Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!udel!news.intercon.com!psinntp!panix!tls From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: 386BSD vs. BSD/386: Which is better for me? Message-ID: <C5qqCM.8A@panix.com> Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC References: <VIXIE.93Apr16115459@cognition.pa.dec.com> <25254@ksr.com> <C5qCwz.5n5@sugar.neosoft.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 17:09:58 GMT Lines: 20 In article <C5qCwz.5n5@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <25254@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes: >> that time, Novell should own USL rather than AT&T, and they don't have the >> same *emotional* attachment to monopolies that AT&T execs have (a business >> attachment, sure), so they may be much less likely to sue again just to >> harass BSDI out of existence. > >This is a completely unfounded assertion. There is no evidence that *AT&T* >had anything to do with the suit, and Rob Pike has stated that AT&T didn't >*want* USL to initiate the suit. Then it could have exercised its majority ownership rights and forced USL not to. I'm sure Mr. Pike means well; I'd be surprised if anyone at Bell Labs wanted USL to initiate the suit; but given the sequence of events it seems highly unlikely to me that AT&T management didn't. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM "I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons." -- Leonard Cohen