Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:5011 comp.os.386bsd.misc:964 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!mcsun!ieunet!ieunet!dec4ie.ieunet.ie!jkh From: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) Subject: Re: Comparing anything to NetBSD In-Reply-To: mycroft@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu's message of 12 Sep 1993 02: 01:47 GMT Message-ID: <JKH.93Sep12051458@whisker.lotus.ie> Sender: usenet@ieunet.ie (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie Organization: Lotus Development Ireland References: <CD190K.FwG@latcs1.lat.oz.au> <DERAADT.93Sep10232713@newt.fsa.ca> <26t5dt$80e@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <MYCROFT.93Sep11210818@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <CD7w8F.16M@kithrup.com> <MYCROFT.93Sep11220147@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1993 05:14:58 GMT Lines: 64 I have told the FreeBSD people about this a couple of times. They could have simply picked up the GCC 2 from NetBSD 0.9 (which I fixed myself), but they have not done so. Sigh. People, people, can we STOP this already? In my last article I said that I wouldn't join in this ridiculous "comparison war" some of our mutual members are having, and I've no intention of changing my mind, but I'd like to at least request that while you hurl epithets at the "other side", and call each other names, that you at least try to avoid giving false impressions like the one above, especially on so charged a subject as "Violating the GPL". We're well aware of the conditions of the GPL, long before you or anyone else deemed it necessary to point it out. We've undertaken to make the *original* sources available to anyone that asks, from the same sources (and the CD will have an unadulterated gcc-2.4.5.tar.gz on it), thus upholding the GPL paragraph that says: For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. And the COPYING file is part of the distribution, so they are well able to "know their rights" as well. Perhaps NetBSD's gcc2 release is superior, I have not looked nor do I dispute such a "fact" (how can I dispute what I have not even looked at?), and perhaps even some day FreeBSD will be happy to take the gcc2 release, just as you have taken some of "our" GNU ports. Where's the problem? What I do know is that I have neither the time nor the inclination to look into this now, as I have more pressing matters to attend to than looking into NetBSD's gcc2 port. Just because I've not done so, however, does not mean that FreeBSD's own release is somehow illegal. I said I wouldn't get into the comparison war, but this doesn't stop me from saying a few POSITIVE words, and I'd like to state, for the record, that I think NetBSD is a great effort and that I have NOTHING AT ALL AGAINST IT. A very few people working on NetBSD I would probably cross the street to avoid (or struggle not to reach for my .45 :), but this does not mean I have any technical grievances with the "product" itself, which seems to be the whole topic of continuing debate. Let's just knock it off. Both teams are doing some good work, which can only benefit the public (the public: remember the public? The folks we're supposed to be doing this all for?), whether all people on both sides admit it or not. I've got an idea: Why not let the USERS decide how well we're doing, rather than debating this endlessly between ourselves? If Lotus and Microsoft were actually allowed to write the other company's "BYTE" and "PC Magazine" reviews, I'm sure this is very much what it would look like! Fortunately, such reviews are generally left to people with the outsider's viewpoint. Jordan -- Jordan Hubbard jkh@violet.berkeley.edu, jkh@al.org, jkh@whisker.lotus.ie