Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!newshost.nla.gov.au!act.news.telstra.net!psgrain!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!gatech!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: History of PC-Unices
Date: 13 Mar 1996 02:13:54 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <4i5b12$ggt@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <W_MF.96Mar6094546@fawn.unibw-hamburg.de> <4hlv7n$nma@zk2nws.zko.dec.com> <4hn5kf$4pp@nntp5.u.washington.edu> <4ht83p$dfi@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.826542334@exalt>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) wrote:
] Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> writes:
] >kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu wrote:
] >] Nice summary, but I think you have the NetBSD and 386BSD entires a little
] >] messed up.
] >]
] >] 1992, Jolitz released 386BSD to the public
] > ^- 0.1. 0.0 was released
] > before that to a small group.
]
] How do you define "small"? 0.0 was publicly available on the net, but it
] didn't grok FDISK partitions, so a lot of people who might have liked to
] use it (like me) could not, not without abandoning their other partitions.
"Largely unusable without *specific* hardware components and
specific BIOS/CMOS behaviour". In other words, the set of
people who could accept distribution was very small.
Only a few people were able to run 0.0. I personally ran it
by banging bits on the disk image (which I later put in the
unofficial FAQ for AT&T WGS and HP VECTRA systems) using a Sun
machine to do the banging. 0.1 had the same problems, and
that was the genesis of the patch kit.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.