UNIX® is whatever The Open Group says it is. http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ Granted, nowadays people no longer use the "original" UNIX. For example, I use Mac OS X on my PDP-11! :D

you said really pdp-11:
http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/upl...-processor.jpg

Correction: Debian AND Ubuntu package managers. Ubuntu also uses APT!

^ You do know ubuntu is re-branded debian, right?

Mr Code is correct. If by "Unix" you mean the code descended from the original Bell Labs system, then the product marketed by the (almost) late unlamented SCO is the only real Unix.

As I understand it BSD started as the original kernel with added utilities, then they replaced the kernel; otherwise, you couldn't use BSD without paying Unix royalties. I believe HP still support HU-UX, but the product was dropped with the hardware it ran on.

If by "Unix" you mean "POSIX compliant", then Linux is Unix too.

Posixculprit: "Windows dominates the market." What market? The server market? No. the embedded market? No. The mainframe market? Hardly. The PC market is distinguished by the fact that purchasing choices are generally made by people who are less than well informed. I remember when the original IBM PC came out. The reviewer in Personal Computer World described it as over-priced and under-performing, and he concluded "Anyone who buys this is a wally. And by the end of the year there will be at least a million more wallies in the world."

Yes. The desktop market is where M$ is dominant, and on the server Linux is dominant. However, even that's changing. I know for a fact that Obama is a HUGE advocate of FOSS and is deploying it on all government computers as I write. Soon the tables will turn, considering that even the Justice Department, which used to be M$-friendly, is starting to deploy FOSS.

+1 - But i dont like Obama :(

Guess what, chances are all the distros listed here
http://www.debianhelp.co.uk/debian.htm
use apt-get/aptitude

It's still a Debian package manager nonetheless

Assumptions. One could also make the following assumption: Linux dominates the server market because the people choosing Linux are less than well informed (what percentage of the Linux user base has heard of BSD or alternative UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base has actually -tried- these other operating systems? what percentage of the Linux user base can make an accurate, technical, cold hard facts comparison between Linux and any BSD flavor?)

Once again: popularity != quality.

The line I was replying to:

I don't know. If Slackware is so great how come I can't name any company that uses Slackware? If Debian is so great how come Ubuntu has more users? Do you see what I'm trying to say? Can you hear me now?

Why isn't Mint on that list? And there was one distro that I saw that replaced APT with something else! I can tell you that being Debian-based is inaccurate when trying to see distros with APT.

But can you provide hard facts that BSD is superior.
Also, it migt catch on better if it didn't have a less then intelligent acronym for a name.

BSD is MUCH more popular than Linux, as Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD. And the BSD license is too permissive, since it allows corporations like Apple to make money off of it, using that money to feed into marketing tactics that further restrict.

Exceptions prove the rule, still doesn't change though what apt is ;)
Why Mint isn't on there? Don't know, ask who maintains the list *shrug*

How many people who use OSX know what it's based on?
There's not that much of BSD in there though (>afaik<, not a Mac person).

Regarding the licence stuff, personally I prefer the BSD licence simply because it's more permissive than the GPL.

can we use the dmg or the mac os x program into BSD?

Kenny.. I don't know how you manage.. but every time I read one of your posts I think "W. T. F. !?". Mac OS X may contain parts that originated in FreeBSD but I wouldn't call that "being based on FreeBSD". At some point Windows used code from FreeBSD too but I wouldn't be quick to call that version of Windows as being a flavor of BSD. You also seem to have a problem regarding the BSD license. Do you even -write- usable software of any kind? The people who apply the BSD license to the software they develop are obviously fine with the BSD license's conditions. Those people do not care (or may even desire) that individuals use their code in commercial projects. Those people simply want their software to be useful, used, etc.