I know FreeBSD is closer than Linux to Unix, ...
For that statement to make any sense, you need to define what you mean by Unix. I know probably half a dozen definitions of "Unix".
c mon, internet was already born with Unix
That statement is false. The first machines connected to the internet were famously two Xerox Sigma, one IBM mainframe, and one DEC-10. This was 1968 or 1969. The first packet was transmitted between Stanford (SRI, not the University) and UCLA about then. Want to look it up? Kleinrock "Queueing Theory Vol. 2", the book is somewhere on the bookshelf upstairs, Lenny Kleinrock documents the growth of the internet, and how he helped theoretic work get good speed out of it (the hardware started with 9600 baud modems connected to the in-famous IMPs). Note that work on the very first version of Unix started later, in the 70s, so no, the internet was not born with Unix.
Do you know what the word "Internet" actually means? The revolutionary part of the Internet was not only that it connected computers to each other (that had been done before), but that it connected whole networks of computers ... thence the name "inter network". For example, when IBM was connected to the internet (the IP address 9.1.1.1 tells you how early that was), suddenly all machines on the IBM internal network (called VNET and a few other names) had access to Harvard, UCLA, USC, Stanford, and Berkeley. And VNET was larger than the Internet until I think the mid 90s.
Not gonna tell me that virtual machines are *bsd because existed from start,
Ah, so you're changing from virtual memory to virtual machines. But then your statement is also completely false. I don't actually know when virtual machines started being worked on in research, but IBM developed them as a product in the mid 60s, and shipped it in the late 60s, as soon as the 360/67 hit the street. Interestingly, the first versions were open source software and free (!), and also interestingly, they were not actually called "VM" until the 370 version came out a few years later, the first few versions were called CP or CP/CMS: CP was the OS itself that you ran (today we would call it the VM host), and CMS was sort of the "shell" (today we would call it the guest OS), but in those days, CMS did everything. I can't even remember how many types in my life I pressed PA1 to get attention, then "i cms", because everytime something crashed, you simply rebooted CMS, which was done with the "i" command (for initial program load). So virtual machines long predate Unix.
Actually, if someone asked me "when did the first VM host/client exist in the Unix family", my answer would have to be: I don't know. It was very very late. On x86 CPUs, I think it only happened after Mendel Rosenblum and Diane Greene did what had been considered impossible, and demonstrated that the Intel CPUs could be virtualized, in spite of their instruction set that was completely inimical to that (the product of their imagination is today the multi-billion company VMware). But I think all of HP, IBM and Sun already had versions of their Unix machines that could run multiple copies of the OS on a single hardware; I know IBM called it LPARs, I think Sun and HP used words like slices or containers or something like that. This all existed in the mid 90s.
whole first calculators were microkernels.
Sorry, but that statement is not only wrong, it is complete utter nonsense. The first calculators didn't even have anything we would call an "OS" today. Even at the level of the 1401 (the first "personal" computer, in the sense that it was the first programmable data processing device of which over 10,000 were sold, the first computer that a small or medium company could actually afford) did not actually have an OS, in the sense of a program that is always running and loads other programs. Instead, programs were linked with IO libraries, and booted onto the machine: If you wanted to runn payroll, you would boot payroll, and when it is done printing paychecks, the machine would halt. Then you could find a tape with the binary file (executable) for accounts receivable, boot it, and it might print invoices for customers, and then halt. If you wanted to actually compile the payroll program, you would find the source code (probably on a deck of cards that the "source code librarian" keeps in a file cabinet, and that's a person, not a program), put it into the input hopper, boot the compiler (for example Autocode, COBOL or RPG), it would read the source code on cards, and (after much work) write the resulting bootable executable onto a tape. Seeing a compiler in action is pretty breathtaking, as most of them require at least 4 tape drives, and during compilation, the tapes keep going madly back and forth. No OS here, in particular not a microkernel.
The 1401 is what today we would call a "programmable calculator", except it was a bit bigger than one. Look it up on the web, and if you are near one of the ones that exist (there are at least two fully functioning ones in the world, probably more), go visit them in a museum.
Ah, microkernels. Another great and really old ideas that will probably never ever work, except in limited engagements, and all the good aspects of it are being stolen by other systems. Do you know who Per Brinch Hansen is? One of the greats of CS research; he wrote the first microkernel system as a "programmer for hire" in the late 60s (!!!), before becoming the great head of Computer Science at USC (one of the two places where the internet started, the other being UCLA). So microkernels also predate Unix.
By the way, to demonstrate how important USC was to the Internet: Today we have IANA, which is a big international standards body (the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), which decides things like protocol numbers and address formats. Old-timers will remember that IANA didn't used to be an agency or standards body, it was a person: Jon Postel, a USC staffers, was the authority of the internet. If you wanted to create a new protocol (like http), you would send an e-mail to the IANA, and Jon would give you a new number (like 80). A particularly impressive document to read is RFC 2468 (the number is quite easy to remember)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2468, which is an obituary of Jon, written by his friend Vint Cerf (another of the half dozen fathers of the Internet).
So in summary: everything you said here is completely wrong, nonsense, dripping with ignorance. May I suggest that you define what you mean by the term "Unix", and tell us?