From: "Fred" <nos...@nospam.com>
Subject: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/03
Message-ID: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 359243656
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
How do Linux and FreeBSD compare?
From: acaha...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/17
Message-ID: <vc7u35k1k6s.fsf@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363454257
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net> <6lsdph$4vc@nntp02.primenet.com>
<6m2afm$8ah@enews1.newsguy.com> <358597E7.27979A00@wave.home.com>
<6m4i2t$ah6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dIlh1.551$8W3.1496287@ptah.visi.com>
<kgk96hkfh2.fsf@myrddin.demon.co.uk>
Organization: UMass Lowell CS
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Dom Mitchell <d...@myrddin.demon.co.uk> writes:
> shel...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>> Oh, I dumped Linux for FreeBSD because there are too many
>> idiots running Linux these days. :)
>
> It's funny how many have found that a factor in moving...
It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
an OS or anything else with snob appeal ("I'm better than people
who can't understand this...") exposes one of the many gross
aspects of human nature.
From: shel...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/17
Message-ID: <vRPh1.860$8W3.2524121@ptah.visi.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363512539
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net> <6lsdph$4vc@nntp02.primenet.com>
<6m2afm$8ah@enews1.newsguy.com> <358597E7.27979A00@wave.home.com>
<6m4i2t$ah6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <dIlh1.551$8W3.1496287@ptah.visi.com>
<kgk96hkfh2.fsf@myrddin.demon.co.uk> <vc7u35k1k6s.fsf@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 08:51:23 CDT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
acaha...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
>Dom Mitchell <d...@myrddin.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> shel...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>>> Oh, I dumped Linux for FreeBSD because there are too many
>>> idiots running Linux these days. :)
>>
>> It's funny how many have found that a factor in moving...
>It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
>Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
>an OS or anything else with snob appeal ("I'm better than people
>who can't understand this...") exposes one of the many gross
>aspects of human nature.
Actually my impression of FreeBSD 2.2.6 and the installation process was
that it was far more polished than the RedHat Linux 4.1 I'd used for the
year previous.
I had considered purchasing RedHat 5.0 but everything I heard about it
indicated that the distribution was buggy and unstable. So I thought I
would give FreeBSD a try.
I don't have the time these days to be a Unix snob. I used to work with
DECstations quite a bit about 6 years back and have some stuff I still like
to use Unix for, but for the most part I'm a Windows NT person.
Oh, and I guess my definition of "idiot" has more to do with the Linux
people who seem to pop up everywhere starting advocacy threads. Everywhere
I turn it's "Install Linux it is K-K00l!". It grows tiresome.
I grew out of that phase after owning an Amiga from '87-'91. :(
From: ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/17
Message-ID: <slrn6ofoip.2v6.rajat@localhost.my.domain>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363544171
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
<6lsdph$4vc@nntp02.primenet.com> <6m2afm$8ah@enews1.newsguy.com>
<358597E7.27979A00@wave.home.com> <6m4i2t$ah6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<dIlh1.551$8W3.1496287@ptah.visi.com> <kgk96hkfh2.fsf@myrddin.demon.co.uk>
<vc7u35k1k6s.fsf@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> <vRPh1.860$8W3.2524121@ptah.visi.com>
Reply-To: ra...@ix.netcom.com
Organization: Netcom
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 17 8:38:25 AM PDT 1998
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:51:23 GMT, Steve Sheldon <shel...@visi.com> wrote:
> Actually my impression of FreeBSD 2.2.6 and the installation process was
>that it was far more polished than the RedHat Linux 4.1 I'd used for the
>year previous.
>
> I had considered purchasing RedHat 5.0 but everything I heard about it
>indicated that the distribution was buggy and unstable. So I thought I
>would give FreeBSD a try.
Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
about an hour).
I am not a computer newbie, but find it preferable to leave details
about computer management to others because I need to get other
things done.
rajat
From: dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/17
Message-ID: <6m90qu$b9s$1@flea.best.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363588693
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
<vc7u35k1k6s.fsf@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> <vRPh1.860$8W3.2524121@ptah.visi.com>
<slrn6ofoip.2v6.rajat@localhost.my.domain>
X-Trace: 898107040 12517 dillon 206.184.139.132
Organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
:In article <slrn6ofoip.2v6.ra...@localhost.my.domain>,
:Rajat Datta <ra...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:51:23 GMT, Steve Sheldon <shel...@visi.com> wrote:
:..
:>>would give FreeBSD a try.
:>
:>Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
:>since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
:>has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
:>about an hour).
:>
:>I am not a computer newbie, but find it preferable to leave details
:>about computer management to others because I need to get other
:>things done.
:>
:>rajat
I would agree. The RedHat installer in 5.0 and especially now in 5.1
is getting *nice*. It's easy to use and consumer oriented. FreeBSD's
is not as good. On the otherhand, most people use FreeBSD in
server-centric environments and don't fall into the general consumer
category, so it isn't a big deal to me. It might be a bigger deal
to the FreeBSD group which wants to get wider acceptence of FreeBSD.
Linux has the obvious momentum and my personal viewpoint is that it's
too important a goal for the various free UNIX groups to divide themselves
over. In business conversations, I always mention both operating systems,
and always praise RedHat's installer. I emphasize Linux in any
conversation that heads towards the consumer and small business side of
things, and I emphasize FreeBSD in any conversation that heads towards
the server side of things.
Personally, though, I like to think of FreeBSD and Linux as going for
the same goals. Chomp. We are all one happy family in my view! Slurp.
Hey, move that roast Penguin over to this side of table! Mmm.. yummies.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
<dil...@best.net>, include original article w/ any response.
do not under any circumstances send email to joeb...@bigspender.idiom.com
and, for gods sake, don't email buckt...@popserver.idiom.com
From: Richard June <ri...@advsoftech.com>
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/17
Message-ID: <35887242.CD5AD6B8@advsoftech.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363716468
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
<vc7u35k1k6s.fsf@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> <vRPh1.860$8W3.2524121@ptah.visi.com>
<slrn6ofoip.2v6.rajat@localhost.my.domain> <6m90qu$b9s$1@flea.best.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> :In article <slrn6ofoip.2v6.ra...@localhost.my.domain>,
> :Rajat Datta <ra...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> :>On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:51:23 GMT, Steve Sheldon <shel...@visi.com> wrote:
> :..
> :>>would give FreeBSD a try.
> :>
> :>Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
> :>since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
> :>has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
> :>about an hour).
> :>
> :>I am not a computer newbie, but find it preferable to leave details
> :>about computer management to others because I need to get other
> :>things done.
> :>
> :>rajat
>
> I would agree. The RedHat installer in 5.0 and especially now in 5.1
> is getting *nice*. It's easy to use and consumer oriented. FreeBSD's
> is not as good. On the otherhand, most people use FreeBSD in
> server-centric environments and don't fall into the general consumer
> category, so it isn't a big deal to me. It might be a bigger deal
> to the FreeBSD group which wants to get wider acceptence of FreeBSD.
I actually only moved to FreeBSD because I couldn't get RedHat5.0 to
install properly on my machine, works fine on a similarly configured
machine of a friend, but not mine. I have also found FreeBSD to be a bit
more straight-foward about setting things up than Linux. I Re-built my
FreeBSD kernel in about 20 min. still haven't done it successfully w/
Linux.
> Linux has the obvious momentum and my personal viewpoint is that it's
> too important a goal for the various free UNIX groups to divide themselves
> over. In business conversations, I always mention both operating systems,
> and always praise RedHat's installer. I emphasize Linux in any
> conversation that heads towards the consumer and small business side of
> things, and I emphasize FreeBSD in any conversation that heads towards
> the server side of things.
It does seem like that is the way development is going doesn't it?
RedHat Linux is moving more towards the people that can't function w/out
a GUI, and FreeBSD is getting to be a better server.
--
"I love it when the point and click commandos attempt to portray
themselves as real computer experts. Using a mouse only makes you a
computer user, not a computer expert"
Someone in comp.unix.advocacy
From: dil...@best.net (Matt Dillon)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/18
Message-ID: <6magh7$s2a$1@flea.best.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363782909
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
<slrn6ofoip.2v6.rajat@localhost.my.domain> <6m90qu$b9s$1@flea.best.net>
<35887242.CD5AD6B8@advsoftech.com>
X-Trace: 898155880 17490 dillon 206.184.139.132
Organization: Best Internet Communications, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
:In article <35887242.CD5AD...@advsoftech.com>,
:Richard June <ri...@advsoftech.com> wrote:
:>Matt Dillon wrote:
:>>
:>> :In article <slrn6ofoip.2v6.ra...@localhost.my.domain>,
:..
:>> category, so it isn't a big deal to me. It might be a bigger deal
:>> to the FreeBSD group which wants to get wider acceptence of FreeBSD.
:>I actually only moved to FreeBSD because I couldn't get RedHat5.0 to
:>install properly on my machine, works fine on a similarly configured
:>machine of a friend, but not mine. I have also found FreeBSD to be a bit
:>more straight-foward about setting things up than Linux. I Re-built my
:>FreeBSD kernel in about 20 min. still haven't done it successfully w/
:>Linux.
Oh definitely... lots of FreeBSD kernel builds off the CVS tree for me
too. Linux is way behind in the source-management department. I was
refering mainly to mass-consumer-level installations in my previous
posting.
:>> conversation that heads towards the consumer and small business side of
:>> things, and I emphasize FreeBSD in any conversation that heads towards
:>> the server side of things.
:>It does seem like that is the way development is going doesn't it?
:>RedHat Linux is moving more towards the people that can't function w/out
:>a GUI, and FreeBSD is getting to be a better server.
It should also be kept in mind that FreeBSD has linux emulation... I feel
*very* comfortable pushing linux at the software makers and PC OEMs.
I don't think they are clueful enough to understand FreeBSD. If we
push both at them we will only fragment the market. The key is to get
linux in the door first. The compatibility code will do the rest and
pull FreeBSD in along with it better then if we tried to push FreeBSD
to the exclusion of Linux.
The time is ripe for this now that Mickysoft's anti-competitive
and blatently illegal tactics have come to light and forced them into
a slow retreat. I don't usually root for the DOJ, but I am this time.
I am getting sick and tired of MS telling everyone that they are doing
"what is best for the consumer", or that the "economy will collapse"
if windows 98 is delayed or if the DOJ wins. Unbelievable!
-Matt
>--
>"I love it when the point and click commandos attempt to portray
>themselves as real computer experts. Using a mouse only makes you a
>computer user, not a computer expert"
> Someone in comp.unix.advocacy
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
<dil...@best.net>, include original article w/ any response.
do not under any circumstances send email to joeb...@bigspender.idiom.com
and, for gods sake, don't email buckt...@popserver.idiom.com
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/18
Message-ID: <yfg1zslx4zx.fsf@time.cdrom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 364110276
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
<6lsdph$4vc@nntp02.primenet.com> <6m2afm$8ah@enews1.newsguy.com>
<358597E7.27979A00@wave.home.com> <6m4i2t$ah6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<dIlh1.551$8W3.1496287@ptah.visi.com> <kgk96hkfh2.fsf@myrddin.demon.co.uk>
<vc7u35k1k6s.fsf@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>
X-Trace: 898238829 8689 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
acaha...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
> It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
> Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
Albert! How nice to see you back here again - we haven't had
anywhere near enough gibberish in this newsgroup lately.
