386BSD Release: Contributors Only Please...
William F. Jolitz
The final regression testing for the next official full release
(no patches, folks) of 386BSD is about to conclude.
The following is a preliminary list of all contributors to 386BSD over
the course of it's development and releases (both prior releases and
the current release).
The next release of this system is expected to go out to over a million users.
Please get in touch with us to make sure that your work is the way you want
two million eyes (give or take a few) to see it.
If you have contributed to the next release and have an update or new item,
please send it to me for inclusion as soon as possible. This also helps to
confirm you are on the next Official Contributor's List.
If you have not contributed to the next release (but have contributed to
prior releases) and would like to be on the next Official Contributor's
List, please send any updates, new work, or other items to me as soon as
possible.
If you are NOT on this list and wish to be part of the next Official 386BSD
Contributors List, or if you have contributed an item which has not been
brought to our attention (so you're not on the List yet), or you have
suggestions before we cut the tape, please send me email as soon as possible
with your code or suggestions.
This release promises to be a true landmark release. Not only does this
release promise greater performance and stability (far beyond that of "patch
fixes"), but it will also offer some actual research kernel work which has
never been done before in any BSD-based system. This release of 386BSD will
finally allow everyone to start working with the next generation of technology.
Here's looking forward to hearing from you!
Lynne Jolitz
386BSD Development Project
ljo...@cardio.ucsf.edu
CIS 76703,4266
FAX:+1-510-420-0174
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
386BSD Contributors:
James Van Artsdalen
Keith Bostic
Gary Browning
Scott Burris
Carnagie-Mellon University MACH Project
Tim Casey
Andrew A. Chernov
Pete Chown
James Clark (FSF)
J.T. Conklin
Ian Darwin
David Dawes
Randall Dean
James W. Dolter
Rog Egge
Mark Eichin
Julian Elischer
Bruce Evans
Steve Ferguson
Chris Flatters
Olaf Franksson
Free Software Foundation
Paul Fromberg
Felix Gaehtgens
Jeffrey Goh
David Greenman
Goran Hammerbach
Charles Hannum
Amancio Hasty Jr
John W. Hatley
Eric J. Haug
Wiljo Heimen
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
Craig Idler
John D. Irwin
James Jagers
Arne Henrik Juul
Peter Klingebiel
Paul Kranenburg
Kevin Lahey
Terry Lambert
Daniel Lanciani
Branko Lankester
Karl Lehenbauer
Jeorg Lohse
Rick Macklem
Frank Maclachlan
Paul Makerras
Ishii Masahiro
Steve McCanne
Stephan McKay
Lee M. J. McLoughlin
Larry McVoy
Andrew J. Michael
Hellmuth Michaelis
Jesus Monroy Jr.
Andrew Moore
Daniel A. Muntz
Richard Murphey
Glen Overby
Brad Parker
Herb Pereyl
Chris Provenzano
Ken Raeburn
Paul Richards
Dave Rivers
Christoph Robitschko
Guido van Rooij
Tom Russo
Peng-Toh Sim
Thomas Skibo
John Sokol
Wolfgang Solfrank
Dave Stanhope
Thos Sumner
Robert D. Thrush
Mark Tinguely
Linus Torvalds
Richard Tobin
Holger Veit
Rob Warnock
Christian Wiedmann
Bob Wilcox
Nathan Williams
Pace Willisson
Joerg Wunsch
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Please send submissions for comp.os.386bsd.announce to:
386bsd-...@agate.berkeley.edu
Andrew Moore
>386BSD Contributors:
Yikes! You've omitted the current and previous patch kit maintainers
- Rodney and Jordan! And the rebel leader - Chris! And the one who
brought us YP - Theo! All the NetBSD, and 0.1.5 folk, and porters
(e.g., L. Jonas Olsson - FlexFAX, Kenji Okamoto - Ingres8.9), and
testers and financiers and distributors (e.g., Jack Velte) and spoilers
and on and on!
-AM
William F. Jolitz
>In article <1te9h8$8...@agate.berkeley.edu> wjo...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) writes:
>
>>386BSD Contributors:
>Yikes! You've omitted the current and previous patch kit maintainers
This list is software (code) people only -- people who spent time
doing things like the FAQ (Terry, for example) appear elsewhere
in the LIST (some people appear many places).
