BSD names (was: BSD on floppies)
Cary Petterborg
> hi,
> anybody volunteers to make me a copy of BSD386 on floppies?
> i would have done it myself, but the system i have an account on
> is very low on disk space.
> Thanks for helping.
I hope you mean 386BSD. The only reason I am following up to this is
because there seems to be an occasional juxtapositioning of letters
and numbers with regards to the two Unixes.
Remember everyone:
BSD/386 Not free (but VERY good) from BSDI
386BSD Free (in that same old free, but not free sense)
Thanks for listening,
Cary
--
_______________
Cary Petterborg (801)582-5847 x6627
Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp. Simulation Division SLC, UT 84108
UUCP: ...!uunet!sim.es.com!cpetterb *NET: cpet...@javelin.sim.es.com
_______________
Not everything that counts can be counted. Not everything that can be
counted counts. - Charles Garfield
david d 'zoo' zuhn
because there seems to be an occasional juxtapositioning of letters
and numbers with regards to the two Unixes.
Remember everyone:
BSD/386 Not free (but VERY good) from BSDI
386BSD Free (in that same old free, but not free sense)
Locally we've started to use the terms BSDI and BSDJ for BSD386 and
386BSD respectively.
david d 'zoo' zuhn |
cygnus support | member of the league for programming freedom
Rahul Dhesi
cpet...@javelin.sim.es.com (Cary Petterborg) writes:
> BSD/386 Not free (but VERY good) from BSDI
> 386BSD Free (in that same old free, but not free sense)
I too find these names very confusing. I think we should use
the following terminlogy:
BSDI/386 or 386BSDI: BSD from BSDI
BSDJ/386 or 386BSDJ: BSD for the 386 as released by Bill Jolitz
All other terms, such as 386BSD or BSD/386, should be assumed to be
generic references to any BSD port for the 386.
I realize that BSDI would like to have exclusive use of the term
"BSD/386". But this term is too descriptive and it is very unlikely
that it could be enforced as a trade mark in court. And it is causing a
lot of confusion here.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@cirrus.COM>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
Anthony J Stieber
> BSDJ/386 or 386BSDJ: BSD for the 386 as released by Bill Jolitz
How about "Jolix"?
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber ant...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
Paul Richards
a tendency to mix up 386BSD and BSD386 then what do you think will
happen when the names only differ by the last digit and they're
consecutive letters of the alphabet.
--
Paul Richards at Cardiff university, UK.
spe...@uk.ac.cf.thor Internet: spedpr%thor.c...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
UUCP: spe...@thor.cf.UUCP or ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!cf!thor!spedpr
+++
Daniel A Muntz
>I don't think BSDI and BSDJ are very good choices. If you think there's
>a tendency to mix up 386BSD and BSD386 then what do you think will
>happen when the names only differ by the last digit and they're
>consecutive letters of the alphabet.
BSDJ seems to be the natural choice as many people have independently
suggested it. I haven't seen anyone confuse BSDI and BSDJ, but several
people have "mixed up" 386BSD and BSD386.
-Dan
Richard Murphey
BSDJ seems to be the natural choice as many people have independently
suggested it. I haven't seen anyone confuse BSDI and BSDJ, but several
people have "mixed up" 386BSD and BSD386.
Jolnix is pleasing to the ear. :-) Rich
--
david d 'zoo' zuhn
I don't think BSDI and BSDJ are very good choices. If you think there's
a tendency to mix up 386BSD and BSD386 then what do you think will
happen when the names only differ by the last digit and they're
consecutive letters of the alphabet.
But they're mnemonic at least. There's nothing to tell 386BSD from
386BSD unless you can keep them straight by other means. Mine is BSDI
and BSDJ (I for Inc. and J for Jolitz).
I like the fact that J is close to I: full source puts your 1 step
ahead.
Jeff Kellem
> But they're mnemonic at least. There's nothing to tell 386BSD from
> 386BSD unless you can keep them straight by other means. Mine is BSDI
> and BSDJ (I for Inc. and J for Jolitz).
Actually, to be picky, the names are 386BSD (what you're calling BSDJ, the
free release) and BSD/386 (from BSDI, the product).
> I like the fact that J is close to I: full source puts your 1 step
> ahead.
Ah, but they both include full source. It's just that one is completely
redistributable and the other isn't. (Perhaps, you meant "freely available
full source ..."? ;-)
Cheers...
-jeff
Jeff Kellem
Internet: comp...@Beyond.Dreams.ORG
Richard Foulk
>BSDJ seems to be the natural choice as many people have independently
>suggested it. I haven't seen anyone confuse BSDI and BSDJ, but several
>people have "mixed up" 386BSD and BSD386.
>
They both seem equally funky ... and confusion prone.
