Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz From: wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: 386BSD 0.1 release Date: 30 Jul 1992 20:19:39 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association Lines: 29 Message-ID: <159isrINNakv@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <147pi1INNb1g@ghidra.UU.NET> <14c63bINNh22@agate.berkeley.edu> <157ovgINN2bo@ghidra.UU.NET> NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu In article <157ovgINN2bo@ghidra.UU.NET> revell@uunet.uu.net (James R Revell Jr) writes: >In article <14c63bINNh22@agate.berkeley.edu> wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) writes: >} Do *not* obtain 386BSD from uunet! BSDI is funded partially from UUNET >} coffers, and those idiots still see 386BSD as a rival to their hopes. >} >} As with other related situations, they have come up with "plausibly deniable" >} reasons to not provide information that they feel affects their competitive >} advantages. > >Well, despite what Bill may say or think, this is not true. I still disagree, and maintain the above. There's an easy way to correct this if it has changed, and become "stale" information. I'm waiting... Have Rick Adams utter the following phrase: "UUNET is unrelated to BSDI and does not act on it's behalf". Then I'll withdraw my objections stated. Sounds simple to me. >I said before that UUNET would drop our no-binaries policy when I got >the new disks up on the archive, and since I've just finished moving >the archive from uunet.uu.net to the new 9 GB on ftp.uu.net, that >policy is now history. I can't verify this, but if it has happened that is a positive development for those who only have access via UUNET. It's a pity that this was not this way from the start. As the rest of my posting stated, I think the idea of UUNET per se is not a bad thing. Nice to know that some people do grow up. Bill