>And the one who
>brought us YP - Theo!
Great ! Have him get in touch with me. And anyone else you can think of
who should be part of the code contributors list for 386BSD.
>All the NetBSD, and 0.1.5 folk,
Not 386BSD people, unless their code appears in 386BSD as well.
For the record, NETBSD and the 0.1.5 groups are not directly part of
386BSD, and should be considered separate groups. If you wish to make
contributions to them and us, make them all separately, so you can
make sure it gets to all groups (by the way, that includes linux and
mach as well).
We haven't received ANYTHING from NETBSD -- not one line of code.
>and porters
>(e.g., L. Jonas Olsson - FlexFAX, Kenji Okamoto - Ingres8.9), and
>testers ...
Get them in touch with me. Jonas Olsson did the initial GCC 2.3.3 port,
and this is a person we missed. Thank you for bringing his name to our
attention!
>and financiers
A very special group, and one specifically cited. We love these people!
They always get top billing!
>and distributors (e.g., Jack Velte) and spoilers
>and on and on!
I have no idea who this person is, as we don't have any official
distributors. We haven't gotten anything from this guy, ever.
As to spoilers, who needs them? We've got work to do!
Read the 0.1 contributors list for an understanding of the format,
or look at the release letter for prior Berkeley releases.
It's getting better all the time!
Please send me email about people, so I can respond to them quickly!
A Wizard of Earth C
>This list is software (code) people only -- people who spent time
>doing things like the FAQ (Terry, for example) appear elsewhere
>in the LIST (some people appear many places).
I thought I fit into the "code" category too, for at least the memory size
patches if not contribution to other peoples code (usually in the form of
arguing them out of some course of action or another).
Also: Dave Burgess is currently doing the FAQ thing.
>>All the NetBSD, and 0.1.5 folk,
>
>Not 386BSD people, unless their code appears in 386BSD as well.
This kind of suprised me, at least with regard to "0.1.5 folk", which I
think I number among. The 0.1.5 group is basically a lot of the patchkit
people, and I consider the patchkit a contribution.
Terry Lambert
te...@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
William F. Jolitz
>In article <1tggls$o...@agate.berkeley.edu> wjo...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) writes:
>>This list is software (code) people only -- people who spent time
>>doing things like the FAQ (Terry, for example) appear elsewhere
>>in the LIST (some people appear many places).
>
>I thought I fit into the "code" category too, for at least the memory size
>patches if not contribution to other peoples code (usually in the form of
>arguing them out of some course of action or another).
Terry -- look again. You're on the software contributor's list, and you've
done lots of other great things (starting the FAQ, assembling patches for
people to use, the original patchkit soon after 386BSD Release 0.1 was
released -- which was so good that we could go on to other work, and
answering questions in a professional manner. You're contributions early
on in other areas are not forgotten, and will be cited!
>Also: Dave Burgess is currently doing the FAQ thing.
And he gets mentioned as well. For the FAQ (not code) section.
>>>All the NetBSD, and 0.1.5 folk,
>>
>>Not 386BSD people, unless their code appears in 386BSD as well.
>
>This kind of suprised me, at least with regard to "0.1.5 folk", which I
>think I number among. The 0.1.5 group is basically a lot of the patchkit
>people, and I consider the patchkit a contribution.
Each item was gone through, and the original author of the code cited
for attribution. If someone did some code (and it was appropriate) for 386BSD,
that person should be on the list (and, if there are any questions, please
send us email ASAP).
However, NETBSD is a separate entity, and not associated with 386BSD. They
are responsible for their own work.
There is no 0.1.5 coming out from us. We are doing a full release. If
someone else is doing it, it isn't us.
PLEASE NOTE:
If anyone make contributions to these other groups expecting that his/her work
will migrate to us, please be aware that these groups are completely separate,
and that there is no formal exchange of code between these groups and us.
We are currently collaborating with a variety of research groups at major
universities, laboratories and companies, and we have formal arrangements
for software exchange, new system enhancements, and testing prior to
general release. If anyone affiliated with a research group who can
self-support the system during system test or needs a preliminary version
for research purposes (such as gigabit networking), we can accomodate
a limited number. After all, 386BSD is intended for Research and Education.
