Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:14614 comp.os.386bsd.development:2400 comp.os.386bsd.bugs:2406 comp.os.386bsd.apps:1350 comp.os.386bsd.questions:12490 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3280 comp.os.os2.programmer.misc:12346 comp.os.linux.development:13603 comp.os.minix:24064 comp.os.mach:4096 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:6895 Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.bugs,comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.os2.programmer.misc,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.minix,comp.os.mach,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!news.cygnus.com!kithrup.com!sef From: sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: Report on SVNET: Bill Jolitz's Talk; Mind Overload. Keywords: 386bsd unix release 1.0 new talk Bill Jolitz Lynn Jolitz Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Message-ID: <CurL98.BzM@kithrup.com> References: <jmonroyCuq5J1.Fy8@netcom.com> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 04:17:31 GMT Lines: 90 (Why am I bothering?) In article <jmonroyCuq5J1.Fy8@netcom.com>, Jesus Monroy Jr <jmonroy@netcom.com> wrote: > >A review of Bill Jolitz's talk with the SVNET First of all: I don't mind when you keep posting your blathering, that is your right. But you persist in prepending 10+ spaces in front of each line, meaning your posts are, what, about 33% wastage? That's assuming that your posts have *any* meaningful value. It's called "thinking" and "being considerate" -- somethings you do seem to be somewhat short on. >First is first: The release date.... > >The word was: the CD is still "under production". >In Bill and Lynn's words, "The actual shipping >date is up to the Editors of DDJ." In reality: "it's not ready yet, even though it has been advertised as a ready product." I believe that may fall under the terms of false advertisement in California, and the Post Office might be really annoyed at it, too. >Second: The issue of code reuse.... > >Bill and Lynn plainly stated that the code is >freely re-distributable and freely re-modifiably, >*AS ALWAYS*. Really? As I heard it, they got defensive first, and didn't say that the actual code would be redistributable until after some rambling. >Third: Encumbrance......... > >Always was AT&T code free, always will be. Really? 386BSD had cpio, didn't it, which was explicitly stated to be AT&T code. Wasn't there also some implication that 4.4-Lite is also "encumbered," despite USL's contractual obligations to not do so? This when someone offered some code to them, and they turned it down! >Fifth: Availability of the source..... > >Bill plans, somehow, to setup a FTP'able site >for the code's availability. NO specifics >were given on how this was to be accomplished. >"It is something for the future", Bill said. "I will say I will do it at some point in the future, but I will make no promises, and I'm certainly not going to put something up for FTP that I don't have right now, so you'll have to wait." The code is not available now. People who have ordered it from DDJ when they first advertised were told that it was not ready yet -- despite the ad saying that delivery was only 4-6 weeks. I've been told that the code wasn't even shown at the talk -- the *help files* were, but not the code. The only reason I'm going to assume the code exists at all in some form is because I don't believe DDJ is that stupid -- I'm sure they made sure to see some of the code before committing to making the CD-ROMs. >Seventh: The VM....... >The VM has been completely rewritten. >In Bill's own words, "We had to rewrite the whole >thing, from bottom up" All by themselves, too. Code that I bet few others, if any, have seen. Does that strike *anyone* as a little wrong? >Last words, from Lynn, "This is brand new and different. >People will have to consider things carefully before >throwing in their favorite widget; after all this is >supposed to be an educational tool." "We're the only ones who can write code properly, which is why nobody else has ever seen it. So before you decide to go about changing it, better think twice: you're not as good as us. We're Professional Writers." I need to admit: I am rather cynical about anything from WJF. He and Lynn promised 0.2 for last summer, was it? And, after that, there was silence from them. Maybe they've been so busy writing code all by themselves that they've not had time to do anything. But most people, when writing code for releasing it to the public, see the advantages for letting other people see the code.