Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.mach:3839 comp.unix.bsd:13989 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:6333 comp.os.386bsd.development:2139
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!caen!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!usenet.pa.dec.com!jkh
From: jkh@nx.ilo.dec.com (Jordan Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.386bsd.development
Subject: Re: More Details on the 386BSD Release 1.0 CD-ROM
Date: 19 May 1994 23:34:40 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Galway Ireland
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <JKH.94May20003442@nx.ilo.dec.com>
References: <jmonroyCq1qK0.5vJ@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nx.ilo.dec.com
In-reply-to: jmonroy@netcom.com's message of Thu, 19 May 1994 10:59:59 GMT
In article <jmonroyCq1qK0.5vJ@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes:
[Another amazingly content-free article - how DOES he do it, folks?
Mirrors? Pink gas? Will Bill ever come out of hiding after the
statute of limitations has run out and speak for himself? Find out
next week on "Unexplained Mysteries", with Leonard Nimoy and Jack
Parlance (both speaking in especially dramatic voices!)]
Anyway, it's after midnight and I've got a few minutes to kill, which
means we've just enough time for another round of the "Let's Crucify Jesus!"
game! Yeah! [desultory crowd: "yea... rah.. not AGAIN!"]
I'll do the best I can, with the information I have.
Perhaps you should wait until you actually have any information at all
before you.. And then.. Oh never mind, go ahead.. Who am I to rain
on your private parade?
However, speculating on conversations I've had with Lynn
and Bill (Jolitz), if someone sent a driver to Bill
it will be included. This, of course, depends on the
quality of the driver. Both Bill and Lynn stated quite
Hurrah! Hurrah! How reassuring to know that Bill "gravity well"
Jolitz just *might* have brought in some of the code folks sent him!
I'm sure that's tremendously reassuring to those who worked hard to
get the code to him, and represents cooperative project management at
its very best [Audience, in unison: "NOT!!"]. If anything gives me
the galloping willies about this impending 386BSD 1.0, I'd have to say
that this definately ranks pretty high up!
What basically burned our butts so much about the whole 386BSD
"effort", just for historical interest (Audience: "But we're not
interested!!") (shaddup!) was this tendency on Bill's part to take
your code but give nothing back. We rarely got even so much as a
"it's in there, thank you!" most of the time, and never any realistic
estimate for when we'd be able to see the finished results (or even a
snapshot, we weren't fussy). This really annoys me, and not so much
because I simply must have 386BSD (I don't) but because it gives the
whole idea of cooperative free software development a bad name. A lot
of talented people (whos' skills and enthusiasm are sorely needed by
so many different projects) get sucked into this vortex named Bill,
gradually become disillusioned and finally go away pissed off with the
whole process. People running free software projects have (and this
will sound slightly preachy) a *serious responsibilty* to the people
who are working for them, often donating what equates to many hundreds
of thousands of dollars in programmer time, and to simply blow them
off after taking their hard working donations of time is not all that
different from taking their actual $$$ in a con game. Sorry, but
that's the way I see it.
expect more for VIDEO (via the X11R5 port). In short,
Actual Video, as in broadcast video, or is this just a fancy way of
saying that it'll run X? Woo!
At an SVNET meeting many months ago, Bill and others discussed
the future of "buses for the PC". My favorite was PCMCIA,
but the discussion favored a local bus solution, probably VESA
- PCI if someone help Bill.
What does this have to do with 386BSD? I can get up on a podium and
talk about the wonders of the PowerPC architecture, but it doesn't
necessarily mean that FreeBSD is going to boot on a PowerMac the
following week. Let's stick to what Bill has to say (if anything)
about his actual, tangible, operating system efforts.
>> -- will >16 megabytes of RAM work properly with ISA devices?
>>
Most definitely, if your board can handle ">16 megabytes"
of RAM. This means, of course, you will need an advance
DMA controller or a good "chip set".
I seriously doubt that this is what he meant. I think he wanted to
know if the OS supported bounce-buffering for DMA requests >16MB with
an ISA DMA device. That would be a much more useful question to
answer, too.
Also don't make the mistake of asking for a technical reason
on this... else we'll get a new toaster factory going.
Or any technical content in your posts, for that matter.
>> -- shared libraries?
Rumor had people working on this.
Where and how? I don't know.
Why not just say "I don't know?" Rumors we can have 20 for a buck!
Code released in 0.0 and 0.1 is still subject to prior
conditions, namely it is freely redistributable.
Jesus, I think the question concerned 1.0. I can spell it out further
for you, if you wish: "What are the redistribution terms for 386BSD
1.0?" Full stop. Bill has undoubtedly affixed SOME sort of top level
copyright on these bits, and the terms of redistribution are what
everyone wants to know. The fact that you, one of the purported "core
development team" of 386BSD, don't even know has disturbing implications.
Remember 386bsd is the OS (Operating System) being used
as education tool on four (maybe five) continents.
So are tinker-toys.
|To add more fuel to the flame, 386bsd has 30k confirmed |
|registered users. Wall Street Journal estimates in |
What constitutes a "confirmed, registered user?" Has Bill been
sending out letters? I'd genuinely like to know. Ask 20 people what
the current *BSD user base is and you'll get 20 different answers, so
I'd be surprised if Bill had actually, finally managed to get a better
handle on this by some means other than sticking a finger in the air.
|Japan and Australia have new telecommunications lines |
|and restrictions because of the problems that followed |
|the 0.1 release. |
Eh? You just love to drop those provocative statements, don't you
Jesus? I suppose your hope is that we'll all ask you to elaborate
instead of reaching for the old `k' key..
device drivers, thereby allowing further leverage on his
"microkernel" or process-executive (vs. the Real-Time-
executive).
microkernel? Heh heh.. See above!
The code is Net/2 based. As for 4.4 lite, Bill has stated
that he at least want to try to port the "log based file
system". As for other items in the 4.4 release, these things
will be judged on a piece by piece bases.
What about a legal basis? Or is Bill prepared to get on his horse
and race full-tilt at this big windmill with "USL" painted on it?
Again, please check the FAQ for release 0.1.
This really looks to me like Bill hasn't really done much of anything
with this, and is trying to make a final few bucks off the 0.1 bits
repackaged in a nicer box before jumping ship altogether. We should
see the old 0.1 hardware list to see what's supported in 1.0? They
added nothing tangible enough to justify making even a little noise
about? Am I the only one made just a little suspicious by this?
Jordan