If you would like to be part of the Official 386BSD Release, or you have
special needs in a research environment, please send email directly
to ljo...@cardio.ucsf.edu.
Thanks.
Bill Jolitz.
Lynne Jolitz.
386BSD Development Project.
FAX:+1-510-420-0174
Nate Williams
>There is no 0.1.5 coming out from us. We are doing a full release. If
>someone else is doing it, it isn't us.
At one point in time, the 'interim' release was given a verbal blessing from
Bill. I know that has changed, but this sounds like we decided to go
off half-cocked here.
>PLEASE NOTE:
>If anyone make contributions to these other groups expecting that his/her work
>will migrate to us, please be aware that these groups are completely separate,
>and that there is no formal exchange of code between these groups and us.
Bull Puckey! Many of the interim group are in semi-consistant contact
with you, and saying anything different is and out and out lie.
Almost all of the work that is currently in the hands of the interim
members is, and will be handed off to the Jolitz. (Some of the less
stable stuff is in testing, and non-integrated stuff is still being
worked on)
C'mon Lynne/Bill, we aren't the enemy.
Sigh...
Nate
--
os...@terra.oscs.montana.edu | Still trying to find a good reason for
na...@cs.montana.edu | these 'computer' things. Personally,
work #: (406) 994-4836 | I don't think they'll catch on -
home #: (406) 586-0579 | Don Hammerstrom
Chris G. Demetriou
>PLEASE NOTE:
>If anyone make contributions to these other groups expecting that his/her work
>will migrate to us, please be aware that these groups are completely separate,
>and that there is no formal exchange of code between these groups and us.
i think it's worth saying the same thing, in reverse:
If you find a bug in 386BSD, please report it to the NetBSD and patchkit
people, as well as the Jolitzes.
after all, they've received some fixes (e.g. over 1M kernel booting, and
lots of others) a *long* time ago (i.e. last *year*) which have yet to
see the light of day.
[ *that* is one of the main reasons we (the NetBSD Folk) are doing
NetBSD -- we want to make useful changes and/or have people give us
fixes, and we want the public to have ready *access* to them ]
chris
--
Chris G. Demetriou c...@cs.berkeley.edu
"386bsd as depth first search: whenever you go to fix something you
find that 3 more things are actually broken." -- Adam Glass
Geoff Rehmet
>In article <1te9h8$8...@agate.berkeley.edu> wjo...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) writes:
OK.
Bill went on about how stable the new 386bsd will be and how
wonderful it will be, but what will really be in it that will
make it so wonderful and stable? (ie. - what is going to
convince me to trash my existing setup and upgrade to 386bsd 0.2
when it comes out?)
Geoff.
--
============================cs...@alpha.ru.ac.za===============================
Geoff Rehmet, Parallel Processing Group, |#define DISCLAIMER These are my
Computer Science Department, | ramblings, not the
Rhodes University, RSA. | University's
James da Silva
>
>Carnagie-Mellon University MACH Project
>Free Software Foundation
[plus lots of worthy individuals]
You forgot the biggest one:
UCB Computer Systems Research Group and their contributors
Jaime
............................................................................
: Stand on my shoulders, : j...@cs.umd.edu : James da Silva
: not on my toes. : uunet!mimsy!jds : Systems Design & Analysis Group
Mark Tinguely
>In <almC7B...@netcom.com> a...@netcom.com (Andrew Moore) writes:
>
>>In article <1te9h8$8...@agate.berkeley.edu> wjo...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) writes:
>
>OK.
>Bill went on about how stable the new 386bsd will be and how
>wonderful it will be, but what will really be in it that will
>make it so wonderful and stable? (ie. - what is going to
>convince me to trash my existing setup and upgrade to 386bsd 0.2
>when it comes out?)
what we need is a networked machine to hammer upon. The ref.tfs.com
machine was invaluable for this reason and it being a central source
of information.
If individually we cannot produce a machine, maybe with very small donations
of 1-2 dollars each over the network users we can get a damn nice machine
that can become the new "ref".
--mark.
William F. Jolitz
As I've said already, contributors to *THIS RELEASE* ...
Keith contributed personally (and he's on).
