Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.development:2493 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3425 comp.unix.bsd:14760
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jmonroy
From: jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr)
Subject: [Response]386BSD R.1.0 to Brown University
Message-ID: <jmonroyCv9sqC.H11@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.development
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 00:15:48 GMT
Lines: 244
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
From: mhw@cs.brown.edu (Mark Weaver)
Subject: Re: Call for 386BSD Rel.1.0 SIG (Special Interest Group)
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 07:42:46 GMT
>> In article <jmonroyCv2Iw2.AD9@netcom.com>,
>> Jesus Monroy Jr <jmonroy@netcom.com> wrote:
>> > I am making simple announcments, half you idiots say
>> > you don't think Bill can produce viable work, but
>> > you insist on letting everyone know that defending this
>> > to your "net" death.
>> >
>> > Has someone else noticed this going on besides me?
>>
>> I think we're getting away from the point.
>>
>> I challenge you to answer the following questions in an intelligent
>> manner. Don't dodge them like you normally do. No "let's continue
>> with the discussion", no "reliable is a noun", no "composition
>> wasn't your best subject". Just answer the questions.
>>
Wow some real questions!!
>> 1. How can you recommend 386BSD 1.0 to us when you haven't seen
>> the product?
>>
If your questions was, how can I recommend anyone *use* 386BSD
1.0? I can't answer that question. I have no basis, or
reason, to insist, or otherwise recommend, that anyone do so.
If your question is, Is 386BSD 1.0 worth investigating?
I would say yes. My reason is that - based on past efforts by
Lynn & Bill Jolitz have been shown be effective solutions.
Take for instance the distribution of 386bsd 0.0. If you ask
people about this distribution, you will get two answers.
#1 it went great; very easy. #2 it was a disaster.
The reason seemed to be a bad FDC (Floppy Drive Controller)
driver. The solution: release 0.1 was split into
small MS-DOS files that could be easily transport.
Mind you -- there may be other solutions, but this one was
quite effective.
>> 2. How do you know that 386BSD 1.0 is better than NetBSD/FreeBSD/Linux
>> if you don't know what's in it?
>>
I have never stated that 386BSD is better than NetBSD/FreeBSD
or Linux. There is no way for me to *objectively*
determined the effectiveness of any of these OSs.
So to answer your conjunctive questions, if tools were available,
if I had a copy of 386BSD release 1.0 in my hand, I might be able
to answer your question -- based on the results of associated
tools and tests.
>> 3. How can you recommend that people wait for 386BSD 1.0 to come out
>> given Bill's track record?
>>
Many people have made an issue of "Bill's track record".
There assumption is, "if Bill can't deliver *on time*, how can
his product be any good?"
Please note that this is a retorical quesiton. "Classical Logic"
has a name for this type of phrasing; I don't recall the exact term.
However, any "truth-value" derive is not conlusive. In short,
your question is *not* quite the same as "Have you stopped beating
your wife yet?", but it's quite close.
Q.E.D.
To answer your question more completely, I *DON'T* expect
people to *wait*. I don't expect people to do a thing until
real results are available.
You will note that I have stated that Bill (and his schedule)
have disappointed me. It disappoints many of us. However,
his work stands on it's own.
It is offered, as always, to be fully distributable and fully
re-modifiable. It's as free as things can get.
Lastly, if you (or anyone else) believes that they are getting
better value (for lack of a better word) with any other OS, I
encourage, and expect, that they would go with such systems.
>> 4. What's the latest version of NetBSD or FreeBSD that you've tried
>> for yourself, if any?
>>
The latest version of FreeBSD that I've tried is on a CD in a
box with the red label on it. I believe it's release 1.0.
>> 5. How do you measure reliability?
>>
I measure what is "RELIABLE", and that was the orignal question
I posted, as the content of the out come. If your measure
of a *FREE* service is based on *time*, you'll be sorely
dissappointed.
Many people have made an issue of *time*, I don't see it has
having any bearing on any *CODE*. As a matter of fact,
to be completely silly on making a point -- most code only get
better with time. Bad code as a rule dies within 2-6 years.
>> To answer your question: Why do we insist on refuting your claims?
>> It's for the benefit of the people who might think that your opinions
>> are representative of the rest of us.