Besides, the I J sillyness makes it seem like BSD386 came before 386BSD ...
--
Richard Foulk ric...@pegasus.com
Cary Petterborg
> >
> >BSDJ seems to be the natural choice as many people have independently
> >suggested it. I haven't seen anyone confuse BSDI and BSDJ, but several
> >people have "mixed up" 386BSD and BSD386.
> >
>
> They both seem equally funky ... and confusion prone.
>
> Besides, the I J sillyness makes it seem like BSD386 came before 386BSD ...
Just keep BSD/386 as it is since it is actually a trademarked name.
Then,...
What about FreeB (pronounced like Freebie) for Free Berkeley Unix for the
386BSD version? Of course, there will be those that will shoot it down,...
I have heard worse names for things, and it speaks a lot faster that
386BSD. GNU is using HURD as the name for it's OS and that is alot
easier to speak than GNU's OS. So why not make it that simple as well?
I've also made the suggestion that FSF should stand for "Foundation for
Software Freedom" because of the confusion about the meaning of "free",
but that's gone nowhere as well. ;-)
I kind of liked the "Jolix" name, because it is rather descriptive and
unique, but then it is also throwing it in with all the other *ix
named products, which could cause confusion as well. Nothing is easy,
is it?
Greg Lehey
>Besides, the I J sillyness makes it seem like BSD386 came before 386BSD ...
Yes, but it did. I'm not taking sides in this rift, but the fact is
that Jolitz worked for BSDI before going his own way and bringing out
386BSD. Even his articles in Dr. Dobbs and UNIX Magazin call it
BSD386, not 386BSD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Lehey | Public access UNIX available - try BSDI
LEMIS | out on our machine! Mail and news
W-6324 Schellnhausen 2 | connections available
Germany | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Tel: +49-6637-1488 | Mail: grog%le...@Germany.Eu.net
Claimer: The opinions expressed *are* the opinions of LEMIS
Karl Lehenbauer
BSDJ? That'll make people even more confused, and it'd be kind of like
starting a new pizza company called "Dominoes", y'know?
I just call it "386BSD", or "The free Unix for the 386".
--
-- Email in...@NeoSoft.com for info on getting Internet access.
"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer
Jay Vassos-Libove
I don't think BSDI and BSDJ are very good choices. If you think there's
a tendency to mix up 386BSD and BSD386 then what do you think will
happen when the names only differ by the last digit and they're
consecutive letters of the alphabet.
But they're mnemonic at least. There's nothing to tell 386BSD from
386BSD unless you can keep them straight by other means. Mine is BSDI
and BSDJ (I for Inc. and J for Jolitz).
I like the fact that J is close to I: full source puts your 1 step
ahead.
BSDI includes full source too, as well as support.
They're different products aimed at different audiences, that's all.
--
Jay Vassos-Libove lib...@libove.det.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation decwrl!libove.det.dec.com!libove
Open Systems Resource Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine!
Farmington Hills, Michigan and D.E.C. Can't have 'em!
Computer Protocol
> I don't think BSDI and BSDJ are very good choices. If you think there's
> a tendency to mix up 386BSD and BSD386 then what do you think will
> happen when the names only differ by the last digit and they're
> consecutive letters of the alphabet.
> But they're mnemonic at least. There's nothing to tell 386BSD from
> 386BSD unless you can keep them straight by other means. Mine is BSDI
> and BSDJ (I for Inc. and J for Jolitz).
> I like the fact that J is close to I: full source puts your 1 step
> ahead.
>BSDI includes full source too, as well as support.
>They're different products aimed at different audiences, that's all.
>--
>Jay Vassos-Libove lib...@libove.det.dec.com
When will you guys stop arguing about those stupid names. BSDI call
their product BSD/386, Bill calls his stuff 386BSD. You don't have
to be too bright to remember those two names. So please stop the
bullshit and fix bugs, write new device drivers or contribute
something else more useful.
-- Tibor Sashegyi
Computer Protocol
>In article <1992Apr8.1...@pegasus.com> ric...@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
>>Besides, the I J sillyness makes it seem like BSD386 came before 386BSD ...
>Yes, but it did. I'm not taking sides in this rift, but the fact is
>that Jolitz worked for BSDI before going his own way and bringing out
>386BSD. Even his articles in Dr. Dobbs and UNIX Magazin call it
>BSD386, not 386BSD.
Wrong, read the articles.
-- Tibor Sashegyi
Cary Petterborg
> When will you guys stop arguing about those stupid names. BSDI call
> their product BSD/386, Bill calls his stuff 386BSD. You don't have
> to be too bright to remember those two names. So please stop the
> bullshit and fix bugs, write new device drivers or contribute
> something else more useful.
Who pee'd in your coffee??
