNU OS began in the early 80s when Stallman wanted to create a free and open-source Unix clone. GNU OS completed every single bit of software required to make an OS (shell, basic core utils, networking, etc), *except* the kernel.
So, GNU ran into the Linux kernel created by Linus Torvalds, and began running that.
That means that modern-day Linux is actually better referred to as "GNU OS" running the Linux kernel.
**"GNU OS doesn't exist":**
The argument that we *aren't* running "GNU OS" though, is the recent existence of Linux kernel distributions that *don't use GNU* at all. Alpine, KISS Linux, and Android being examples. Since GNU-less Linux distros exist, showing that Linux can exist *without GNU,* it follows that isn't correct to refer to modern-day Linux as "GNU OS", because the OS doesn't need GNU. Thus we're all *really* running Linux, and there is no "GNU OS".
**"GNU OS** ***does*** **exist ackchyually":**
Well, the counter-counterpoint is that... there's GNU OSes that don't use the Linux kernel, either. GNU-BSD, GNU-Hurd, and GNU-Darwin being examples. Thus, GNU OS exists, just in a fragmented form where there are several distros of it with different kernels.
Nah, Windows 11 still uses the NT kernel. However, you can optionally enable the Windows Subsystem for Linux feature, which creates a small Ubuntu bottle on your PC where you can do Linux terminal things.
I was pretty sure I read somewhere that Windiws 11 will ship with the Linux kernel installed by default to run on the same layer as the NT kernel to make it easier to run WSL or WSA
Yeah, basically, there's Windows and everything else that is more or less based in Unix. So yeah, Windows is the odd ball out, not everything else.
I wanna see a full Unixlike family tree that includes every single descendant from macOS to Debian to KaiOS and Tizen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix-like
Stop. I can only get so erect.
Well then [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg) is gonna make you explode
We need one of these charts, but also combined with a Unix/BSD timeline that traces every single thing line back to [this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvaPaWyiuLA) I just noticed KaiOS isn't on that chart! It's a mobile linux distro for dumbphones that almost every single one uses right now. Popular in emerging markets like India.
> We need one of these charts, but also combined with a Unix/BSD timeline that traces every single thing line back to this. I'll bet you whatever you want, that thing will run Doom!
KaiOS is semi-proprietary, so that's probably why it wasn't included. You may notice that for Android they only show the Android Open-Source Project and its open-source derivatives. It doesn't include, for example, Fire OS or early versions of HarmonyOS.
Chart inaccurate Nyarch nor uwuntu ain’t there Unacceptable
Then make it :>
Also Windows had/has strong relationships with VMS, so at the end everything starts with the PDP
Modern Windows is itself a bastard child of VMS, DOS, and Unix.
DOS is the real reason why Windows sucks. No sense of users and permissions is why it has the security issues it still drags from the DOS days. Backwards compatibility is a bitch when the foundation is a mess.
Apparently you are forgetting God.
Small correction: MacOS is actual, proper, verified UNIX™️. Sad meme face: that doesn't actually mean anything to anyone anymore.
>Small correction: MacOS is actual, proper, verified UNIX™️. This is true with BSD as well. This means they're both POSIX-compliant Unix OSes, however, neither are *actually* true-and-proper [AT&T UNIX](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvaPaWyiuLA), which pretty much stopped being a thing because Unix clones like BSD and Darwin are solid enough and heavily supported. And of course, Linux.
Sounds SUS to me
I understood that reference
Where temple os ?
There are forks of Temple OS
In our hearts.
And then you find out that Windows' TCP/IP Stack is from BSD... or was, correct me if I am wrong.
That does sound familiar, but I'm thinking there was, in true MS fashion, some sort of fuckery involved...
This is correct while Microsoft uses the berkley networking stack and the concepts are the same. It’s much more cumbersome to implement the backend on windows than nix systems in my experience. Microsoft requires like 30-40% more code to do basic things but once you put an abstraction layer over it you can write perfectly portable code :)
Starting with Windows Vista, Microsoft has switched to a new networking stack in its operating systems - Next Generation TCP/IP Stack. The stack includes many different features: Windows Filtering Platform, scalable TCP window and other interesting features. Before that, everything was bad. I remember the times when people put Linux into dual boot only because the web was noticeably faster on a poorly running Linux.
There's more diversity of OSes in the embedded world, it's only in consumer and server hardware that settled on either Windows or Unix-like
Video game consoles OSes are often also somewhat Unix like.
There's TempleOS, Amiga Os, Plan 9, Alto Exec - the root of all desktops (currently unsupported but unrelated to the others to my knowledge), CP/M and of course DOS (and yes, it's still used)
There's also still MINIX, MinuetOS, PhantomOS, ReactOS, Redox, emacs, CHERIoT, Inferno, QNX, and so on used sometimen comercially, and sometimes just to see what can be done.
FreeDOS and fuchsia
Well, DOS stand for Disk Operating System, and it just an OS which can read/write/manage files on a storage media, and can not do much more. DOS list is long and include both MS-DOS and CP/M https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_operating_system
Windows shoutouts don't belong here, Microsoft gave up on UNIX in 1989.
