Seth Kenlon

Thanks for the clarification, Mark___.

I've heard this distinction made of BSD, but I don't understand the semantics. I suppose it's a similar issue to calling an entire OS by the name of its kernel (as in "Linux"). I don't know that I agree with the argument, but if it's generally understood that the word "distribution" in the context of OS *distribution* implies "the same kernel", then it's confusing for me to use the word in a different way.

I've changed the term "distribution" to "version" in an introductory paragraph. I imagine someone else will take issue with that term, too. What I really want to express is that there are many operating systems with the consecutive letters "BSD" in their names. Most of them have a reason for containing this sequence of letters, and ultimately it revolves around Berkeley, which obtained software at one point, from AT&T, which served as the basis for further development. I probably should have just written that into the article, but it sounds cheeky, and I want to afford the BSDs the measure of respect they deserve. I certainly don't intend this article to be an exploration of BSD's history or development, but rather an exploration of installing and using it.

Thanks, I've changed some wording to reach plausible deniability if accused of misleading readers. The article isn't meant to be a history lesson, so I don't want to bog it down with specifics, but I do want to introduce BSD without conveying blatantly incorrect data.

For future readers: an earlier subtitle to this article greatly confused NetBSD's lineage, citing it as "the only Unix with direct lineage to the original" (the article itself, however, cited BSD with that honour, and explained than NetBSD is not itself the same as generic BSD).