Meta was always planning to release LLaMA to the public. They were literally sen...

teddyh · 2024-10-27T09:09:09 1730020149

Bell Labs did the same with Unix, but Unix was still not open source. This is why we run GNU/Linux today, not Unix™.

pjmlp · 2024-10-27T11:17:23 1730027843

There is still enough Unix™ around, including from a well know fruit company.

teddyh · 2024-10-27T12:34:06 1730032446

No, macOS is FreeBSD, not the Unix from Bell Labs.

pjmlp · 2024-10-27T15:00:12 1730041212

macOS is many things, a bit of NeXTSTEP, a pinch of Mach, q.b. BSD, and a UNIX™ certification from OpenGroup.

teddyh · 2024-10-27T18:14:09 1730052849

A UNIX™ certification is not the same as being actual code from Unix™.

NeXTSTEP was 4.3BSD plus Mach, using Display Postscript as its windowing system and TIFF as its image format, supporting transparency for icons. macOS is FreeBSD plus Mach, using Display PDF as its windowing format and PNG as its image format, supporting transparency for icons. Basically NeXTSTEP but every component upgraded to its then-modern equivalent. (Except Objective C, they kept that.)

pjmlp · 2024-10-27T18:43:28 1730054608

Where do you mention Unix™ is the original source code, and not UNIX™ as defined by OpenGroup, the owners of UNIX™?

> Bell Labs did the same with Unix, but Unix was still not open source. This is why we run GNU/Linux today, not Unix™.

I know pretty well how NeXTSTEP used to be, my graduation project was to port a visualization framework from NeXTSTEP/Objective-C to Windows/C++.

teddyh · 2024-10-29T10:21:09 1730197269

The issue at hand was me making an analogy about how Meta releasing LLaMA to many .edu addresses still would not mean that LLaMA would be actually used widely, since the Unix™ source code was similarly released by Bell Labs, but the actual Unix™ source code did not end up being the code which we now use.

The fact that UNIX™ later went on to become a compatibility specification, not a specific implementation, is irrelevant to the analogy.