I think the comment in your signature line is most ironic given the context
of your "response". Cooperation in public access software is at the heart
of the issue, and is unfortunately sorely misrepresented.
In any case, my hat is off to those that did the work, trusted and helped
us to make 386BSD a reality, instead of trying to walk off with the ball
for private and personal gain. It shall be "freely modifiable and
redistributable", regardless of intrigues, "mind games", "ego wars",
or "politics". The proof that this is so is in your hot little hands. As it
will be yet again. And nothing nasty can ever take that significant
piece of history away, as we move on to the future.
For those who choose to play other games, I'm sorry, perhaps we will be
able to cooperate again sometime in the future when it is not colored
so much by the failures of the "old UNIX gods". Sigh.
The reward is in having done the work that made the difference.
I'm grateful to those who have allowed me the chance to make such a difference.
Thank you,
Bill.
Chris G. Demetriou
>We haven't received ANYTHING from NETBSD -- not one line of code.
to this i respond with:
"did you ask?"
the answer is no.
we (the NetBSD people) have not heard a *peep* from you about our work.
we have always made it our policy to:
(1) make our latest sources as available as quickly as possible
and as up-to-date as possible. (the NetBSD-current
hierarchy had been around for a while, for example,
but i wanted the updating stuff properly tested and
debugged before i announced it to the world.)
it's updated nightly via cron.
(2) provide patches to fix specific bugs for which we had solutions
to people who asked for them, and, if we thought the bug
was of the appropriate caliber, the net and the patchkit
people. (this is especially true if the people in
question would have a hard time with getting a whole
new source tree, or even the individual new files, e.g.
because they were on the other end of a uucp link.)
and as for actually "taking" from any of that code, that which i
say now (and have always said; ask Nate, and others) is:
"Read the license on the top of the file."
it invariably says that you can use the code.
(and besides, if we didn't want people to have it, we wouldn't
make distribute it!)
Greg Hackney
at least 3 similar operating systems, BSDI, 386BSD, and NETBSD.
"I'll take the best parts of your OS and put them in mine". "And I'll
take the best parts of yours and put them in mine". Gee wouldn't it be
great if they all came out identical?
Seriously, it sure makes it doubly difficult for us (Joe End-User) to keep
current with the latest and the greatest. Now we must deal with
multiple resources. I'll probably end up taking the best features of all OS's
and make my own OS. I'll call it VGER, from Star Trek the Motion Picture.
(VGER was a satellite that gleened all knowledge from the universe).
I really wish there was some way you guys could work together somehow
agreeably.. {sigh}. Read it 3 things you never want to see being made:
laws, sausage, and 386 operating systems.
--
Greg Hackney
hac...@moxie.hou.tx.us
(Currently running unofficial max-patchkit 386BSD with BDE's kernel speedups.
Which version tomorow? I seriously don't know).
Elizabeth Haley
work together... If not as a united front, at least as three
recognizable facets of one stone: BSD.
What I am confused about is the intention of each group, save for
BSDI, whose intention, like any business, is to make money. I would
suppose that would mean it's aims are compatibility and expandibility
and most of all stability, so their customers get the most for their
money...
After that, there appears to be *3* groups: 386bsd-Jolitz (Headed by a
pair of Jolitzen :-)), 386bsd-interim (Headed by Nate?) and NetBSD
(Headed by cgd) [note the "Headed by" more means coordinated,
dictionary-flames > /dev/null]
Now, the impression that I am under is that evaluating the various
releases as to "Best" is like comparing golden and red delicious
apples... They're both tasty...
It comes down to this: Where are they going?
Bill and Lynne apparently started this project with an eye towards
experimental work. I like this idea...
However, I was under the impression that NetBSD was to have an eye
toward stability...
As to 386bsd-interim, I think is was a "best-of-both-worlds"
approach...
But then the other day, I thought I saw a post from cgd suggesting
that NetBSD was to be experimental too?
AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Can I suggest something? Could the coordinator of any applicable group
send out a post to this group answering the following questions?
1. What is your package's specific primary goal(s)?
example: improvement to various interface to fit current and near
future technology
2. Current projects that would lead to that goal:
example: "Improved virtual memory system, improved mass media device
interfaces and drivers"
3. What will determine your public interfaces?
example: POSIX
example: We will maintain library compatibility with the current
release of vanilla BSD
example: Our interfaces and formats will change, so stating a standard
is not possible at this time.