In any case, it seems like your latest gibberish lacks even a
reasonable attempt at self-consistency. I don't know what kind of
snobs you're familiar with, but most of the ones I've met tend to
prefer things polished rather than unpolished, especially if one is
talking about gemstones or Mercedes automobiles. So in order for us
to have more snob appeal, we'd have to be more polished than the
alternatives. If we weren't, we wouldn't.
Please show more care and attention with your gibberish in the future;
your previous postings have somewhat spoiled us and we've grown to
expect only the finest gibberish from Albert D. Cahalan.
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM
From: charlie root <c...@krivis.com>
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/21
Message-ID: <358D2685.7BCAB55C@krivis.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 364721376
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
<slrn6ofoip.2v6.rajat@localhost.my.domain> <6m90qu$b9s$1@flea.best.net>
<35887242.CD5AD6B8@advsoftech.com> <6magh7$s2a$1@flea.best.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: c...@krivis.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Matt Dillon wrote:
> It should also be kept in mind that FreeBSD has linux emulation... I feel
> *very* comfortable pushing linux at the software makers and PC OEMs.
> I don't think they are clueful enough to understand FreeBSD. If we
> push both at them we will only fragment the market. The key is to get
> linux in the door first. The compatibility code will do the rest and
> pull FreeBSD in along with it better then if we tried to push FreeBSD
> to the exclusion of Linux.
IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
emulation of one I already support." And then users start saying, "Maybe
I should just switch to the OS with all the apps and avoid this
emulation thing entirely."
From: r...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/21
Message-ID: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 364746541
References: <6l46im$6ei$1@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>
<slrn6ofoip.2v6.rajat@localhost.my.domain> <6m90qu$b9s$1@flea.best.net>
<35887242.CD5AD6B8@advsoftech.com> <6magh7$s2a$1@flea.best.net>
<358D2685.7BCAB55C@krivis.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
In article <358D2685.7BCAB...@krivis.com>,
charlie root <c...@krivis.com> writes:
> Matt Dillon wrote:
>
>> It should also be kept in mind that FreeBSD has linux emulation... I feel
>> *very* comfortable pushing linux at the software makers and PC OEMs.
>> I don't think they are clueful enough to understand FreeBSD. If we
>> push both at them we will only fragment the market. The key is to get
>> linux in the door first. The compatibility code will do the rest and
>> pull FreeBSD in along with it better then if we tried to push FreeBSD
>> to the exclusion of Linux.
>
> IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
> Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
> emulation of one I already support." And then users start saying, "Maybe
> I should just switch to the OS with all the apps and avoid this
> emulation thing entirely."
>
To a limited extent that is true, but there is evidence from users
that there is sometimes an improvement in performance when using FreeBSD
under emulation rather than native Linux. OTMH, one example was when
using Matlab, in some cases a significant speed improvement was noted.
However, as always, YMMV.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
From: t...@bland.fido.de (Tobias Ernst)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/06/22
Message-ID: <MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 365007716
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-FTN-Origin: MsgEd TE 05 will have a built-in origin shuffler. (242:7600/1)
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
X-FTN-Path: 7600/1 1000/1
X-Comment-To: (John S. Dyson)
X-FTN-Tearline: Msged/2 TE 05 (pre)
X-FTN-Domain: Z242@fidode
X-Gateway: FIDO morannon.fido.de [FIDOGATE 4.2.9]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-FTN-Seen-By: 1000/1 4900/99 7600/0 1 2
Organization: Fido.DE domain gateway (IN e.V.)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Hello John!
>> IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
>> Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
>> emulation of one I already support." And then users start saying,
>> "Maybe I should just switch to the OS with all the apps and avoid this
>> emulation thing entirely."
JSD> To a limited extent that is true, but there is evidence from users
JSD> that there is sometimes an improvement in performance when using
JSD> FreeBSD under emulation rather than native Linux.
WinOS/2 also runs faster than native Windows 3.1, and it did not help even at
the times when the WinOS/2 emulation was able to run all existing Windows
applications (it isn't any more nowadays). If OS/2 got new users, they either
invested in native OS/2 applications and used WinOS/2 only occasionally (but
not for their key applications), or they switched back to native Windows soon,
for whatever reason there might have been. The case is remarkingly similar to
the Linux<->FreeBSD thing. I can't even say what we could do better than IBM
did.
On the other hand, the differences between OS/2 and Windows are greater than
those between Linux and Freebsd Running Windows applications on WinOS/2 has
more drawbacks (bad impact on multitasking and things like that) than running
Linux applications on FreeBSD. (Next week I'll have to install Microstation 95
for Linux on my FreeBSD machine - I hope that this proves my theory <g>).
I agree with the pre-posters that it would be a bad thing to split the market.
Linux is currently receving press recognition as an end user operating system,
so that's going to be the way (and perhaps the only chance) to push Unix into
the end user market against the Redmond crap (even though I personally think
that FreeBSD would be better for the end user because of the simplicity of the
ports concept and other things). We should not make the error to consume our
power in Linux contra FreeBSD wars. Currently, I can support a Linux end user
and write Linux applications even though I am running FreeBSD only, so where is
the problem.
Regards,
Tobias
From: cdle...@dania.dialisdn.com (Curtis D. Levin)
Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD
Date: 1998/07/01
Message-ID: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 367953590
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
X-Trace: 1 Jul 1998 22:44:18 -0500, 209.4.65.28
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
> >> IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
> >> Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
> >> emulation of one I already support." And then users start saying,
> >> "Maybe I should just switch to the OS with all the apps and avoid this
> >> emulation thing entirely."
Emulating windows under Os/2 was a pain, and the windows bugs didn't
go away just because it was Os/2.
>
>I agree with the pre-posters that it would be a bad thing to split the market.
>Linux is currently receving press recognition as an end user operating system,
>so that's going to be the way (and perhaps the only chance) to push Unix into
>the end user market against the Redmond crap (even though I personally think
>that FreeBSD would be better for the end user because of the simplicity of the
>ports concept and other things). We should not make the error to consume our
>power in Linux contra FreeBSD wars. Currently, I can support a Linux end user
>and write Linux applications even though I am running FreeBSD only, so where is
>the problem.
Noone wants to split the market more than MS. The plain truth is that MS
stuff is easier to use. Redhat Linux makes great use of this by using
the GUI to some extent to ease the burden. I actually first tried BSD when
Linux 1.1.59 was out, but never got it to FTP the software right. Once,
I got it onto the system, to find out that I couldn't reboot into it
again. Once I rebooted, I couldn't find the docs that explained ppp, so
I couldn't connect, etc. It took awhile. And I consider myself to be at
least marginal.
Put that into perspective when dealing with all types of unixes. Then
understand the end user who wants everything to work. Understand the
secretary who is on the phone to the IT dpt every time the system does
something strange. Then you should have a better perspective on why there
is so much MS.
The solution is simple.
1) Menuing systems for the beginning users. A menu selection with a
link to a unix tutorial is a great help. Shell scripting for doing
other commands, like grep, and find, etc, are a big help as well.
How much more powerful is unix ? Well, when shell scripting is utilized
to make unix a push button system, then the shell becomes alot less
intimidating, and the same holds true for X and the apps there. Think of
the end user as being clueless, and do everything for him. That will make
the system a success. The reason for DOS rampant success, in a word, is
Direct Access. That is the one thing that made the computer usable by
everyone. It's still in heavy usage today. And if it breaks for some
reason, the help cries can be heard across the nation.
2) Advertise. On web pages, on yahoo, etc. Market unix like MS does win
products. Make it attractive. Concentrate on the market, and where it is
heading. These days, things are GUI. Utilize X to it's fullest potential.
3) Better auto detection of hardware on installation. Make installation
easier. More people will install it.
4) Develop, develop, develop. And charge charge charge for your efforts.
Write a suite that matches notes, etc, and market it for Unix. Undercut
the competition, and do more. Think. VTD. MMedia. system sounds. Things
that get attention, and make it fun. That will make unix the logical
successor. Simply because, technologically speaking, it can just do more.
5) Smile.
Curtis - kd4zkw
From: Tor Slettnes <t...@netcom.com>
Subject: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/03
Message-ID: <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
X-Deja-AN: 368338460
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Jul 1998 07:29:30 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: news13.ispnews.com 899450970 22315 207.33.50.56 (3 Jul 1998 07:29:30 GMT)
Organization: Adequate for its purpose
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
>>>>> "Curtis" == Curtis D Levin <cdle...@dania.dialisdn.com> writes:
Curtis> Noone wants to split the market more than MS. The plain
Curtis> truth is that MS stuff is easier to use.
Initially. There is nothing as goodlooking as a fresh Windows install,
with as much "fun" built into GUI components like the control panel.
With the insane amount of processor power available nowadays, it also
starts up relatively quickly.
The registry gets a little out of whack, but what the heck, it is also
"fun" reinstalling Windows. A few BSOD's occur - initially they are a
novelty ("hey cool!"), and soon you learn how to avoid most of them
anyway. You install a few fonts and applicatons, and the machine gets
a little slower, but you don't notice because it is a gradual process.
No, sir, easier to use it is not. Even the average John knows that
the Macintosh has that "advantage" over Windows. Then again, that
alone is not what counts.
People also want power. Microsoft has people believe that Windows NT
is as powerful as UNIX, but with an "intuitive" interface. A couple
of quotes from <http://www.microsoft.com/ie/unix/devs.htm>:
...crossing the industry equivalent of the Atlantic Ocean from the
Old World command-line traditions of UNIX to the GUI New World of
Windows, confronted by a host of strange new priorities:
intuitiveness, discoverability, usability
"It's amazing to me how far UNIX has to go today to catch up to
NT," says Dawson. "Take, just for one example, threading support.
UNIX still has benefits, but NT is just a lot more full-featured."
I kindof want to puke.
X-Windows was there way before MS Windows 3 (Windows 2 was hardly a
GUI, running in text mode), with features like remote windows (MS
Windows still lacks it), multiple displays, replacable Window Manager
(Windows actually has that too, but not very many people know it - and
there is not really any alternatives to Microsoft's anymore). Etc.
Threads are something Windows needed because of other deficiencies,
such as very inefficient task spawning, lack of a select() call on
input streams, lack of IPCs such as shared memory, semaphores, message
queues. Nevertheless, there are POSIX threads which almost all UNIXen
support by now.
And UNIX is rock solid, despite rapid development by thousands of
people. Windows is simply alpha quality software marketed way beyond
its capability. It deserves its inevitable fate - when the current
Linux-aware corporate techies gets "promoted" into manager positions
they will remember still having to deal with Windows (due to current
policies in many companies), and turn away with a vengeance.
Curtis> Redhat Linux makes great use of this by using the GUI to
Curtis> some extent to ease the burden.
Also RedHat Linux is doing well among an increasing number of morons.
You know - those people who are brought into this world to complain
that everything is not served on a plate and fed with a spoon,
forgetting that this is free software and that they are (a) not forced
to use it, and (b) lucky to have it.
FreeBSD has more "snob appeal", as Alan Calawhatever so eloquently
said it. (Debian just has more technical appeal, and I am a bigot :-)
To put it this way, Linux "support" groups are seing an increasing
number of AFAQ (annoyingly frequently asked questions) such as "How do
I get the RedHat CD out of my box and into my drive?" or "I have a
400Mhz PII-MMX CPU, what IRQ is that?" Failure to respond to the
most obscure and illegible questions usually results in a "you guys
suck, Linux is doomed to failure" post.