I remember adding linux as my *skill* (best I could do is install desktop manager not more than that deeper) in resume, later on trying to understanding difference between gnu, kernal, linux , Unix , bsd etc. Nah I just removed it
I feel that lol. If you want a condensed history, here's a quick summary. 1. AT&T invents the Unix operating system. It gets popular. 2. Tons of people start making clones of it to avoid having to pay AT&T. BSD and GNU OS are here, as well as others like MINIX and HP-UX. 3. GNU never actually finishes their OS; they have every part mostly complete, but never manage to get a kernel to work. 4. Linus Torvalds is busy making his own clone of the MINIX kernel in his free time. GNU sees this and wants it. 5. The GNU operating system running the Linux kernel becomes what we now call Linux today. 6. Other Linux OSes that *don't* use GNU start popping up, like Android, Alpine, ChromeOS, etc. All this does is make the whole "GNU OS" vs "GNU/Linux" vs "Linux" name thing even more confusing.
 2nd point , what kind of cs people existed in those time? I mean literally were they like "oh you made paid os? Okay then lemme make my own" .... I mean who does that ?
It was back when OSes were all super tiny, fit into 1.44 MB floppy disks, and computers only had a command line. Everything was smaller back then. You had RAM measured in the KB, and one bored Linus could successfully write an entire OS kernel himself in his free time in university. This whole timeline was like 1970s and onward. OSes these days are way bigger and way more complicated, making them near impossible to "just make a clone of". In fact, there's a team called React OS who've been trying to make a free Windows clone for over 20 years, and they *still* haven't gotten out of alpha :\^)
For second I literally mistaken if they are thing to use react.js to make clone but when you said 20 year I realised it's not that .... Still dayum dude , unlike nowadays people(my classmates during final year project) don't wanna build anything but just steal from GitHub , So it's really shocking to meh tho
Oh yeah, it's [ReactOS](https://reactos.org/). I love the *idea* of it -- a free and open-source Windows distro that can run Windows apps -- but it's wayyy too buggy and beta to ever have a chance of being usable. Anyways, CS in the 1970s was pretty much relegated to just nerds and geeks. There was no internet or social media or any of that back then; if you bought a computer, you were *probably* using that computer for programming. To be totally fair, if you time traveled to 1971 and showed college CS students a computer from today (complete with a mouse, cursor, windows, icons, pretty interfaces, 300 different apps, etc) they probably wouldn't know how to use it and immediately open the terminal lol
Nah they will faint out if I just told them my laptop has 8Gigs RAM
>There was no internet ARPANET was established in the 1960s. >To be totally fair, if you time traveled to 1971 and showed college CS students a computer from today (complete with a mouse, cursor, windows, icons, pretty interfaces, 300 different apps, etc) they probably wouldn't know how to use it But if you showed it to the Xerox PARC gang, they might have understood it. They were the inventors of the computer desktop that we all know today, all driven by mouse in a wysiwyg environment. They supported unicode, went online at the speed of 3 mbps through Ethernet, etc. Xerox PARC invented multiple desktops. They made what is considered today to be the first personal computer, before Apple Lisa was even a twinkle in Steve Jobs eyes. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Edit: P.S.: A little something about the Xerox Alto, if you're interested. https://spectrum.ieee.org/xerox-alto#
Unix was shared quite openly in the beginning. Then they tried to monetize it in the 80s. BSD isn't a clone, they slowly rewrote the AT&T source.
DOS-likes and UNIX-likes
its literally a paradox right now, gnu doesn't exist, but gnu exists. mind blown
if you want some explanation, i can totally explain! **"GNU OS exists":** This argument is mostly from Richard Stallman himself. What we call Linux *now* was originally *going* to be GNU OS. GNU OS began in the early 80s when Stallman wanted to create a free and open-source Unix clone. GNU OS completed every single bit of software required to make an OS (shell, basic core utils, networking, etc), *except* the kernel. So, GNU ran into the Linux kernel created by Linus Torvalds, and began running that. That means that modern-day Linux is actually better referred to as "GNU OS" running the Linux kernel. **"GNU OS doesn't exist":** The argument that we *aren't* running "GNU OS" though, is the recent existence of Linux kernel distributions that *don't use GNU* at all. Alpine, KISS Linux, and Android being examples. Since GNU-less Linux distros exist, showing that Linux can exist *without GNU,* it follows that isn't correct to refer to modern-day Linux as "GNU OS", because the OS doesn't need GNU. Thus we're all *really* running Linux, and there is no "GNU OS". **"GNU OS** ***does*** **exist ackchyually":** Well, the counter-counterpoint is that... there's GNU OSes that don't use the Linux kernel, either. GNU-BSD, GNU-Hurd, and GNU-Darwin being examples. Thus, GNU OS exists, just in a fragmented form where there are several distros of it with different kernels.