There is a good reason for people referring properly to the two versions,
the main one being that people can keep from getting confused about
which one a person is talking about in a posting. If the person wrongly
refers to a version, confusion ensues.
Having been the instigator of the discussion, I have a bit of myself
wrapped up in the discussion. I found it confusing, when going through
the posting since 386BSD came out, when people would not use the proper
names in their posting. Sometimes it would take a little while to
sort out the discussion properly. There were even some articles which
would contain references to both versions improperly.
This discussion has at least made people more aware of the names of
the two versions, if nothing else. For that alone it has been worth
the "bandwidth".
And, we all know that the BS will never stop with something as simple as
this. It's the "net", you know!
Paul A Vixie
> that Jolitz worked for BSDI before going his own way and bringing out
> 386BSD.
Well, yes, but before he worked for BSDI he hammered on this code on his
own time, for his own purposes, and gave a bunch to CSRG for the Net-2
release. I'm not sure I follow your point in any case. We've got two
similar things in the world and we need a way to differentiate them but
we certainly don't need to do it based on "who was first".
> Even his articles in Dr. Dobbs and UNIX Magazin call it BSD386, not 386BSD.
Interesting. And beside the point. We still need different names.
How about "Jolitz 386BSD" and "BSDI BSD/386" ? Seems unambiguous to me.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab
Palo Alto, California, USA "Ready, Fire, Aim"
<vi...@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie
<pa...@vix.com> vixie!paul alt.pink.bunny.boom.boom.boom moderator
Bob Makowski
>the following terminlogy:
>
> BSDI/386 or 386BSDI: BSD from BSDI
> BSDJ/386 or 386BSDJ: BSD for the 386 as released by Bill Jolitz
>
I've been following this thread, since I asked the question a while ago.
One suggestion I recvd was:
On Fri, 27 Mar 1992 10:28:19 -0600, Rich Scott <sc...@rtc.atk.com> said:
Subject: Re: 4.3 vs. 4.4 feature set comparisons?
+---------------
| In article <1992Mar26....@tgivan.wimsey.bc.ca> you write:
| |vs. BSD386 or BSD/386? That silly little slash is not enough ;-)
|
| How about BSD386 and BSD3$6?
|
+--------------- End of Excerpt Rich Scott <sc...@rtc.atk.com>
Maybe a spin would be:
BSD$386
= Mak
Daniel R Guilderson
How about "Jolitz 386BSD" and "BSDI BSD/386" ?
^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-----BSDI controls that.
| We have no choice.
|
Now this we can work on. Jolitz himself is using
386BSD so that is going to stick but since everyone
seems to want a little more clarity, I propose we call
it F-386BSD for "Free" 386BSD. For the really serious
hackers we can call it F-386BSD_w/30mm_Vulcan_Cannons.
Actually, since the 486 (and soon the 586) will be the cpus of choice,
we should probably call it F-x86BSD or for the rexp-nerds, F-[3-9]86BSD.
Jason A Wilson
product.
Therefore, 386BSD and BSD386 would be the free BSD
whereas, BSDI BSD/386, or BSD/386 or even 386/BSD.
I hope this convention sticks because it will end confusion AND it won't require
any creativity.
Paul A Vixie
through to next week without name collisions. I know that Jolitz calls his
386BSD, which is certainly different from what BSDi calls theirs (BSD/386):
there is a "/" in one of them, and the "386" and "BSD" are swapped. This is
not enough difference for a number of the folks here in comp.unix.bsd, so I
proposed "Jolitz 386BSD" and "BSDi BSD/386", which are awkward but have the
twin virtues of (1) not dropping any information that the authors had chosen,
and (2) adding only information which the authors cannot possibly disagree
with or be offended by. Unless someone proposes a naming scheme less awkward
than mine which still has those two virtues, let's let this issue settle.
Richard Foulk
>When will you guys stop arguing about those stupid names. BSDI call
>their product BSD/386, Bill calls his stuff 386BSD. You don't have
>to be too bright to remember those two names. So please stop the
>bullshit and fix bugs, write new device drivers or contribute
>something else more useful.
>
Sounds good to me. What's wrong with sticking with the name Bill gave it?
--
Richard Foulk ric...@pegasus.com
Peter da Silva
> What about FreeB (pronounced like Freebie) for Free Berkeley Unix for the
> 386BSD version? Of course, there will be those that will shoot it down,...
How about "FreeSD", pronounced like "BSD". This version would be "386 FreeSD".
--
/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
8 T(Ferranti International Controls Corporation)24 28 S(+1 713 274 5180)24 12 S
(Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012)24 20 S 12 /Courier F(`-_-')320 32 S( 'U` )320 16 S
12 T(Peter da Silva)24 36 S 16 T(Have you hugged your wolf today?)358 24 S