Yes, RedHat is making money. Whether the Linux community as a whole
is well served by too sudden of an influx is another matter. Though
it should be noted that a larger market means higher availability of
commercial software.
Curtis> Put that into perspective when dealing with all types of
Curtis> unixes. Then understand the end user who wants everything
Curtis> to work. Understand the secretary who is on the phone to
Curtis> the IT dpt every time the system does something strange.
Curtis> Then you should have a better perspective on why there is
Curtis> so much MS.
Unfortunately, there is also here a very large discrepancy between
marketing and reality. By definition, if a server does "something
strange" (including BSOD) chances are it is running Windows NT.
Curtis> 2) Advertise. On web pages, on yahoo, etc. Market unix
Curtis> like MS does win products.
No!
First of all, free UNIXen are not supported by the amount of money
available in Microsoft's advertising budget.
More importantly, the success of free software has to do with its
"grassroot appeal" and "paradigm shift" - not that same trite old
marketing. Commercial advertisements are by definition targeted
towards the "lowest common IQ"; free software appeals to an audience
that appreciates sophistication. That also means they want to
discover the truth for themselves, and are rather unimpressed by
something that aims at insulting their intelligence like marketing
usually does.
I will also tell you this: The first one of FreeBSD and Debian to
extensively engage in stupid advertisements is the first OS off my
machine. (I currently keep both on to keep some software of mine
portable - I also use my Sun station at work for that).
Curtis> 3) Better auto detection of hardware on installation. Make
Curtis> installation easier. More people will install it.
That is very true. Score.
Curtis> 4) Develop, develop, develop.
Yes.
Curtis> And charge charge charge for your efforts.
No. Then we are back to same old, same old. The appeal of free
software, and Linux in particular, is the openness and sharing that
takes place. No worries about licenses, violations, copy bans.
At the very least - charge for something like manuals, support
etc. instead. Just don't hinder redistribution of software. That
would make our Great New World of Freedom become like that Crummy Old
Windows World with "I Agree To Become Bill's Towel-boy by opening this
package" software and Lawyer Gestapos.
Curtis> 5) Smile.
Yeah! Second score!
What RMS tried for fourteen or so years Linus Torvalds did in one or
two. The difference? He smiles.. :-)
-tor
From: j...@dementia.mishnet (jedi)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/05
Message-ID: <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 368717911
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
X-Trace: 899674623 PLBOPJC1P1FA118EAC usenet53.supernews.com
Organization: The World's Usenet -- http://www.Supernews.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:17:31 GMT, BR <ben...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> wrote:
>Bloody Viking wrote:
><small snippage>
>
>> The "insane" computing power of modern PCs means that anyone with a credit
>> card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
>> supercomputers. This is what I find exciting. Yep, even postal workers can
>> have a cray! Crays use UNIX too.
>
>Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
>MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
>have in such a short time frame.
Before M$ and Intel brought us the blight that was the
PC, it's competitors were more than capapble of delivering
systems (even then in 1981) of similar capacity of those today.
The i86's were just playing catch up to the 68k's for a
considerable amount of time.
--
Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
From: BR <ben...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/06
Message-ID: <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 368745839
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Ameritech.Net www.ameritech.net Complaints: ab...@ameritech.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 19:00:14 CDT
Reply-To: ben...@ameritechREMOVETHIS.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
jedi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:17:31 GMT, BR <ben...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> wrote:
> >Bloody Viking wrote:
> ><small snippage>
> >
> >> The "insane" computing power of modern PCs means that anyone with a credit
> >> card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
> >> supercomputers. This is what I find exciting. Yep, even postal workers can
> >> have a cray! Crays use UNIX too.
> >
> >Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
> >MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
> >have in such a short time frame.
>
> Before M$ and Intel brought us the blight that was the
> PC, it's competitors were more than capapble of delivering
> systems (even then in 1981) of similar capacity of those today.
>
> The i86's were just playing catch up to the 68k's for a
> considerable amount of time.
>
> --
> Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
> the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
> what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
> This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
I'm not arguing your above points. My point was,for good or bad.
Feature-itus and bloat,put us on the upgrade path. Do you think that we
would have pentiums if it wasn't for the above? Now all a person has to
do is run more efficient software on that pentium,viola instant cray. :)
--
************************
* Enjoy the pane-Run NT*
************************
From: r.e.ball...@usa.net
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/08
Message-ID: <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Deja-AN: 369226129
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jul 08 01:46:43 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01C (WinNT; U)
In article <35A01339.C3EAB...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>,
ben...@ameritechREMOVETHIS.net wrote:
> jedi wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:17:31 GMT, BR <ben...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
wrote:
> > >Bloody Viking wrote:
> > ><small snippage>
> > >
> > >> The "insane" computing power of modern PCs means that anyone with a
credit
> > >> card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
> > >> supercomputers. This is what I find exciting. Yep, even postal workers
can
> > >> have a cray! Crays use UNIX too.
Actually, a BeoWulf Linux cluster can outperform all but about 300 of the
worlds fastest super computers. It takes a bit of doing (not for junior
programmers), but you too can have a 7 gigaflop cluster.
> > >Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
> > >MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
> > >have in such a short time frame.
Microsoft's only "REAL" contribution was a rip-off of DEC BASIC which was
ported to the Intel 8080 based Altair. Under today's laws, Gates would have
been doing time (the copyright laws were changed in 1976, prior to Gate's
"creation" of Micro-Soft BASIC.
MS-DOS, was intentionally brain-dead to keep Gary Kildall from releasing
MP/M-86, which was a direct threat to the IBM Series I and System 3X markets.
Intel used everything it could to keep the 8086 away from Zilog, whose Z-8000
processor wasn't limited by that silly little 1 megabyte memory limit.
While Microsoft touted it's PC-DOS/MS-DOS 2.0 file-system as "unix-like"
(8.3 filenames and all :-), the REAL UNIX had found it's way to Zilogs,
several 68k machines (including SUN), and several "industrial strength"
machines. IBM tried to protect it's mainframe market from UNIX while
AT&T tried to take back control from BSD. Meanwhile, Richard Stallman
was quietly formalizing his General Public License and promoting what is
now called "Open Source Software".
The UNIX boys were having a field day with TCP/IP, and Bill Joy (now of Sun)
was getting a good feel for what would eventually be come to be known as the
Internet. All this time, Microsoft was at "arm's length" with Novell,
and IBM had it's own ideas of a "Lan Manager" network.
When the Mac came out, I went into the computer room to look at a Sun 1.
At $30,000 per workstation, it was a bit steep for my pockets, but it didn't
take much imagination to see that THIS was the system of the 21st century.
It had graphics, animations, realtime data charting, 3D modelling, and could
do it ALL at once. Bill Gates must have looked at one of these babies and
said "that's what I want to be when I grow up". Silly Bill, sold the rights
to Xenix (and the UNIX market) to SCO so that he could buy into the Mac.
While MS-DOS users struggled to juggle 5-6 TSRs, the UNIX systems of the
day were gracefully handling 100 users on a system with about the same power
as a PC-XT (A PDP/11-77 with 1 meg ram and 4 300 meg drives).
By the time Corporate America actually began to trust PCs, UNIX was running
the telephone systems, the railroads, military systems, and hundreds of
"mission critical" systems. UNIX had 1 billion "users" who didn't even
know they were users.
By the time Windows 3.0 came out, Sun was switching from its legacy SunView
system to the X11R4 system, complete with source code compatible Xview
toolkit. The IPC lunchbox was about $8000, about $1000 more that a PC capable
of running Windows 3.0, WordPerfect, Lotus Notes, and Harvard Graphics. Only
$400 more than the cost of a PC running Win 3.0, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and
Project Manager. Of course, the PC networking left a great deal to be
desired, PCs made great clients, but the IPCs could also be servers.
By the time Windows 3.1 came out, it was time to upgrade hardware, while
the IPC chugged along reliably through several SunOS upgrades. By the time
Windows 3.11 came out, and Office came out as a package, users were being
upgraded again. Incompatibilities with previous versions of Word often meant
"shock upgrades" for hundreds of users. Not real popular from the customer's
point of view. Meanwhile, Sun was offering the Sparc5 ond Sparc20 that ran
even faster. They charged a bit more for each machine, but the new machines
would efficiently interoperate with the old ones.
In 1992 several versions of UNIX for Intel were available. They were
expensive, upwards of $3000 each. A group of people got hold of Linus
Torvald's Linux and took up the challenge of creating an entire UNIX system
that could be sold for less than $100. In 1993, SLS linux was selling for
$98 (plus postage).
In 1993, Microsoft decided to take on AOL by creating it's own internet
service. Originally, it was going to be based on NT 3.51, NETBEUI DLC, and
Microsoft "BackOFFICE". The goal was to counter Lotus Notes, and
simultaneously take on AOL. While all of this was going on, I was working
with 3000 publishers and 2000 BBS operators, coaching them in how to create
terminal servers and web sites with Linux. They had no budgets, they
scrounged hardware from storage closets, and even set up the web servers on
personal phone lines. Dow Jones (where I worked) had a site based on a
SparcStation 20, attached to a T1. We went from 1,000 hits/day to 1000
hits/minute in less than 9 months. The publications on the
"online-newspapers" mailing list were also growing. Microsoft quickly
changed it's strategy, and caught the "last train" - it was actually a
late-comer. By the time Microsoft had come aboard, the Internet had grown to
40 million users and was growing at 20%/month.
> > Before M$ and Intel brought us the blight that was the
> > PC, it's competitors were more than capapble of delivering
> > systems (even then in 1981) of similar capacity of those today.
Microsoft wasn't a leader, it was a follower. It snatched up ideas from
the UNIX community and butchered them to fit into that 1 meg memory model
(that was Gates' idea). Even the graphics were primative compared to
those of UNIX machines connected to Tektronics graphics stations.
Microsoft's big "innovation" was a licensing policy that dictated an
"all or nothing" policy that gave OEMs deep "discounts" off of rediculously
inflated prices ("perceived value pricing"), in exchange for giving Microsoft
complete control of the system and an exclusive market.
Many upstarts initiated by offering alternatives. Dell offered SCO UNIX,
as did Micron. Gates, who holds a 25% stake in SCO, could see when these
companies were "ripe", and would "convert" them to Microsoft companies.
> > The i86's were just playing catch up to the 68k's for a
> > considerable amount of time.
i86's were playing catch up to EVERYTHING. The 68k, the Z8k, the Sparc,
the Fairchild Clipper, the AMD 19k (i'm not sure of these chip numbers).
In many cases, Intel cut deals with competitors - AMD for example, got
80x86 technology in exchange for not pushing it's chip as a PC-Priced
UNIX chip.
The Atari ST series, the Amiga, and big Macs were all delayed in FCC
certification when IBM and other PC makers "slipped in" about 500
permutations that needed to be independently certified.
> > Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
> > the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
> > what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
> > This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
It's amazing isn't it? The system required to run NT 4.0 with
Microsoft Office is more computer power than most mainframes of
1993. A typical NT 4.0 system runs 1 meg of CACHE, 128 Meg of Ram,
4-6 gig of hard drives, 32x CD-ROM, and NO BACKUP SYSTEM! What a
wonderful configuration for a system that crashes once a week.
In 1994, a 3090/400 mainframe ran 4 25 mips processors, 16 meg of ram,
30 gig of DASD for 10,000 users, and took 6 hours to back up every night.
Just in case this was the one time per year that it might actually
require an unscheduled reboot.
