*BSD News Article 33032


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2745 comp.os.linux.misc:19877
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!olivea!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!xmission!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: I hope this won't ignite a major flame war, but I've got to know!
Date: 19 Jul 1994 07:45:19 GMT
Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <30g0af$bfv@u.cc.utah.edu>
References: <30drlt$7tc@news.u.washington.edu> <1994Jul18.093302.19670@wmichgw>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu

In article <1994Jul18.093302.19670@wmichgw> 31khoo@wmich.edu (Patrick Khoo) writes:
] Very simple Tim, Anyone and i mean Anyone can work on Linux development. The
] development is open and releases are fast (blazingly fast kernel releases!) As
] opposed to Free/NetBSD. As such, a hacker would prefer Linux, where he/she can
] hack and get updates fast.

As an anti-spokesperson (meaning I speak for no one), here is my opinion:

Actually, I think the initial impetus toward Linux and away from BSD was
based on BSD's shaky legal status relative to the USL suit against BSDI
and UCB.

I have to say that NetBSD developement doesn't appear to be very open
from the point of view of a netnews reader, anyway.  They rely heavily
on mailing lists.  FreeBSD also relies on mailing lists, yet it seems
to be more visible on netnews.

I've noticed a "closing down" of the FreeBSD developement; I think I
can count say 5 people working on the 4.4-Lite migration.  This is
explainable in the time frame they have to work before the code must
no longer be distributed.

Hopefully the closed developement you cite is a temporary phenomenon
based on the agreements with USL to cease use of the Net/2 code within
a (getting shorter fast) time frame.  Both systems have releases based
on 4.4 scheduled out at the end of July/start of August.

I don't know what legal agreements or entities exist regarding deals
with USL for the NetBSD distribution, but for the FreeBSD distribution,
there is a commercial site sponsor, Walnut Creek CDROM, which has agreed
with USL, even if the FreeBSD "team", which has no legal status as an
entity which could enter into such an agreement.

The upshot of all this is that the FreeBSD team has been extremely
conservative in its mode to 4.4-Lite; specifically, they have taken
a 4.4-Lite source tree and basically duplicated William Jolitz's
initial effort in 386BSD 0.1 to provide newly coded replacements for
any file which USL has deemed questionable.  The NetBSD effort has
been a bit more avantgarde, porting the 4.4 code into their tree,
with the confidence that they have rewritten sufficient code to
render their tree legally safe anyway.

The result in the FreeBSD camp is that FreeBSD has inherited the
platform independant code of 4.4-Lite.  The result in the NetBSD
camp is that they have incorparted 4.4 features into an already
highly portable environment, alreading including new code for a lot
of the suspect portions of Net/2 long before there was a problem
in the legal sense (a cease-and-desist letter to at least 10 Net/2
and Net/2 derived code sites I can think of off the top of my head).

In any case, funneling changes you want incorporated into the main
code branch of NetBSD or FreeBSD to people with commit authority on
those branches is similar to what is required of Linux developers
who want there code to be something other than a local phenomenon
(I ought to know -- I am nearing 200M of "local phenomenon" on my own
BSD work).  The difference is whether that authority rests in the
hands of a grop or of an individual.


					Regards,
					Terry Lambert
					terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.