4. How often will you make a public release, and in what form?
Example: We will release diffs and patches approximately weekly.
example: We will release the entire distribution and diffs to the last
entire distribution, whenever we have completed work on a major facet
of research.
5. How will you deal with code offerings (patches and new drivers or
utilities)
example: patches will be cursorily tested and then released with the
next patchkit
example: all offerings will be evaluated for their suitability for
inclusion in the next major release... patches used will be attributed
and patches not used will dumped. You may assume patches were not used
because the system in question had changed to the point that the patch
was no longer applicable...
A note to the rest of the world: Keep your judgement to yourself!
Much as many of us like to debate the finer points of any plan, code,
or article, USENET would be a better laboratory is there were more
labor and less oratory.
If you simply must say something about a response to these posts, send
them directly to the posters. I, for one, am tired of seeing posts
where the main point was not to enlighten the readership but to make a
childish public jab.
Thank you for your time.
--
If you love your fun...
|[{(<=--=>)}]|David Charles Todd, tHE mAN wITH tHREE fIRST nAMES|[{(<=--=>)}]|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||hac...@headcheese.daa.uc.edu||||||||||||||||||||||||
...Die for it!
Dan Naas
: The next release of this system is expected to go out to over a million users.
: Please get in touch with us to make sure that your work is the way you want
: two million eyes (give or take a few) to see it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this a fact????
--
|< Dan Naas d...@oea.hobby.nl >|
+-------------------------------+
Guido van Rooij
]William F. Jolitz (wjo...@soda.berkeley.edu) wrote:
]: The next release of this system is expected to go out to over a million users.
]: Please get in touch with us to make sure that your work is the way you want
]: two million eyes (give or take a few) to see it.
] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
] Is this a fact????
Of course it is...it used to be two million and 2 eyes, but unfortunately
that guy stopped with his 386bsd machine.
But seriously, who cares. Obviously there are *lots* of ppl running either
386BSD or NetBSD.
]--
]|< Dan Naas d...@oea.hobby.nl >|
]+-------------------------------+
-Guido
--
Guido van Rooij | Internet: gu...@gvr.win.tue.nl
Bisschopsmolen 16 | Phone: ++31.40.461433
5612 DS Eindhoven | ((12+144+20)+3*sqrt(4))/7
The Netherlands | +(5*11)=9^2+0
James da Silva
>In article <67...@mimsy.umd.edu> j...@cs.umd.edu (James da Silva) writes:
>>
>>You forgot the biggest one:
>>
>> UCB Computer Systems Research Group and their contributors
>
No, the article to which I was responding said this:
> The following is a preliminary list of all contributors to 386BSD over
> the course of it's development and releases (both prior releases and
> the current release).
So, it was _not_ billed as a list of contributors to *THIS RELEASE*, but
rather a list of _all_ contributors to 386bsd. I think CSRG certainly
qualifies.
386bsd is an enhanced version of the BSD 4.3 Networking Release 2, and as
such remains largely the work of CSRG and their contributors.
This needs to be said more often in this forum, I think. Instead you seem
to want to ignore their huge contribution. That's your business, but don't
get mad when others seek to point it out.
>I think the comment in your signature line is most ironic given the context
>of your "response". Cooperation in public access software is at the heart
>of the issue, and is unfortunately sorely misrepresented.
I am sorry that you feel that someone who disagrees with you is stepping on
your toes. I feel that healthy debate is at the center of progress.
Perhaps you have forgotten, or didn't notice, that not too long ago I
defended, in this very forum, your choice to go off and do something new
and innovative with 0.2 rather than work on stable patched releases. So, I
feel I am being consistent with my sig. (naturally :-)
>It shall be "freely modifiable and redistributable", regardless of
>intrigues, "mind games", "ego wars", or "politics". The proof that this is
>so is in your hot little hands. As it will be yet again. And nothing nasty
>can ever take that significant piece of history away, as we move on to the
>future.
I find this to be particularly rich. Let's not forget who put politics at
the very center of the 386bsd project (ref "The Road Less Traveled" and the
uunet incident). You reap what you sow, Bill.