In 1996, a Linux system running on a 486/100 could support a full T1
link, run 100 concurrent transactions, and could handle 300-500 simultaneous
processes. It was an "event" if it actually had to be rebooted before it's
scheduled quarterly upgrade. With a pair of servers, the users would never
know one of the machines had gone down. Some folks just liked their systems
so much that they'd upgrade them only once/year "just for grins".
> I'm not arguing your above points. My point was,for good or bad.
> Feature-itus and bloat,put us on the upgrade path.
But who was really steering the boat? The engine driving the change
was the UNIX/Internet community. Corporations didn't stop buying
UNIX machines, but they didn't have to throw them away either. In 1995,
McGraw-Hill was still using a Power 6/32 "Tahoe" machine that was
made in 1985. We finally pulled the plug because it was taking up too
much space in the computer room. It was still functional and useful
as a mail system and as a conferencing system. We also used it as
an NFS server. The box had 128k cache, 16 meg ram (as 1meg/128 bits)
and clocked at 25 mips (same as a 486/50).
> Do you think that we
> would have pentiums if it wasn't for the above? Now all a person has to
> do is run more efficient software on that pentium,viola instant cray. :)
And where was that software developed? On Vaxen? on 68K, on Z8K, on
Sparc, on Mips, on PowerPC, on PA-RISC... And finally, the 386 could
run a crippled version (no cache, no multiple pipelines...). The irony
is that the Intel chips usually cost 4 times the price of their competitors.
Even today, a K6-300 runs $100-150 compared to $400 for a P-II/400 (equivalent
performance). The MIPS R10k runs about $50 in quantities. If you focus
expandability on SCSI bus, the new serial expansion systems (Firewire,...)
You could build a full-blown Linux system running a 1 Gigaflop/s machine
(equivalent to P-II/600) for under $2500. The manufacturers cost would be
less than $700.
Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/08
Message-ID: <yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 369490060
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com> <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
<6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com> <359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: 899885685 22606 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> ...
I find it somewhat telling that an entire analysis of the industry can
be presented in a BSD group which somehow makes it sound as if Linux
was the only player in all of this and is the only player now. Hello?
Is there anyone in there? What is it about some Linux advocates that
compells them to completely *ignore* any of the alternatives?
For something which attempts to give a historical perspective on all
this, it's doubly unforgivable since BSD has been around for a lot
LONGER than Linux and, even though it wasn't allowed to be a player in
the free software world until relatively recently (1991), it was very
serious player in the academic world for some time before that.
I am always willing to acknowledge the accomplishments of Linux, I
just wish it were something more often reciprocated. Are the afraid
of something? :-) [At which point here I fully expect Albert D. Calahan
to jump in with some bad conspiracy theory or claims that gosh, the
Linux folks just don't really even notice us. :)]
- Jordan
From: r.e.ball...@usa.net
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/08
Message-ID: <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 369542703
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jul 08 16:08:51 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT)
In article <yfgww9o92ue....@time.cdrom.com>,
j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) wrote:
> r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> > ...
>
> I find it somewhat telling that an entire analysis of the industry can
> be presented in a BSD group which somehow makes it sound as if Linux
> was the only player in all of this and is the only player now. Hello?
> Is there anyone in there? What is it about some Linux advocates that
> compells them to completely *ignore* any of the alternatives?
Let's look at that. I use a number of different indicators including
web site counts, bookstore title counts, and several other metrics.
BSD is a presence. BSD was hindered by some of the AT&T code and
this kept it from being able to be distributed freely. Eventually,
FreeBSD did come out in a freely distributable form.
Linux is just in momentum right now. Lots of users are playing with
Linux because they can go to Borders or Barnes and Nobles, by a $50
book, or go to CompUSA and by a $50 package that will let them run
UNIX (Linux) on their cheap little PC.
Linux is a pretty decent version of Linux, and lot's of people have
contributed lots of code to the "Linux Distribution". Of course, most
of this could just as easily be compiled to run on FreeBSD.
Linux also has several substantial companies who are willing to
"Give away CD-ROMs and Sell Support". This would be like BSDi
or SCO saying "We'll let you have the software we used to charge
$2000/copy for, and you can have the source. If you get in trouble,
we'll charge you $200/user/year.
Caldera, Red Hat, and Workgroup Solutions are going for volume,
with the clear understanding that demand for service will increase
as more people use Linux.
The BSD/AT&T feuds have been plaguing the UNIX industry for years.
Linux shows up as an impartial 3rd party player, gives away the store,
and charges reasonable prices. Eventually, other UNICES will be
striving to be "Linux Compatible" (not a difficult task at all - since
the source is right there).
> For something which attempts to give a historical perspective on all
> this, it's doubly unforgivable since BSD has been around for a lot
> LONGER than Linux and, even though it wasn't allowed to be a player in
> the free software world until relatively recently (1991), it was very
> serious player in the academic world for some time before that.
Actually, BSD extensions existed in SunOS, SysVr4, AIX, HP-UX, Ultrix,
and several other systems. BSD was the "standard", by which other
versions of UNIX were measured. Linux has usurped that position
by "giving away the store".
> I am always willing to acknowledge the accomplishments of Linux, I
> just wish it were something more often reciprocated. Are the afraid
> of something? :-) [At which point here I fully expect Albert D. Calahan
> to jump in with some bad conspiracy theory or claims that gosh, the
> Linux folks just don't really even notice us. :)]
Actually, the Linux folks are very aware of BSD, and the distinctions
of the BSD license vs. the GPL and GPLL. Since the standardization of
UNIX depends on the agreement of hundreds of vendors, commercial customers,
programmers, support staff, and power-users, the GPL has provided a much
higher level of trust, and as a result, has made it much easier to get
that agreement.
Actually, it would be great of the BSD folks wanted to "come and play"
with us. Certainly, it's not difficult to add the applications that
would make BSD "Linux Compatible".
> - Jordan
Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/08
Message-ID: <yfgsokc8eeo.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
X-Deja-AN: 369598365
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com> <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
<6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com> <359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
<6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: 899917351 4625 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> Let's look at that. I use a number of different indicators including
> web site counts, bookstore title counts, and several other metrics.
> BSD is a presence. BSD was hindered by some of the AT&T code and
> this kept it from being able to be distributed freely. Eventually,
> FreeBSD did come out in a freely distributable form.
Huh? I don't see how these two points can be mated at all. Yes, *BSD
had some trouble with AT&T and friends in the beginning, but that's
all behind us now and your "web site counts and other metrics" have
probably not even attempted to gather a full picture of just how
pervasive BSD technology is in the marketplace. Ever hear of a couple
of small companies like Yahoo, Oracle or U.S. West, for example? They
all use FreeBSD technology (and, in the case of Oracle, NetBSD
technology as well) and have greatly helped to spread the message that
what we've got to offer is also pretty substantial.
Just because FreeBSD books aren't falling onto your head at the
bookstore (and that's something we're actively working on changing
now) by no means indicates that the word isn't getting out to the
front-line techs and other folks who "make things happen" at some of
the nation's largest ISPs. We may not have the sheer quantity of
users that Linux has yet, but we're well past the 1 million mark and
also have some significant *quality* users out there which we can
point to with justifable pride. I think your selection of metrics is
far too narrow.
> Linux is just in momentum right now. Lots of users are playing with
> Linux because they can go to Borders or Barnes and Nobles, by a $50
> book, or go to CompUSA and by a $50 package that will let them run
> UNIX (Linux) on their cheap little PC.
They can do the same now for FreeBSD in an increasing number of
stores. Walnut Creek CDROM is selling Greg Lehey's "The complete
FreeBSD" book + 4 CD set at Borders, Fry's, and a number of other
bookstore chains. Once I get my book for Addison Wesley finished, I
expect to see even greater penetration of the same market.
> Linux is a pretty decent version of Linux, and lot's of people have
> contributed lots of code to the "Linux Distribution". Of course, most
> of this could just as easily be compiled to run on FreeBSD.
I think it'd be pretty hard for Linux to be a version of anything else. :)
I'm really not sure just what you're trying to say in that paragraph
but there's also no "Linux distribution" that I know of, just a lot of
independent distros like RedHat, Slackware, Debian, Stampede,
Yggdrasil, OpenLinux, ummm. Did I leave anyone out? :)
> Caldera, Red Hat, and Workgroup Solutions are going for volume,
> with the clear understanding that demand for service will increase
> as more people use Linux.
Yep, us too. You'd probably be amazed to know just how many thousands
of FreeBSD CDs we sell each month, but I'm not allowed to disclose
sales figures on the net. I suspect that RH and the others aren't
allowed to either, so no big loss.
> The BSD/AT&T feuds have been plaguing the UNIX industry for years.
I think you're suffering from an attack of retro here. Those "feuds"
have been over for years and are essentially irrelevant now.
> Linux shows up as an impartial 3rd party player, gives away the store,
> and charges reasonable prices. Eventually, other UNICES will be
We do the same. Why, again, do you continue to see this as a property
which is somehow unique to Linux? I can honestly only conclude that
you haven't really made any attempt to familiarize yourself with the
*BSD world at all if you can make statements like that with a straight
face. Price, performance, you name it and we're right there in the
same ballpalk.
> > For something which attempts to give a historical perspective on all
> > this, it's doubly unforgivable since BSD has been around for a lot
> > LONGER than Linux and, even though it wasn't allowed to be a player in
> > the free software world until relatively recently (1991), it was very
> > serious player in the academic world for some time before that.
>
> Actually, BSD extensions existed in SunOS, SysVr4, AIX, HP-UX, Ultrix,
> and several other systems. BSD was the "standard", by which other
> versions of UNIX were measured. Linux has usurped that position
> by "giving away the store".
And you repeat your error again here. If you are somehow under the
impression that BSDI with their commercial product is the only
"player" in the BSD world then I can only repeat my earlier assertion
about needing to learn more about all this. It would really be nice
if you and other Linux advocates could research both "sides" of this
argument in a little more detail since I have, at least, made a more
than reasonable effort to come up to speed on what the Linux folks are
doing. I even go to their conferences occasionally.
> Actually, the Linux folks are very aware of BSD, and the distinctions
> of the BSD license vs. the GPL and GPLL. Since the standardization of
> UNIX depends on the agreement of hundreds of vendors, commercial customers,
> programmers, support staff, and power-users, the GPL has provided a much
> higher level of trust, and as a result, has made it much easier to get
> that agreement.
It has? Boy, that's a chain of logic that Socrates would have some
fun with if he were alive today. ;-)
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM
From: fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net (Fewtch)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/11
Message-ID: <35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 370554909
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com> <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
<6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com> <359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
<6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Fewtchure, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 16:08:51 GMT, r.e.ball...@usa.net wrote:
>Let's look at that. I use a number of different indicators including
>web site counts, bookstore title counts, and several other metrics.
>BSD is a presence. BSD was hindered by some of the AT&T code and
>this kept it from being able to be distributed freely. Eventually,
>FreeBSD did come out in a freely distributable form.
>
>Linux is just in momentum right now. Lots of users are playing with
>Linux because they can go to Borders or Barnes and Nobles, by a $50
>book, or go to CompUSA and by a $50 package that will let them run
>UNIX (Linux) on their cheap little PC.
It's worth considering the fact that the FreeBSD license is quite a
bit "freer" than the GNU public license, under which most of the
Linuces are licensed (that crap about the GPL being more acceptable to
vendors is just that, crap - I see no proof whatsoever). FreeBSD is
truly free, not hampered by the source code limitations of the GPL.
