Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!vic.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!imci3!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!richard
From: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ...
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pitcairn
Message-ID: <Dr8vxB.CDF@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh
References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net>
Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 14:22:23 GMT
Lines: 29
In article <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net> b.j.smith@ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith, E.I.) writes:
.. a whole lot of nonsense.
Most of this has been addressed in other articles, so I'll just correct
one point:
>Linux, since it is written from the ground-up, is a much more efficient OS
>than FreeBSD (which has been written somewhat from the ground up, to prevent
>a lawsuit from BSDI, is still a lot of legacy OS code).
The FreeBSD people (and other BSD users) were afraid of lawsuits from
USL, not BSDI. FreeBSD 2.0 switched from being based on Net-2 to
4.4-lite, in order to ensure that it didn't contain any code claimed
by USL. It was USL who were trying to prevent BSDI distributing their
system, not BSDI trying to stop anyone.
Incidentally, USL looked like they were going to lose their lawsuit
anyway, but they could have kept BSDI tied up in court for years, so
BSDI (and UCB) agreed to a settlement that allowed USL to save a
little face without in fact gaining anything significant. Essentially
the forces of truth and justice won, and USL lost.
-- Richard
--
"Hither turn thy steps, hither come to thy death and for Camilla
receive due guerdon! Shalt thou, even thou, die by Diana's darts?"
[Virgil, Aeneid X1 855-7]