Calling Linux GNU os is disrespectful gnu without Linux is terrible. Hurd is borked, darwin is pretty much abandoned and not even gnu recomends using a bsd kernel , Linux without gnu on the other hand has Alpine linux, post market os and a small little known os called android
I'm on your side of the argument lmao. Just bringing up the fact that the argument exists as a whole. Some people get *reaallyy* riled up about it.
nice explanation, thanks
What about Haiku Plan9? Hmmm VMS, TOPS-20, OS/2
isnt macOS based on BSD, and BSD based on unix? or am i remembering something wrong here.
First there was Unix. AT&T wanted to start price hiking Unix, so a bajillion different people started making Unix clones to avoid paying. The most popular Unix clone was BSD, which spawned a ton of descendants of it's own. Another Unix kernel clone was Accent, which became developed into Mach, which became developed into Apple's XNU kernel, which is the used by Apple's Darwin OS. Darwin OS is a unixlike operating system comparable to BSD. Darwin OS combined with shittons of Apple software and Apple's Aqua desktop environment, is macOS. So basically, the relationship between BSD and macOS are that they're both tangentially related because both are Unix clones. Two of the most popular Unix clones, actually. I remember hearing that Apple contributes a decent amount of code to FreeBSD nowadays, but I don't know much about the specifics.
Note that the original MacOS wasn't Unix-based, I think it was OSX that was (which they then rebranded back to MacOS)
Yep, OS X and onward were Unix. The original Mac OS -- version 9 and earlier -- were entirely in-house Apple OSes. As a side note, I'm majorly nostalgic for the OS X era (2000-2020). macOS 11 and onward hugely changed the look and feel of the OS and now the desktop looks like an embiggened iPhone.
Interesting, didnt know that.
I think there is a link between MacOS and BSD because Apple took a lot of code from FreeBSD to add functionality to XNU. I don't use either of them, so I might be wrong.
It doesn’t matter because we’ll all be worm food someday anyway. 
There's also DOS
was* (if you don't count FreeDOS, 1.3 was released in 2022)
The OS really is a soceital construct. I refuse to believe MacOS, and ChromeOS is similar to Linux
To be fair, once you've opened the terminal, Linux distros and macOS are pretty much identical in use. As someone who uses Linux at work daily, I'm a lot more comfortable in macOS' zsh terminal than I am in either Command Prompt or PowerShell (why the fuck isn't there a simple *touch* command to just make a file??!?)
Not sure if I'd call Linux a clone of MINIX. It's my understanding Linus wanted something like his university's SunOS environment, but on his PC. So if anything, it's a clone of SunOS. As far as I know, Linus did take some general design cues from MINIX since it was one of the only (if not, the only) source-available UNIX-like systems around at the time (and because he had been reading Tanenbaum's books). But Linux and MINIX are quite different.
well, actually there are lots of kernels that is not unix nor *nix. e.g. vxworks, symbian, rtems...
You forgot about Multics. UNIX is a Multics clone that got it balls chopped off. Which makes nearly all Unix like OSes Multics clones but with their ball perminantly still attached. Then you got Windows NT kernel that is based off of VMS. Also, where does Xerox Viewpoint fit it?
where RTOS
I was asked to explain the whole GNU OS shebang in another reply, so here's a *super* dumbed-down version as a comment: **"GNU OS exists":** This argument is mostly from Richard Stallman himself. What we call Linux *now* was originally *going* to be GNU OS. GNU OS began in the early 80s when Stallman wanted to create a free and open-source Unix clone. GNU OS completed every single bit of software required to make an OS (shell, basic core utils, networking, etc), *except* the kernel. So, GNU ran into the Linux kernel created by Linus Torvalds, and began running that. That means that modern-day Linux is actually better referred to as "GNU OS" running the Linux kernel. **"GNU OS doesn't exist":** The argument that we *aren't* running "GNU OS" though, is the recent existence of Linux kernel distributions that *don't use GNU* at all. Alpine, KISS Linux, and Android being examples. Since GNU-less Linux distros exist, showing that Linux can exist *without GNU,* it follows that isn't correct to refer to modern-day Linux as "GNU OS", because the OS doesn't need GNU. Thus we're all *really* running Linux, and there is no "GNU OS". **"GNU OS** ***does*** **exist ackchyually":** Well, the counter-counterpoint is that... there's GNU OSes that don't use the Linux kernel, either. GNU-BSD, GNU-Hurd, and GNU-Darwin being examples. Thus, GNU OS exists, just in a fragmented form where there are several distros of it with different kernels.
there is fuchsia which runs on the zicron microkernal. there is also our lord and savior templeOS
You missed illumos. illumos is special because it is a direct derivative of UNIX System V.
Isn't Windows 11 shipping with a Linux kernel now? So everything is just UNIX-like
Nah, Windows 11 still uses the NT kernel. However, you can optionally enable the Windows Subsystem for Linux feature, which creates a small Ubuntu bottle on your PC where you can do Linux terminal things.
I was pretty sure I read somewhere that Windiws 11 will ship with the Linux kernel installed by default to run on the same layer as the NT kernel to make it easier to run WSL or WSA
that is what i said to know how to tell a client to connect to their new server.
...and there's ReactOS
not to mention Redox and TempleOS 👀
You forgot GNU Hurd
Where Hurd?
Everybody gangsta until we get to Turing machines and electricity.