So things could change, easily. Of course, Linux is multiple OS's
from multiple vendors, whereas FreeBSD is a single OS from a single
vendor. That's an advantage Linux will probably always have.
>Linux is a pretty decent version of Linux,
FreeBSD is a pretty decent version of FreeBSD, too (laugh)...
>Actually, it would be great of the BSD folks wanted to "come and play"
>with us. Certainly, it's not difficult to add the applications that
>would make BSD "Linux Compatible".
Most of us FreeBSD users do, since there are so many Linux programs
out there. Why limit yourself to only one type of program, when for
the cost of 5 megs (compressed) of libraries and a simple
"Linux_Emulation="YES" in a configuration file, you can run hundreds
of programs you couldn't otherwise?
--
Spam Avoidance: Remove "dont_spam_me_" in my Email address to reply.
My website is at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html - something for everyone
there, take a look if you have the time! My tribute to the dearly loved cat of
19 years I recently lost is at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/cats/index.html.
From: r.e.ball...@usa.net
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/13
Message-ID: <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371018529
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com> <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
<6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com> <359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
<6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jul 13 16:09:08 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01C (WinNT; U)
In article <35acc281.4207...@news.serv.net>,
fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 16:08:51 GMT, r.e.ball...@usa.net wrote:
>
> >Let's look at that. I use a number of different indicators including
> >web site counts, bookstore title counts, and several other metrics.
> >BSD is a presence. BSD was hindered by some of the AT&T code and
> >this kept it from being able to be distributed freely. Eventually,
> >FreeBSD did come out in a freely distributable form.
> >
> >Linux is just in momentum right now. Lots of users are playing with
> >Linux because they can go to Borders or Barnes and Nobles, by a $50
> >book, or go to CompUSA and by a $50 package that will let them run
> >UNIX (Linux) on their cheap little PC.
>
> It's worth considering the fact that the FreeBSD license is quite a
> bit "freer" than the GNU public license, under which most of the
> Linuces are licensed (that crap about the GPL being more acceptable to
> vendors is just that, crap - I see no proof whatsoever).
There are several different variants of the GPL. The General Public Library
License allows vendors to write applications that can link into GPLL libraries
and can be used to write and release commercial applications.
Linux is enjoying more third party commercial support no as a result of this.
> FreeBSD is
> truly free, not hampered by the source code limitations of the GPL.
> So things could change, easily. Of course, Linux is multiple OS's
> from multiple vendors, whereas FreeBSD is a single OS from a single
> vendor. That's an advantage Linux will probably always have.
The kernel is still managed by Linus. The freeze releases are still published
to FSF. Each vendor tests and validates their "kernel of choice". Several
thousand applications are available from FSF, Sunsite, TSX-11 and others,
and are available under GPL for both systems.
Since the components are pretty much standardized (under GPLL and GPL),
what's left is for the vendors to create "Easy Install" packaging and
put it in a box or book that looks good on retailer's shelves.
> >Linux is a pretty decent version of Linux,
I meant Linux is a pretty decent version of UNIX.
> FreeBSD is a pretty decent version of FreeBSD, too (laugh)...
>
> >Actually, it would be great of the BSD folks wanted to "come and play"
> >with us. Certainly, it's not difficult to add the applications that
> >would make BSD "Linux Compatible".
And vice versa.
> Most of us FreeBSD users do, since there are so many Linux programs
> out there. Why limit yourself to only one type of program, when for
> the cost of 5 megs (compressed) of libraries and a simple
> "Linux_Emulation="YES" in a configuration file, you can run hundreds
> of programs you couldn't otherwise?
The last time I loaded FreeBSD was about 6 months ago.
Some basic questions:
Does BSD provide DOS Emulation?
Does BSD offer Windows Emulation (Wine, WABI,...)?
Does BSD offer a modular kernel (don't have to relink OS to add devices)?
Does BSD offer "Plug and Play" capabilities - how is it with video cards?
What companies are publishing BSD?
What are the prices and support levels?
(FreeBSD from infomagic was about $25,
BSDi runs about $4000 for a fully configured system).
Who (besides InfoMagic and BSDi) are the dominant players?
What BSD companies and BSDi related companies are publicly held?
The biggest concern I have about bringing BSD into the mix "at this time",
is that it could break the momentum of Linux. Linux is finally making some
inroads and progress. It looks like the growth rate has jumped from about
10%/month to 20%/month and the user base has grown to about 15-20 million
users. The question is - do we let Linux continue in high momentum until
it builds to about 60 million users and then bring in BSD as the "upgrade",
or do we try and start promoting BSD now, and possibly fragment the market
and stall the growth of both systems with neither peaking at more than
30 million users.
I am willing to be enrolled into the possibility that BSD could propel BOTH
systems into a taking, through a combination, around 80 million to 100 million
seats. Can you make the case? Please respond via the news group.
> --
> Spam Avoidance: Remove "dont_spam_me_" in my Email address to reply.
> My website is at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html - something for
everyone
> there, take a look if you have the time! My tribute to the dearly loved cat
of
> 19 years I recently lost is at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/cats/index.html.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/13
Message-ID: <yfgzped71iy.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
X-Deja-AN: 371162808
References: <6mjcsg$bun@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com> <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
<6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com> <359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
<6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net>
<6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: 900373896 17426 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> There are several different variants of the GPL. The General Public Library
> License allows vendors to write applications that can link into GPLL libraries
> and can be used to write and release commercial applications.
>
> Linux is enjoying more third party commercial support no as a result of this.
More than what? I think you're also still missing the point.
Consider a box like the Whistle Interjet, for example (only one of a
growing number of products which use FreeBSD inside, see
http://www.whistle.com). They don't release source for this product
and I doubt they'd want to - they've put a lot of work into making
their product a seamless solution and now would like to sell it for
awhile before their competition catches up. If they released the
sources, as they'd have to with a GPL'd (or even LGPL'd) product, some
other company could basically come along and make a much cheaper
InterJet box since they wouldn't have to recoup the costs of any
development at all and could simply stand on the shoulders of
Whistle's work.
Of course, many GPL die-hards would claim that this was only fair and
proper since they (whistle) stood on BSD's shoulders to get this far,
but again, that misses the point. You're not going to encourage a lot
of commercial development if you can't give people a reasonable window
in which to recoup the costs of their development and that's just the
realities of the situation. What's more, by letting people like
whistle *have* their proprietary products, we've encouraged the
creation of a number of FreeBSD commercial partners who have done some
really fine things for FreeBSD (whistle, for example, providing the
divert(8) socket mechanism for providing flexible NAT features as well
as a fair number of other new features and bug fixes) and they didn't
need the threat of any Big Stick license to do so. They did it out of
enlightened self-interest and, as far as I'm concerned, that's the
very best kind of contribution.
> The kernel is still managed by Linus. The freeze releases are still published
> to FSF. Each vendor tests and validates their "kernel of choice". Several
> thousand applications are available from FSF, Sunsite, TSX-11 and others,
> and are available under GPL for both systems.
>
> Since the components are pretty much standardized (under GPLL and GPL),
> what's left is for the vendors to create "Easy Install" packaging and
> put it in a box or book that looks good on retailer's shelves.
Heh heh. I can plainly see you've never actually done any of the
technical work involved in providing such feaures if you can so
blithely suggest that doing "easy install" enhancements is just a
small and insignficant layer on top of the kernel. It's not, this
kind of "rock polishing" and user-friendly enhancement being one of
the most difficult and tedious aspects of doing any OS. The kernel is
the easy bit, it's in integrating it with the other utilities and
making it all accessible to the user which is hard, and even though
the utilities may be essentially the same GNU utils, one still needs
to test it all together and decide which versions of each tool or
library to run - substantial work which is then replicated by each and
every Linux distribution out there. I do have to sometimes laugh at
the folks who tell me that Linux is one big happy family based on the
fact that they're all running the same kernel - if only they knew how
much work was still necessary after that to provide a complete OS
solution!
> The last time I loaded FreeBSD was about 6 months ago.
> Some basic questions:
> Does BSD provide DOS Emulation?
Yes.
> Does BSD offer Windows Emulation (Wine, WABI,...)?
Wine, yes. WABI maybe someday, though we're working now on simply
getting the Linux WABI to work. To be honest, we also don't get that
many calls for it anymore. I think most folks who really want to run
industrial strength Windows applications have already figured out by
now that neither WABI nor WINE are really robust solutions (and yes,
I've played with both of them and I've watched both of them upchuck on
a lot of stuff I tried to get to run) and simply putting a small NT
box on one's network with a copy of "WinCenter" or something is a far
more robust solution. You still get your Windows applications which
can be displayed on any X capable machine or terminal and, what's
more, you now get them at full speed. Don't overestimate the utility
of those Windows emulation projects which have been done to date;
they're all still rather incomplete and not "industrial strength" by
any stretch.
> Does BSD offer a modular kernel (don't have to relink OS to add devices)?
Yes, we have LKMs.
> Does BSD offer "Plug and Play" capabilities - how is it with video cards?
Yes, and it's fine with video cards.
> What companies are publishing BSD?
> What are the prices and support levels?
> (FreeBSD from infomagic was about $25,
> BSDi runs about $4000 for a fully configured system).
Walnut Creek CDROM, Pacific Hitech, cheapbytes, and a host of commercial
players who call it things like "NC/OS"
> Who (besides InfoMagic and BSDi) are the dominant players?
I wasn't aware that InfoMagic was a dominant player. :-)
> What BSD companies and BSDi related companies are publicly held?
Does it matter? Which Linux companies are, for that matter? :-)
> The biggest concern I have about bringing BSD into the mix "at this time",
> is that it could break the momentum of Linux. Linux is finally making some
> inroads and progress. It looks like the growth rate has jumped from about
> 10%/month to 20%/month and the user base has grown to about 15-20 million
1. If Linux has momentum, it will continue to do so purely on its own
merits. I seriously doubt that BSD is going to give the Linux
market a hot-foot anytime soon and, even if it did that would be
clear evidence that the Linux folks were doing something wrong which
they needed to fix. Sounds like nothing more than good motivation to
strive for a better product to me, something which most capitalist
countries consider to be a rather good thing.
2. I think your numbers for the user base are more than a little
inflated. :-)
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM
From: fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net (Fewtch)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371207939
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com> <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
<6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com> <359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
<6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net>
<6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Fewtchure, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:09:08 GMT, r.e.ball...@usa.net wrote:
>The last time I loaded FreeBSD was about 6 months ago.
>Some basic questions:
> Does BSD provide DOS Emulation?
Yep, via several different methods.
> Does BSD offer Windows Emulation (Wine, WABI,...)?
Yes, there's a native Wine package offered.
> Does BSD offer a modular kernel (don't have to relink OS to add devices)?
Yes, BSD supports lkm's, or Loadable Kernel Modules.
> Does BSD offer "Plug and Play" capabilities - how is it with video cards?
Plug and Play support can be compiled right into the kernel.
> What companies are publishing BSD?
You'd have to ask Jordan about this.
> What are the prices and support levels?
You can download FreeBSD at no cost, just like Linux... as for the
CDROM prices, check the web site, nobody here is a walking cash
register.
> (FreeBSD from infomagic was about $25,
> BSDi runs about $4000 for a fully configured system).
>
> Who (besides InfoMagic and BSDi) are the dominant players?