>For those who choose to play other games, I'm sorry, perhaps we will be
>able to cooperate again sometime in the future when it is not colored
>so much by the failures of the "old UNIX gods". Sigh.
I see, you wish to tear down the old Unix gods and replace them with your
own cult of personality? Thanks, but no thanks. The old gods are a lot
more reasonable.
The bottom line, for me at least, is that your work is great and much
appreciated. But your politics are awful.
Mark Sienkiewicz
>"I'll take the best parts of your OS and put them in mine". "And I'll
>take the best parts of yours and put them in mine". Gee wouldn't it be
>great if they all came out identical?
In a word- No. There is a reason they all exist.
BSDI appears to be in it for the money. They also are the only available
option for some applications. If you have $25,000,000 riding on it, would
you use 386bsd or would you buy a commercial product with guarenteed support?
(btw. I had to make this choice just last year. Guess what I picked?)
386bsd is a "research system". Mr. Jolitz (without whom we wouldn't have
the luxury of flaming about this) is very clear that he is interested in
promoting advanced OS implementations. This is an excellent goal, but
it isn't for everybody.
Netbsd is here _now_ and it's been fairly stable for me. It's a fairly
complete system, even including goodies like rpcgen. Sure, people are hacking
around in it too, but I don't have to upgrade it.
>Seriously, it sure makes it doubly difficult for us (Joe End-User) to keep
>current with the latest and the greatest. Now we must deal with
>multiple resources.
You have to make a choice. Of these various systems, which one best matches
up with your needs? Then follow that one, but be aware of what the others
are doing. (btw. why is latest and greatest good?)
I've always wanted a BSD computer for my home, and I'm using Netbsd because
I think it best advances that goal. If 386bsd 0.2 looks good to me (when it
gets here-- right now, I know little about it but it's name), I'll consider
changing over.
>(VGER was a satellite that gleened all knowledge from the universe).
And came back to destroy the earth, right? :) Sorry, I couldn't resist--but
it illustrates that there is a good side and bad side to everything.
Nate Williams
>After that, there appears to be *3* groups: 386bsd-Jolitz (Headed by a
>pair of Jolitzen :-)), 386bsd-interim (Headed by Nate?) and NetBSD
>(Headed by cgd) [note the "Headed by" more means coordinated,
>dictionary-flames > /dev/null]
I can't speak as the 'head' of the interim group, but just as the one
with the biggest mouth/keyboard. But I think I understand what's what.
>Bill and Lynne apparently started this project with an eye towards
>experimental work. I like this idea...
>
>However, I was under the impression that NetBSD was to have an eye
>toward stability...
>
>As to 386bsd-interim, I think is was a "best-of-both-worlds"
>approach...
>Can I suggest something? Could the coordinator of any applicable group
>send out a post to this group answering the following questions?
>
>1. What is your package's specific primary goal(s)?
The main purpose of 386BSD interim was to make an interim/stable release
that helped 'transition' folks to 0.2. With 0.2 looming in the next few
months, we are still planning on doing a stable release in the event
that 0.2 is not as stable as 0.1 + patchkit. There are some minor goals
that the interim release is planning on doing, such as creating a new/
better way to patch the system, and in the process making an easier way
to create patches to the systems for developers that are being worked on
also, and other minor goals such as updating all the old sources
(particularly GNU) that are in the srcdist to newer versions of said
software.
>2. Current projects that would lead to that goal:
All of the current/former patchkit co-ordinators are involved in
the interim group, and as such understand the need and requirements
for stability and a better patchkit mechanism for both users and
developers.
We have a host site that is providing a machine for allowing us
to have one main repository for us to do our owrk on.
Until a recent posting that suggested otherwise, we were under the
impression from conversations with the Jolitz that the interim work was
'blessed' by them. Any of the work that we consider completed has been
given to the Jolitz for inclusion in 0.2. Many of the interim members
speak with the Jolitz on the phone on a consistant basis.
>3. What will determine your public interfaces?
Our kernel interface is determined by 0.1, or by 0.2, whichever is stable.
We do not plan on any large changes in the kernel, since kernel hacking
is Bill's forte.
>4. How often will you make a public release, and in what form?