>>
I didn't understand your question, but I understood the
answer. In that context, I beleive that I have made my
position quite clear. Further, an opinion is an opinion.
Rest assured that while my opinin does not satisfy the minds
of many involved with this newsgroups,
>> When someone from the Linux crowd decides to give *BSD a try, they
>> have to decide which variant to install. We don't want them to
>> try 386BSD 0.1 and have that outdated version shape their opinions
>> of our whole group.
>>
Your statement on this is a bit more than bias.
As a matter of fact, I will go out of my way to say there are
more bugs in the combined fragmented OS groups than in Linux.
Does this mean that Linux is more reliable? Not at all.
It only means that one set of numbers don't provide a complete
picture. In a rounded fashion, I am telling you that your
suppesion is of irrelavent consequences. Mostly, because I
don't recommend release 0.1 for anyone and people already have
their opinions of this group.
So, why in the hell you made this statement is beyond me.
>> Not to mention that cross-posting your "thoughts" to half the known
>> universe makes us all look bad. To many outsiders, you *are* our
>> representative.
>>
My opinion is not yours.. What the hell is your point?
>> I'm not saying that 386BSD 0.1 wasn't a remarkable accomplishment.
>> It *WAS*.
>>
Well, we agree on something.
>> If it wasn't for his work, we'd probably all be using
>> Linux right now.
>>
I'll go beyond that. If it wasn't for certain people in this
group, more people would be using *BSD than Linux -- right now.
>> But many brilliant people, including Bill, don't
>> have the time or the inclination to finish up all the loose ends
>> and hammer out all the bugs. There's NOTHING wrong with that, but
>> that doesn't change the fact that most users want a more polished
>> system.
>>
Yes, there are many fine commercial system. Try one of them.
Pretention by other groups that *their* system is *polished*
is quite silly.
>> There's a good chance that 386BSD 1.0 will have new technology that
>> is worth incorporating into the other variants.
>>
I gaurantee you that there will be.
>> But based on past
>> experience, I doubt that 386BSD 1.0 will be nearly as attractive
>> to the average user as FreeBSD or NetBSD.
>>
There is no basis for your *past experience*.
If you want to look at this as a competitive assignment,
which I don't, then remeber 386BSD has not been in *any form*
that could be considered attracive to a user. More plainly,
386BSD 1.0 and FreeBSD (or NetBSD) have never been compared
one on one. There is no way they could be!
Plainly, you are making the assumption - that which you accuse
me of. That is, "how can I base my statement on past
experiences, when I don't have any?" You don't have any
*past experience* with 386bsd 1.0; what the hell are you
talking about?
>> Sure, I could be wrong. 386BSD 1.0 could surprise us all.
>>
I could be wrong also, but I know I'm not.
>> I'm just making an educated guess.
>>
Please explain to me the basis of your *educated guess*.
(and this is not retorical.)
>> How much more informed is your guess?
>> Your posts seem to imply that you don't know much more
>> about 386BSD 1.0 than we do.
>>
I will follow up in a seperate thread, so that we may have
a clear discussion on this.
>> >: how do YOU measure reliability? you seem to know oh-so-much here.
>> >:
>> > I see that composition was not your best subject.
>> > Try again.
>>
>> Here you go, dodging the question again.
>>
You've got my answer now. (see above.)
(Remeber the question was on the word *Reliable*)
>> >: you need to clarify your implied accusation.
>> >: what are you accusing {free,net}bsd of not delivering on?
>> >:
>> > yes, you'll need to be more clear.
>> > present a list.
>> > show the net.
>> > quite hiding behind the masquared of numbers...
>>
>> Having a "discussion" with you is like playing tennis against a
>> stone wall.
>>
AD hack'em -- Play your best, because the competition will eat
you a live.
>> Mark
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Email: Mark_Weaver@brown.edu | Brown University
>> PGP Key: finger mhw@cs.brown.edu | Dept of Computer Science
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Email: Mark_Weaver@brown.edu | Brown University
>> PGP Key: finger mhw@cs.brown.edu | Dept of Computer Science
>>
BTW, I've done this also... the double signature. :-)
--
Jesus Monroy Jr jmonroy@netcom.com
Zebra Research
/386BSD/device-drivers /fd /qic /clock /documentation
___________________________________________________________________________