>
> What BSD companies and BSDi related companies are publicly held?
Ask Jordan about all of the above (j...@cdrom.com).
>The biggest concern I have about bringing BSD into the mix "at this time",
>is that it could break the momentum of Linux.
If the momentum of Linux is so delicate that bringing one single OS
"into the mix" would break its momentum, then there's really no
momentum at all.
>I am willing to be enrolled into the possibility that BSD could propel BOTH
>systems into a taking, through a combination, around 80 million to 100 million
>seats. Can you make the case? Please respond via the news group.
I'm not sure who you're asking... ? Jordan maybe?
From: r.e.ball...@usa.net
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371255970
References: <MSGID_242=3A7600=2F1=40fido.de_358e25e6@Fido.DE>
<slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com> <87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan>
<6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com> <359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet> <35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>
<6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
<6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net>
<6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jul 14 06:12:03 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.34 i686)
In article <35b3c634.4162...@news.serv.net>,
fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 16:09:08 GMT, r.e.ball...@usa.net wrote:
>
> >The last time I loaded FreeBSD was about 6 months ago.
> >Some basic questions:
> > What companies are publishing BSD?
>
> You'd have to ask Jordan about this.
>
> > What are the prices and support levels?
>
> You can download FreeBSD at no cost, just like Linux... as for the
> CDROM prices, check the web site, nobody here is a walking cash
> register.
>
> > (FreeBSD from infomagic was about $25,
> > BSDi runs about $4000 for a fully configured system).
> >
> > Who (besides InfoMagic and BSDi) are the dominant players?
> >
> > What BSD companies and BSDi related companies are publicly held?
> Ask Jordan about all of the above (j...@cdrom.com).
> >The biggest concern I have about bringing BSD into the mix "at this time",
> >is that it could break the momentum of Linux.
>
> If the momentum of Linux is so delicate that bringing one single OS
> "into the mix" would break its momentum, then there's really no
> momentum at all.
Currently, based on ratios of Advocacy and the numbers given in my
earlier post, Linux is up to about 22% of the market and Windows
has 80%, of which about 40% don't particularly like Windows.
It looks like if Linux were used as the "Lowest Common Denominator",
vendors could write to Linux platforms and catch a user base that is
growing at about 20%/month. Since FreeBSD can run all Linux applications,
it wouldn't hurt to run FreeBSD instead of Linux.
On the flip side, however, if someone used a FreeBSD extension, then
that application or program would only run on BSD machines (less than
1 million currently but growing fast).
I had a bit of trouble getting the boot loader to work properly, couldn't
get X11 up properly for quite a while, and had a bit of fun trying to
get the printer configured. Similar to the early days of Linux. Still,
for it's "age" BSD is evolving very rapidly. It will need some backing
from corporate distributors who can tweak up the code.
As it is, Linux is now trying to unify more of it's infrastructure,
resolving some of the install subtleties between distributions such
as Red Hat, Caldera, and Linux Pro.
The good news is that the new Mac Operating system has a BSD Kernel
at it's base. The Linux base should be "common" to that system as well.
Is there some way to set up a "chinese wall" or "lint" that will test
for whether an application is Linux compatible? As a developer, I would
want products that could work in the "BSD + Linux" rather than the
BSD only market.
> >I am willing to be enrolled into the
> >possibility that BSD could propel BOTH
> >systems into a taking, through a combination,
> >around 80 million to 100 million
> >seats. Can you make the case? Please respond via the news group.
>
> I'm not sure who you're asking... ? Jordan maybe?
We'll just have to see who answers.
Rex Ballard - http://www.access.digex.net/~rballard
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net (Fewtch)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371290691
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Fewtchure, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:12:03 GMT, r.e.ball...@usa.net wrote:
>I had a bit of trouble getting the boot loader to work properly, couldn't
>get X11 up properly for quite a while, and had a bit of fun trying to
>get the printer configured. Similar to the early days of Linux.
Strange, given that BSD in different incarnations has been around a
lot longer than Linux has and is far more mature. Hate to break it to
you, but Linux is the "new kid on the block."
>Still,
>for it's "age" BSD is evolving very rapidly. It will need some backing
>from corporate distributors who can tweak up the code.
Give it a rest already....
>The good news is that the new Mac Operating system has a BSD Kernel
>at it's base. The Linux base should be "common" to that system as well.
What???
--
Spam Avoidance: Remove "dont_spam_me_" in my Email address to reply.
My website is at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html - something for everyone
there, take a look if you have the time!
From: r.e.ball...@usa.net
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371450744
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jul 14 21:39:41 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.01C (WinNT; U)
In article <35c72bdc.30190...@news.serv.net>,
fewtch@dont_spam_me_serv.net wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:12:03 GMT, r.e.ball...@usa.net wrote:
>
> >I had a bit of trouble getting the boot loader to work properly, couldn't
> >get X11 up properly for quite a while, and had a bit of fun trying to
> >get the printer configured. Similar to the early days of Linux.
> Strange, given that BSD in different incarnations has been around a
> lot longer than Linux has and is far more mature. Hate to break it to
> you, but Linux is the "new kid on the block."
There's good news and bad news here. You are correct that Linux is the
New Kid on the block, but Linus has invited EVERYBODY to come and play
with him. In terms of staff-years, Linux is an "Old Man".
UNIX, especially BSD has been plaqued with "feast-or-famine". What gave
BSD 4.x the edge in 1983 was the fact that students at Berkeley, MIT,
Clarkson, Carnagie Mellon, and hundreds of other schools, had contributed
source code to the BSD archives. In addition, there was the archive at
simtel-20.
Eventually, BSD commerciallized and started excluding people and companies.
Eventually simtel-20 was phased out, and replaced with TSX-11, sunsite, and
several other "public archives". Linux put his rather primative "0.19"
kernel into the archive. What came back were contributions that made Linux
a rival to BSD. The kernel itself probably represents about 1 million
staff-hours.
The Linux kernel team tried real hard to make Linux as compatible with Sun
and BSD as possible (so that it could compile and execute source with the
BSD or SUN flags).
Since most of the "Linux Distribution" was also in GPL, there were more
contributions. The result was another 1 million staff-hours. UNIX
documentation has always been wanting, so the LDP took on making some
user friendly tutorials - another 1 million staff hours.
In all, there are now 10 gigabytes of source code and documentation. At
10 million hours/gigabyte, that's about 100 million staff-hours. At
$100/hour, that's about $20 Billion worth of investment, maybe $30 billion
when you consider internationalization.
I guess you could say that Linux is an international treasure.
> >(Rex didn't write this - who did?)
> >Still,
> >for it's "age" BSD is evolving very rapidly. It will need some backing
> >from corporate distributors who can tweak up the code.
Or you could get some volunteers, the same way that Linux did.
> Give it a rest already....
>
> >The good news is that the new Mac Operating system has a BSD Kernel
> >at it's base. The Linux base should be "common" to that system as well.
>
> What???
Rhapsody - I couldn't remember the name at the time, so I looked it up.
> --
> Spam Avoidance: Remove "dont_spam_me_" in my Email address to reply.
> My website is at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html - something for
everyone
> there, take a look if you have the time!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <yfgpvf7fyg7.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
X-Deja-AN: 371591024
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net> <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: 900482330 4538 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> There's good news and bad news here. You are correct that Linux is the
> New Kid on the block, but Linus has invited EVERYBODY to come and play
> with him. In terms of staff-years, Linux is an "Old Man".
Sigh. I really don't know why I bother to follow up to Mr Ballard's
postings sometimes. It's clearly plain to me, at least, that he's the
sort who really doesn't let lack of knowledge of a subject prevent him
from holding forth at great length about it, and I guess the most
compelling reason to follow-up is simply that I'm always worried
someone might be naive enough to actually *believe* what he says. :-)
Needless to say, we in the BSD world have always made it more that
clear that "the party is open" to all. We give our work away for free
in source code form (perhaps an obvious point, but nonethless a
significant one since it sends a clear signal that we WANT people to
look at and change this stuff) and we go to great lengths to advertise
various ways of getting changes back to us (send-pr(1),
http://www.freebsd.org/send-pr.html, committ...@freebsd.org, etc). We
are also constantly growing our team of people who have direct write
access to the source code (over 120 at last count) and we provide a
large number of open mailing list forums for discussion on what people
want to see. Sure, we don't just take changes from people willy-nilly
since that would be a poor exercise in quality control, and neither
does Linux, but we're certainly always interesting in having more
people come and "play" with us and we always have been.
Even before BSD was truly unencumbered and "free", back in the 70's
and 80's, it's accurate to say that a lot of university students got
to "play" with it as well, not an equivalent state to being free, no,
but also not at all insignificant either. Those same students
contributed huge amounts of work and ideas to BSD, many of which are
standard today (can you imagine a Unix machine without vi or job
control? :).
So I'm sorry, Mr. Ballard, but if Linux is an "old man" then BSD is
a much "older man", no matter how you measure it. :)
> Eventually, BSD commerciallized and started excluding people and companies.
You do make some of the most unfounded assertions, and it's an annoying
debating style since it's essentially no different than trying to hold
a rational debate with a mental patient - you're perhaps trying to get
him to acknowledge that maybe he should stop wearing his underwear on
the outside and he's meanwhile talking about the parsnips they used to
grow in Iowa when he was a kid. Neither of you are exactly having the
same conversation and it's only a recipe for frustration (for at least
one of you, anyway ;).
Needless to say, "BSD" itself never commercialized, it's AT&T which
started seeing dollar signs and made claims to parts of BSD, something
which is obviously an entirely different sort of thing and something
we also had a nasty lawsuit over finally won. That is what happened
(note to naive: you may now stop believing that BSD commercialized
and started excluding people and companies - look it up if you don't
believe me. Thank you).
> The Linux kernel team tried real hard to make Linux as compatible with Sun
> and BSD as possible (so that it could compile and execute source with the
> BSD or SUN flags).
You're speaking as a man who's actually tried this, right? :) Perhaps
I just chose the wrong software to test, but the only platform which
I've seen compile BSD software without change (regardless of what
flags were passed) is BSD. The copy of RedHat 5.1 I have here
certainly doesn't support your assertion, anyway, and I wouldn't
expect it to. Trying to keep all those headers and library APIs
straight is a nightmare, and those that have actually tried to keep
dual SYSV/BSD development environments alive (Apollo, Pyramid,
Convergent, etc) have found the job pretty damn hard. I didn't see
variant symlinks or a "dual universe" implementation in Linux has
I looked. :)
> Since most of the "Linux Distribution" was also in GPL, there were more
> contributions. The result was another 1 million staff-hours. UNIX
I'm still waiting for solid proof that the GPL was truly the main
driving force behind contributions or if this wasn't merely lucky
timing. The HURD is also GPL'd and always has been, but that alone
certainly hasn't caused millions of people to flock to it (not to
denigrate the HURD, I'm simply using it as an obvious
counter-example). If you were to count the actual number of staff
hours put into BSD since its inception over 20 years ago, I think
you'd also find the numbers pretty impressive. This is another
one of those "Linux was one of the first operating systems to use
electricity" kinds of arguments, I fear. :)
> In all, there are now 10 gigabytes of source code and documentation. At
> 10 million hours/gigabyte, that's about 100 million staff-hours. At
> $100/hour, that's about $20 Billion worth of investment, maybe $30 billion
> when you consider internationalization.
<gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
Aw heck, why stop there if you're going to wave your hands around
pulling numbers out of the air so shamelessly. A trillion! Ten
trillion! Why, my god man, is it possible that the total dollar
investment in Linux could exceed the size of the national debt?
Tell the economists! Write your congressman! etc etc.
</gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
> I guess you could say that Linux is an international treasure.
Wow, just like Shirley Temple! I wonder how the penguin would look
in pink taffeta.
> Or you could get some volunteers, the same way that Linux did.
<even-more-gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
Hey... Now that is an idea!! Jesus Christ on a jet ski - why
didn't I think of that before?! My god! Get some volunteers!
[smacks forehead] Of course, I see it now! You are a brilliant
man, Mr Ballard, and I'm going to personally write the McArthur
Foundation Right This Very Minute and suggest you as a recipient
for the next award!
</even-more-gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
Hmmm. That was too much fun, a sure sign that I should probably stop
now.
P.S. Any Linux devotees who may think I've been attacking their OS during
this can rest easy - there's only one person under attack here
and I think we all know who he is, it's just hard to slam mindless
Linux advocacy without making it sound like you're also slamming
the advocated. Go read my editorial on freshmeat if you need any
confirmation of my feelings towards Linux itself.
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM
From: r.e.ball...@usa.net
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/15
Message-ID: <6oj1at$lnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371754746
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net> <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgpvf7fyg7.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jul 15 19:53:01 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT)
In article <yfgpvf7fyg7....@time.cdrom.com>,
j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) wrote:
> r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
>
> > There's good news and bad news here. You are correct that Linux is the
> > New Kid on the block, but Linus has invited EVERYBODY to come and play
> > with him. In terms of staff-years, Linux is an "Old Man".
>
> Sigh. I really don't know why I bother to follow up to Mr Ballard's
> postings sometimes. It's clearly plain to me, at least, that he's the
> sort who really doesn't let lack of knowledge of a subject prevent him
> from holding forth at great length about it, and I guess the most
> compelling reason to follow-up is simply that I'm always worried
> someone might be naive enough to actually *believe* what he says. :-)
>
> Needless to say, we in the BSD world have always made it more that
> clear that "the party is open" to all. We give our work away for free
> in source code form (perhaps an obvious point, but nonethless a
> significant one since it sends a clear signal that we WANT people to
> look at and change this stuff) and we go to great lengths to advertise
> various ways of getting changes back to us (send-pr(1),
> http://www.freebsd.org/send-pr.html, committ...@freebsd.org, etc). We
> are also constantly growing our team of people who have direct write
> access to the source code (over 120 at last count) and we provide a
> large number of open mailing list forums for discussion on what people
> want to see. Sure, we don't just take changes from people willy-nilly
> since that would be a poor exercise in quality control, and neither
> does Linux, but we're certainly always interesting in having more
> people come and "play" with us and we always have been.
The key difference between the GPL and the BSD license is that it is
possible for commercial vendors to create proprietary extensions
that will not be available on other versions (such as FreeBSD).
This same "flexibility" allowed Microsoft to add a few proprietary
"extensions" like ActiveX, VBScript, and a proprietary JavaScript
to code that was created, supported, marketed, and promoted by hundreds
of people to over 2 million people, before Microsoft even purchased it
from Spry. We thought Spry was selling the right to put a logo in the
corner. Microsoft bargained for "a little more". What assurance to
I have that Walnut Creek won't turn around and sell and "Enhanced BSD"
to a proprietary vendor (such as BSDi or SCO/Bill Gates) which contains
code that I've contributed, or exploits a market I've spent thousands
of hours cultivating?
I'm a marketeer. I could easily push FreeBSD into the 10 million
user range in less than a year. What are you offering me?
Having been bit very hard by this monster once, I'm a bit cautious.
> - Jordan Hubbard
> Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
> Walnut Creek CDROM
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: r.e.ball...@usa.net
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/15
Message-ID: <6oj85a$354$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Deja-AN: 371789199
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net> <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgpvf7fyg7.fsf@time.cdrom.com>
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Jul 15 21:49:33 1998 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT)
In article <yfgpvf7fyg7....@time.cdrom.com>,
j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) wrote:
> r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> So I'm sorry, Mr. Ballard, but if Linux is an "old man" then BSD is
> a much "older man", no matter how you measure it. :)
Until about 4 years ago, there were less than 1 million UNIX machines.
By 1990, there were about 2 million UNIX users (according to internet
statistics, news releases...).
> > Eventually, BSD commerciallized and started excluding people and companies.
>
> Needless to say, "BSD" itself never commercialized, it's AT&T which
> started seeing dollar signs and made claims to parts of BSD, something
> which is obviously an entirely different sort of thing and something
> we also had a nasty lawsuit over finally won. That is what happened
> (note to naive: you may now stop believing that BSD commercialized
> and started excluding people and companies - look it up if you don't
> believe me. Thank you).
Because of a few hundred lines of AT&T code (things like regex, and some
kernel code), you couldn't buy a PC version of BSD for less that the
"Floor price" of about $700. This was done to protect the RISC and
68k OS vendors from 386 PCs that ran UNIX.
It wasn't BSDs fault, but it did gum up the works. I remember forking out
$50 for a copy of BSD Lite, only to discover that there were no binaries
and the code had to be cross-compiled on a UNIX system. This was in 1993.
I still have the CD-ROM.
> > The Linux kernel team tried real hard to make Linux as compatible with Sun
> > and BSD as possible (so that it could compile and execute source with the
> > BSD or SUN flags).
>
> You're speaking as a man who's actually tried this, right? :) Perhaps
> I just chose the wrong software to test, but the only platform which
> I've seen compile BSD software without change (regardless of what
> flags were passed) is BSD. The copy of RedHat 5.1 I have here
> certainly doesn't support your assertion, anyway, and I wouldn't
> expect it to. Trying to keep all those headers and library APIs
> straight is a nightmare, and those that have actually tried to keep
> dual SYSV/BSD development environments alive (Apollo, Pyramid,
> Convergent, etc) have found the job pretty damn hard. I didn't see
> variant symlinks or a "dual universe" implementation in Linux has
> I looked. :)
I remember the fun of trying to get X11R4 to compile on a Sun (Sun didn't
support X11 at the time). I also remember trying to port X11R4 to AIX/ESA
(a 6 month consulting contract). And then there was trying to compile
X11R5 under Linux back in 1993. It was awkward, but much less of an
ordeal than the other two.
> > Since most of the "Linux Distribution" was also in GPL, there were more
> > contributions. The result was another 1 million staff-hours. UNIX
> I'm still waiting for solid proof that the GPL was truly the main
> driving force behind contributions or if this wasn't merely lucky
> timing.
Actually, it was just lucky timing. In 1992, the forces seeking to
commercialize the internet were seeking a version of UNIX that could
be produced and marketed for under $40. There was no freeBSD, BSD 4.3
was still under AT&T control, and Minix only supported 64k processes.
Actually, it would have been nice to have someone in the Southwest
(USA) who had created a version of what is now freeBSD. It would have
solved a bunch of marketing problems.
At Computer Consoles, we were one of the first companies to use
BSD commercially. We created a variant called "PERPOS" (perpetual
Operating System) that was fault tolerant and supported clustering
similar to that used in Beowulf. At the time, there were about
200 UNIX Users, and about 20 of us were actual UNIX programmers
(the rest were working on an MVS-like product using a cross-compiler
and UNIX tools).
Even then, we were very frustrated by the AT&T/BSD factionality.
We hated System III, disliked System V, and loved BSD 4.2, 4.3 was
heaven.
I'd love to strap together about 30 K6-300 machines and create clusters
the way we did with PERPOS. The problem is that the code for PERPOS
is buried a vault in Rochester New York (97 Humboldt street). Wanna
tell them that you want their changes?
> The HURD is also GPL'd and always has been, but that alone
> certainly hasn't caused millions of people to flock to it (not to
> denigrate the HURD, I'm simply using it as an obvious
> counter-example). If you were to count the actual number of staff
> hours put into BSD since its inception over 20 years ago, I think
> you'd also find the numbers pretty impressive.
Absolutely. I've always said it took UNIX 25 years to become an
"overnight success". It took a major push over the last 12 months
to get it to the point where it was a contender to Microsoft.
Of course, the UNIX market has been growing exponentially. In 1982,
there were only a few thousand "Unix Gurus" around. I was one of
a few hundred who had actually been on a guided tour of the AT&T
source code.
I had left PC programming (Actually CP/M systems) to become a UNIX
programmer. As I watched the PC market grow from a few thousand
units to several million over the next 7 years, I wondered if I'd
made a mistake. When I actually got back to working on a PC as
a primary development system, I hated it. MS-DOS (3.0) was horrible
compared to UNIX with emacs. Ever since, I have kept my skills with
both systems. By the time the first 386 systems came out in 1987,
the PC had an engine capable of running a real UNIX system. The
only problem is that AT&T had tied up both the BSD and SysV
distributions. The AT&T code was pure wallet-suck. You could pay
$3000 for a PC, then you paid $700 for the "base set", $1000 for the
man pages, $1000 for the C compiler, $1000 for networking features,
and so on. This wasn't so bad when the host machine was a $25,000
workstation with a versabus, it was nuts when the host machine was
a $3000 PC running the ISA bus.
This was just the beginning. Eventually, AT&T and SUN and Motorola
formed Unix International and said "We're the UNIX standard". Then
IBM, DEC, and HP took the Mach Kernel, the BSD "personality", and
created OSF/1 as the "Open Software Foundation standard", and
immediately started doctoring it up with their own proprietary
extensions. Eventually, AT&T added BSD extensions to it's SysVr4
release and the two systems were supposedly compatible.
In the meantime, Microsoft had grown to nearly 30 million users.
IBM, DEC, HP, CMU, and others joined forces to create a GUI interface
originally called Athena, which eventually generated the X11 system
and the Andrew Toolkit. When X11/R3 was released, Microsoft Windows/386
was still a bomb. OS/2 had a presentation manager, and everybody was
suing everybody over user interfaces.
When X11/R4 came out, it was sleek, sophisticated, and offered a number
of user interfaces and Window Managers that were *almost* compatible
with each other (if you followed the ICCCM). Of course, Motif, backed
by OSF had gadgets, and other proprietary extensions which were not available
to Sun users who had OLIT pushpins and dingbat window decorations.
And then there were those networks. Everybody nominally supported TCP/IP,
but nearly everybody also supported their own proprietary networks. Ultrix
offered Decnet, AIX offered SNA (real SNA with ALL the trimmings), and
HP was pushing OSI. The OSF group tried to replace TCP/IP with the
proprietary ISO/OSI model. I believe that CLNS found it's way into the
frame-relay protocol, but ended up being used as a transport layer rather
than a network layer. The X.25 COTP beta test was the Federal Express
Zap Mail system which collapsed under the weight of it's network load.
Zap Mail was Zapped.
Meanwhile, Microsoft had grown.
> This is another
> one of those "Linux was one of the first operating systems to use
> electricity" kinds of arguments, I fear. :)
Linux resolved, once and for all, the problem that had plagued UNIX
almost since it's inception. Linux resolved the conflict between
the commercial interests who wanted to bring products to market that
would be profitable and the interests of standardization in which customers
needed to be able to interconnect various systems from various vendors.
If you're a vendor, a proprietary extension gives you the ability to
lock in your customer and lock-out your competition, without any of those
nasty contracts that might get you an FTC hearing.