When it's done. :-)
Whenever we feel that all of the utilities are integrated into the source
tree and tested, and a new patchkit mechanism can be integrated easily
into the current tree, we will release the interim version publically.
>5. How will you deal with code offerings (patches and new drivers or
>utilities)
Since on of the goals of the interim release is to provide an easy way
to integrate patches and new drivers, we are hoping that developers can
provide to the public these fixes/changes in a way that most users can
easily put into their tree. However, we will continue to collect
patches that are posted and bugs that are reported and release 'blessed'
patches that we consider to be stable and tested.
Bottom line is that NetBSD and the interim group share any/all work with
one another, and each group has access to one-anothers source tree, so
most of the user level stuff is totally portable across both of them.
Up to this poing, the Jolitz work is kept under wraps until it a major
version is released, but this is supposed to change in the future.
As far as the kernel stuff goes, most of the non-386 specific code
is totally portable across 386BSD 0.1 and NetBSD, but they NetBSD
have done some kernel changes that make it difficult to take
the code from NetBSD and apply it to 386BSD 0.1. This is not
to say that these changes are not good, but as stated above the
interim group has no goal to do any large kernel changes.
If I were someone walking in today and wanting to use a 386 based
BSD system, I would choose NetBSD. It's easier to install. That
may change in a week, a month, or a year. But, it's being worked
on all the time, and that work is always available, which is a plus
if you're looking for something that always evolving ala Linux style.
0.2 is going to be a lean/mean, but the stability of it is still to be
determined. In retrospect, 0.1 was a big step up from 0.0, so who
knows.
Interim, it's just riding the fence. We hope to have to have the
stability of the current NetBSD sources (the released version doesn't
have much on 386BSD + patchkit 0.2.3, but the current NetBSD source tree
does), plus an easier way of upgrading to new releases and an easier way
to patching. Down-side is you have to wait until we're done.
Theo de Raadt
We haven't received ANYTHING from NETBSD -- not one line of code.
Clearly, it would do you harm to look at what anyone else is working.
We must have our little vacuums, mustn't we?
--
This space not left unintentionally unblank. der...@fsa.ca
Heikki Suonsivu
In article <1tqtlh$i...@umd5.umd.edu> ma...@roissy.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz) writes:
you use 386bsd or would you buy a commercial product with guarenteed
I would select free OS in any circumstances, because I would not be relying
on one company in my support.
You have to make a choice. Of these various systems, which one best
The primary reason to me to use free software is because it is more
efficient, it avoids duplicating work and allows getting out of the maze of
twisty little operating systems, all almost alike. I was shocked when I
saw first messages about the split. First impression was very bad, and it
has not changed after following this discussion for some time.
"everything is fine, they can take our changes to their operating systems
if they wish" sounds extremely selfish to me. Free software lives on
*contribution*, sending diffs to guys coordinating these things. If
someone feels that the coordination doesn't work, he should fix the
coordination, not make his own version of X to mess up the coordination
even more. One, usually very well working fix is to leave the job to
someone who can coordinate with others.
I just hope HURD gets a lift-off. FSF at least operates in a professional
manner and has got one clear goal instead of half a dozen different ones
for people with slightly different kinds of goals (or, types of ego).
-
Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND,
h...@cs.hut.fi +358-0-8031121 riippu SN Email preferable
/G=Heikki/S=Suonsivu/O=hut/OU=cs/PRMD=Inet/ADMD=Fumail/C=FI
Peter da Silva
> "everything is fine, they can take our changes to their operating systems
> if they wish" sounds extremely selfish to me.
That's not what Chris said. He said "we've given this effort to everyone. We
will certainly not deny it to you." Remember the situation between CSRG and
Bill... this isn't like that.
> Free software lives on
> *contribution*, sending diffs to guys coordinating these things.
The only people visibly co-ordinating things are the patchkit guys. Bill's
off in his own space working on what sounds like some really interesting
research... but it's not the sort of high profile co-ordination that this
needs, or like the FSF does. And many if not most of the patchkit guys are
also involved in NetBSD.
> One, usually very well working fix is to leave the job to
> someone who can coordinate with others.
And when that someone doesn't exist?
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Har du kramat din varg idag?
'U`
"Det er min ledsager, det er ikke drikkepenge."