Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!math.fu-berlin.de!dct.zrz.tu-berlin.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!fauern!fauna!camelot.informatik.uni-erlangen.de!husemann From: husemann@camelot.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Dirk Husemann) Subject: Re: [Re: Catch What They're Saying About Us...] References: <9209252210.AA10552@cognition.PA.DEC.COM> <2390@adagio.lemis.uucp> Message-ID: <BvC0LB.2J9@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Sender: news@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:51:11 GMT Lines: 85 grog@lemis.uucp (Greg Lehey) writes: >In article <9209252210.AA10552@cognition.PA.DEC.COM> vixie@PA.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes: >>Will someone -- ANYONE -- who believes that my previous message (subtitled >>"an open letter to Lynne Jolitz") was an attack, please let me know >this? >Not I. I had intended to stay out of this mess, since my opinion does >not diverge greatly from those expressed already. My concerns are >something else: Same for me, sigh. [...] >: In fact, there is a great probability that AT&T code is still present >: in BSD386. Insiders claim that BSDI deliberately included AT&T code in >: BSD386 in order to get to market more quickly. Bill Jolitz stresses >: the fact that he was very careful not to copy anything while writing >: his extensions. He is not sure if this also applies to the Net/2 tape. >This article - signed by the Editor-in-Chief, Juergen Fey - is full of >inaccuracies, in particular wrt timing. However, this particular claim >is so far off the mark of anything that I have seen on the net >(which UNIX Magazin explicitly quoted as a source) that I would really >be interested in its source. Therefore questions to all of you who are >still reading this thread: >1. Do you believe that BSDI genuinely and deliberately included AT&T > code in BSD/386? No, I don't. >2. Do you know anybody who believes it? Not that I know of. >Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I am myself in no doubt that this >claim is incorrect. I also believe it reflects very badly on UNIX >Magazin that they have published this claim: it's possible that BSDI >could sue them for it unless they can prove the claim. Under German law at least --- IMHO a case of libelous action. What's this supposed to be anyhow? I think (a) Bill & Lynne Jolitz have achieved something great, essentially bringing Unix-look-a-like power to the people. What they have done is certainly no small task, I admire them for what they have done and are still doing (and am puzzled how they did it) --- I don't think I'll ever be able to achieve something on a similar scale (let alone come up with as much determination as Bill & Lynne have done). (b) The people behind BSDI are also doing a great job. Their product clearly is targeted at the commercial market --- we have yet to see another company providing a customer support that equals BSDIs (speedy, interested in the customers, open to suggestions, ...) There are some companies providing stable OSs (though not that many) --- BSDI is certainly among them! (c) Iff USL should win (good grief) they would essentially have claimed ownership to NET-2 as that code is in their greedy opinion a derivative of their stuff, thus, 386BSD would be subject to the same restrictions placed on the CSRG (the battle is not against BSDI alone, remember?) --- I think. (d) Unless Bill & Lynne want to go commercial and/or BSDI would start giving away copies of BSD/386 for free there is no clash in the targeted ``market'' of neither 386BSD nor BSD/386. So --- why this flaming, hacking, bickering at each other (though I have yet to see BSDI doing to Bill & Lynne what they are doing in the public to BSDI, in all honesty)? What's the sense of it? 386BSD can and does speak and stand for itself --- as does BSD/386. Oh --- and ``yes'' I know of a couple of companies that are using BSD/386. How about a peaceful coexistence? Dirk Husemann ---