If you're a customer, a proprietary extention is like a monkey-trap. A
monkey trap is a coconut with a small hole in it, and a banana inside.
The hole is big enough for the monkey to get his hand inside, but not
big enough to get his fist out. Once the monkey grabs the banana, it
will not let go, even when the trappers are going to capture it. The
coconut is tied to a tree so the monkey can't run away unless he lets
go of the banana.
> > In all, there are now 10 gigabytes of source code and documentation. At
> > 10 million hours/gigabyte, that's about 100 million staff-hours. At
> > $100/hour, that's about $20 Billion worth of investment, maybe $30 billion
> > when you consider internationalization.
If you have an accident and a doctor happens to be in the room and
makes is
> <gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
> Aw heck, why stop there if you're going to wave your hands around
> pulling numbers out of the air so shamelessly. A trillion! Ten
> trillion! Why, my god man, is it possible that the total dollar
> investment in Linux could exceed the size of the national debt?
> Tell the economists! Write your congressman! etc etc.
Would you like to come up with a number? How many billions did it cost
Microsoft to design, code, test, beta test, advertise, package, market,
distribute, and sell NT? Microsoft claims to have spent over $4 billion
developing, advertizing, marketing, packaging, distributing, promoting,
and contracting to create Windows 95.
You more than anyone ought to know that if you take a really great product
(like FreeBSD), and just "throw it up on the net and see who downloads it",
without some sort of "marketeering", you aren't going to beat Billy Big Bucks.
With no promotion and no conversation, you will probably only get a few
hundred inquiries and even fewer downloads.
I first heard about freeBSD when visiting the Walnut Creek website. I was
at a computer show, saw the Walnut Creek freeBSD CD-ROM, and purchased it.
I had some problems with the install, had problems getting it to boot, but
once I got it going, I was actually pretty impressed. After being shamed
into it by all you BSD advocates, I'm going to have to give it another
look :-).
> </gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
> > I guess you could say that Linux is an international treasure.
> Wow, just like Shirley Temple! I wonder how the penguin would look
> in pink taffeta.
> > Or you could get some volunteers, the same way that Linux did.
>
> <even-more-gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
> Hey... Now that is an idea!! Jesus Christ on a jet ski - why
> didn't I think of that before?! My god! Get some volunteers!
> [smacks forehead] Of course, I see it now! You are a brilliant
> man, Mr Ballard, and I'm going to personally write the McArthur
> Foundation Right This Very Minute and suggest you as a recipient
> for the next award!
ROFLMA - yes, you're right, BSD was the grandaddy of volunteer projects.
I bet there's still some of my code, documentation, and other contributions
buried in there. I was big on parsers and filters (who wasn't). My name
was removed to protect my employers (guess why :-).
The fact is, that if Bill Joy and all of the other contributors to the
Berkely distribution hadn't made their contributions, UNIX would have
remained "an interesting lab experiment".
Of course, it didn't matter what you contributed, or how much, or how often.
If you wanted BSD for your 386/16, you had to pay the $$$ because AT&T still
had a few hundred lines of original code in there.
> </even-more-gratuitously-excessive-sarcasm>
>
> Hmmm. That was too much fun, a sure sign that I should probably stop
> now.
It was very cute. I need to get off my hobby horse now :-).
> P.S. Any Linux devotees who may think I've been attacking their OS during
> this can rest easy - there's only one person under attack here
> and I think we all know who he is, it's just hard to slam mindless
> Linux advocacy without making it sound like you're also slamming
> the advocated. Go read my editorial on freshmeat if you need any
> confirmation of my feelings towards Linux itself.
Walnet Creek sells Linux too :-). In fact, I bought my second and third
Linux CD-ROMs from Walnut Creek (Slackware). How's Pat Volkerding doing
these days?
> --
> - Jordan Hubbard
> Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
> Walnut Creek CDROM
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
From: tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed)
Subject: GPL BSD (was Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD))
Date: 1998/07/15
Message-ID: <slrn6qqasi.591.treed@freeside.ultraviolet.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371825458
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net> <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgpvf7fyg7.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6oj1at$lnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: Ultraviolet
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:22:10 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
r.e.ball...@usa.net <r.e.ball...@usa.net> wrote:
>The key difference between the GPL and the BSD license is that it is
>possible for commercial vendors to create proprietary extensions
>that will not be available on other versions (such as FreeBSD).
Just out of curiosity, who actually owns the rights to BSD? Who sets this
license? Is it still the Regents of the U of C? Perhaps we should all lobby
them to GPL FreeBSD. Would the BSD crowd have a problem with that? I'm not
looking for comments on whether the Regents would actually do it. I am
wondering how the people would feel. The companies who are using BSD code could
continue to use it since it was licensed that way when they obtained it. They
would just be subject to GPL if they wanted to use new code.
--
Tracy Reed http://www.ultraviolet.org
"Windows NT 5.0 is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, release of the
Windows NT operating system. While there are important new features in
this release, version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture and
incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
Ref: http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/community/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/15
Message-ID: <yfgaf6a4ja3.fsf@time.cdrom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371888800
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net> <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgpvf7fyg7.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6oj1at$lnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: 900556460 5942 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> The key difference between the GPL and the BSD license is that it is
> possible for commercial vendors to create proprietary extensions
> that will not be available on other versions (such as FreeBSD).
*Yawn*. Sorry, but in actual day-to-day life, this particular big bad
wolf has been shown to have a lot fewer teeth than those who still
tell scary bed-time stories about him would have you believe.
For one thing, as Terry has already well expressed, the attitude
towards free software is changing and most companies submit their
changes back to us (and, in a few cases, practically attempt to jam
them down our throats :) because it's simply EASIER to do so.
FreeBSD, being under active development, is a moving target from the
developer's point of view and there is now considerable awareness that
you either get with the program or you get left behind. We don't need
the big stick of the GPL to get our corporate partners to play nice -
they practically demand the chance to play nice nowadays. Your Java
comparisons are also just more of the same patented Ballard BS
handwaving - Sun has quite an explicit license governing derived
versions of the core technology and M$ went right ahead and broke it
anyway, getting sued in the process. Do you think M$ cares? They own
enough lawyers now to keep the Devil himself stalled in court forever
were he to decide to come for Mr. Gates' soul before the contract was
up.
> I'm a marketeer. I could easily push FreeBSD into the 10 million
> user range in less than a year. What are you offering me?
How about a bottle of tequila and a one-way bus ticket to Tijuana?
I'll even pay for it out of my own pocket.
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD)
Date: 1998/07/15
Message-ID: <yfg90lu4i3t.fsf@time.cdrom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371888806
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net> <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgpvf7fyg7.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6oj85a$354$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Trace: 900557983 5942 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
r.e.ball...@usa.net writes:
> Until about 4 years ago, there were less than 1 million UNIX machines.
> By 1990, there were about 2 million UNIX users (according to internet
> statistics, news releases...).
He fakes to the left! He's running for the end-zone, folks, in a
brilliant hand-off play! :-)
If you ever find yourself capable of meeting an argument head-on
rather than going for the old quick-change-of-subject ploy, let me
know. Numbers vs age. An interesting comparison of apples and hand
grenades here..
> It wasn't BSDs fault, but it did gum up the works. I remember forking out
> $50 for a copy of BSD Lite, only to discover that there were no binaries
> and the code had to be cross-compiled on a UNIX system. This was in 1993.
> I still have the CD-ROM.
Actually, David Greenman and John Dyson (with some help from a few
others) essentially took that exact same 4.4 Lite2 CDROM and
implemented all the missing bits in a two week develop-a-thon. The
results of their effort was released as FreeBSD 2.0 and has made up
the basis of FreeBSD ever since. I'm surprised that someone as
obviously brilliant as yourself couldn't have done the same thing
alone in 24 hours or less. :-)
> Actually, it would have been nice to have someone in the Southwest
> (USA) who had created a version of what is now freeBSD. It would have
> solved a bunch of marketing problems.
*Boggle*. Now there's a non-sequitur if ever there was one. What
does the Southwest have to do with this? You're thinking that maybe
FreeBSD missed out on the important Armadillo user market due to its
california bias or something? Hmmmm. Your mind works in "interesting"
ways, Mr. Ballard.
> I'd love to strap together about 30 K6-300 machines and create clusters
> the way we did with PERPOS. The problem is that the code for PERPOS
> is buried a vault in Rochester New York (97 Humboldt street). Wanna
> tell them that you want their changes?
You want to tell me that they'd have funded its development under the
GPL? This example of yours represents a rather profound logical fallacy.
> Linux resolved, once and for all, the problem that had plagued UNIX
> almost since it's inception. Linux resolved the conflict between
I hate to burst your bubble, but Linux still has yet to "resolve" a
whole host of issues about its future growth and I wish the folks
who'll get stuck with the job the very best of luck. Many of the
issues around ownership, ongoing development and corporate sponsorship
haven't been resolved so much as forstalled. Everything is going
reasonably well without forcing a resolution so nobody's rocking the
boat, but it doesn't take a medium to predict that a number of your
"resolved" issues will be popping up to haunt all of us in the free
software community at various times in the future.
I've also no doubt that we'll work things out as we go along, perhaps
with a number of rather creative partnerships and solutions which
people are only beginning to glimpse right now, but it's just silly to
claim victory in the arena of mating commerce and volunteerism right
now.
> ROFLMA - yes, you're right, BSD was the grandaddy of volunteer projects.
I'm glad to see that, somewhere, we appear to agree on something. :)
(BTW, isn't that ROTFLMAO? Without the O, one is reminded more of
Jim Carrey or something :)
> Linux CD-ROMs from Walnut Creek (Slackware). How's Pat Volkerding doing
> these days?
Last time I talked to him, he was doing fine!
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM
From: j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: GPL BSD (was Re: John Doe and Linux (Re: Linux vs FreeBSD))
Date: 1998/07/15
Message-ID: <yfg7m1e4hxa.fsf@time.cdrom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371893375
References: <slrn6plt3t.ftl.cdlevin@dania.dialisdn.com>
<87ww9vfkur.fsf_-_@jackpot.lan> <6nmjmc$n6f$1@hirame.wwa.com>
<359F19BA.92E85775@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <slrn6pvr46.9rg.jedi@dementia.mishnet>
<35A01339.C3EABE02@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> <6nuj23$3a2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgww9o92ue.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6o05ij$84c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35acc281.4207927@news.serv.net> <6odbf4$hg9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35b3c634.4162511@news.serv.net> <6oesrj$2t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<35c72bdc.30190403@news.serv.net> <6ogj6t$um9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<yfgpvf7fyg7.fsf@time.cdrom.com> <6oj1at$lnl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<slrn6qqasi.591.treed@freeside.ultraviolet.org>
X-Trace: 900558217 5942 jkh 206.86.0.12
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
tr...@freeside.ultraviolet.org (Tracy R Reed) writes:
> Just out of curiosity, who actually owns the rights to BSD? Who sets this
Nobody, really. BSDI owns the trademark on the word "BSD" but that's
about as far as it goes. The CSRG is disbanded and U.C. Berkeley's
interest more or less long behind us.
> license? Is it still the Regents of the U of C? Perhaps we should all lobby
> them to GPL FreeBSD. Would the BSD crowd have a problem with that? I'm not
[jkh looks nonplussed for a moment]. Uh, yeah. We'd mind very very much,
thank yu.
We picked the BSD license for a reason. We're not going to the GPL.
No way, no how, nein, nyet, non, etc.
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM