Keith Keller wrote:


> That's not really an evolutionary tree, that's a family tree.

Well, according to the caption on the page that links to that, it's
a timeline, specifically. I do think that it clearly shows how the
various distributions evolved from their primary "families", if you would.

> But obviously Debian did not spring into being like Athena eating her
> way out of Zeus' head. ...

It was one of many distributions getting started at approximately the
same time, before some that would become important, but after others. I
would say that Debian's beginnings are much too close in time to
Slackware's for anyone to make a claim that Debian did not evolve
independently of Slackware. It may have borrowed from the same "parent"
as Slackware, though that diagram does not suggest that it did.

> You'll also notice that, for the most part, I was completely 100%
> utterly correct (more or less) about the main branches of the linux
> evolutionary tree ....

I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. I was simply making the point
that these are actually parallel development branches, rather than
having branched out from Slackware, and that your diagram had purposely
simplified that notion to make its point. The poster of the message I
followed up to appeared to believe that the other branches had grown out
of Slackware, and I wanted to clarify that they hadn't.

Sylvain Robitaille

Network and Systems analyst Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada