Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!news.kgc.com!decwrl!vixie!vixie From: vixie@vix.com (Paul A Vixie) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Bill's talk? (was Re: Which 386-BSD is reliable?) Date: 18 Aug 94 02:07:44 Organization: Vixie Enterprises Lines: 26 Message-ID: <VIXIE.94Aug18020744@office.home.vix.com> References: <pmiles.776112888@tdc> <jmonroyCunz65.75G@netcom.com> <32t5to$lq1@spool.cs.wisc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: office.home.vix.com In-reply-to: jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu's message of 17 Aug 1994 14:13:12 GMT > So is anyone else going to Bill's talk? Is there any chance we can get a > fairly coherent summary of the interesting points? Note the *coherent* > requirement, Jesus! ;-) I went. Bill's talk was fairly well attended. It was a little light on technical content but perhaps that's appropriate for SVNet. 386BSD 1.0 is in production and the CDROM will contain a lot of nonredistributable documentation (which may be excerpts from the Jolitz' book, I don't know) along with all of the 386BSD 1.0 sources and a runnable binary system. The software will have the same redistribution requirements 386BSD 0.2 had, whatever that means -- probably standard BSD copyrights. Bill's description of 1.0 made it sound like he had done almost all of the reorganization he spoke of in his original series of DDJ articles, and that the really neat stuff (faster TCP/IP, loose or right multiprocessing, and a longish list of other things) will be forthcoming. Lynne made a point of saying that if nobody bought the CDROM there might never be another one, but Bill made a different point that nevertheless, putting the code (but not the "annotations" -- basically book excerpts, I suspect) up for anon ftp will be as allowed as it was for 0.2. I suggest that we all work to belay the arguments and flame fests here until we get a chance to see the code. -- Paul Vixie Redwood City, CA decwrl!vixie!paul <paul@vix.com>