檔案過大！部分文章無法顯示
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>In other words, "take your hazing like a man."
I find it hard to believe that Dan'd say that as that implies that A)
you're sapient (ie a member of the human race), and B) you could possibly
take anything like a man instead of the whimpering little cur you are.
>Sorry, Dan, but Neil's message was the most insidious, nasty sort
>of put-down. You should have the guts to condemn his behavior
>rather than participating in the pecking party.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
>--Brett
>
>At 03:19 AM 1/19/2001, Dan Langille wrote:
>
>>On 19 Jan 2001, at 11:56, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
>>
>>> I know this runs the risk of starting a "Brett vs. World" pile-on, and
>>> it was indeed inspired in part by the behaviour that Brett describes (I
>>> assume in a deprecatory manner), but since we're spouting about social
>>> groups, entrance, hazing, and so forth...
>>
>>Brett, don't be offended. Don't reply. Don't start justifying anything.
>>Just take what Neil has said and digest it. For a few weeks.
>>
>>And please don't reply to me either. Thanks.
>>
>>--
>>Dan Langille
>>pgpkey - finger dan@unixathome.org | http://unixathome.org/finger.php
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
>
--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: galt@inconnu.isu.edu (John Galt), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 15:49:31 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>At 05:06 AM 1/19/2001, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
>> The ping-pong match currently in progress is in regard to certain people who have apparently been around in the FreeBSD community for quite some time, but who have personalities such that many within the community consider them to be, at best eccentric, and at worst complete and total whackos that aught to be locked up.
>
>Wrong. What has happened is that certain people in the group, obsessed with
>power and ego, see certain people with innovative or novel ideas as a threat.
The only obsessive I see around here is you. I also fail to see the
innovation you show. Behavior such as yours is commonly known to every
one who has seen a child bluster until they realize that they aren't going
to get away with it this time.
>They therefore attempt to brand them as whackos, and the more conformist
We really don't need much help branding you as a whacko: you do a DAMN
fine job of it yourself.
>members of the group, and/or those who think they might have something to gain
>by doing so, go along and join the "pile-on."
Again, you ain't seen nothing yet.
>--Brett
>
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
>
--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 15:49:32 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 19 Jan, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 10:10 AM 1/19/2001, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
>>...[Trimmed]...
>
>>Sadly, this point has now gotten lost in the noise that you have generated about yourself.
>
> Funny: looking back at this thread, it looks more as if you and a few others
> have been generating noise about me. When I entered the conversation, I
> merely agreed with a previous poster that the FreeBSD community had problems
> with hazing and shunning. It's ironic that the exchange has become
> self-referential. Add me to your kill file (which, of course, you're free
> to do), and you'll prove that you're part of the same phenomenon.
>
At the risk of hazing :-), I must agree with Brett at this point.
I'm been away for a few days and now this thread has gottten silly.
Next thing you know it will be a vi vs. emacs discussion. ;->
Best Regards,
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 15:51:29 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
This is truly sad. In the message from "John Galt," we see him
resorting to both falsehoods (which don't bear repeating;
suffice it to say that he hasn't said anything significant
that ISN'T false) and veiled threats.
It is this is the sort of person -- not I -- who deserves to
be relegated to the "kill file."
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: kris@FreeBSD.ORG (Kris Kennaway), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 16:33:33 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
--RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 05:21:48PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 3:31 PM +0000 2001/1/19, Nik Clayton wrote:
>=20
> > Manifestly not true. Write new documentation or help improve existing
> > documentation.
>=20
> While it may not be true in theory, in practice I saw quite a bit=20
> of the "if you can't write code then you're useless" attitude.
s/write code/contribute/
That's all it is, and if you think about it, it's basically a truism.
Kris
--RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6aN12Wry0BWjoQKURAgKZAKCb81R61jfMhwmujLyWzHQil45YbACg2SxI
4hGgMhupYEFqldvLBACagoc=
=+Y5u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--RASg3xLB4tUQ4RcS--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: rmk@toad.rmkhome.com (Rick Kelly), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 16:36:45 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
opentrax@email.com said:
>Next thing you know it will be a vi vs. emacs discussion. ;->
I used to work with a guy who started hacking on UNIX sometime back
in the mid-seventies. All the way up until 1990 he used ed. Nothing
but ed. He never thought about using any other editor. In 1990 we
convinced him to try vi. He thought it was great! Imagine, a full
screen editor...
--
Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.com www.rmkhome.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: galt@inconnu.isu.edu (John Galt), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 18:15:57 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>At 10:10 AM 1/19/2001, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
>> Right, everyone who opposes or disagrees with Brett is inherently evil. I think we've heard this somewhere before.
>
>Yes. It's a statement commonly used to brand someone you are attacking
>as "delusional" (as you do later in your message).
Well, what's sauce for the goose...
>[Snip]
>
>> My personal reason for opposing you most of the time is that I find you an excessively annoying and tedious person to deal with,
>
>I'm terribly sorry if you find it "annoying and tedious" that I will
>not sit idly by while others attack me. I think it's my right to respond.
YOU attacked ME, and I only responded after a couple of months of allowing
you unhindered rein to lie, cheat, and steal, so yes, >I< DO expect you to
shut up and not respond.
>[Snip]
>
>> And with that, I think I'm about ready to killfile you, too. I believe that I am a rather tolerant person, and I've only ever killfiled two other people in my whole life with Unix (dating back to 1984), but there's only so much from you that even I am willing to put up with.
>
>Another common element of the piling-on and shunning that occurs
>frequently here: a dramatic declration that the attacker is adding the
>person being attacked to his kill file (and an implicit request to others
>to do likewise).
Funny, the only thing that I see resembling a pile around here is you, you
steaming pile of maggot-ridden faeces.
>> The worst of it is, in this particular case I think you have a valid point about there being a certain atmosphere of hazing with regards to the FreeBSD project -- maybe not from the committers themselves, but certainly by other people who are on the mailing lists and presumably have been on the mailing lists for some time.
>
>And yet you're not introspective enough to recognize that you're
>participating in it.
Perhaps he is, perhaps I am, but I can pretty much guarantee he and I have
nothing in common except the fact that both of us despise you.
>>Sadly, this point has now gotten lost in the noise that you have generated about yourself.
>
>Funny: looking back at this thread, it looks more as if you and a few others
>have been generating noise about me. When I entered the conversation, I
>merely agreed with a previous poster that the FreeBSD community had problems
>with hazing and shunning. It's ironic that the exchange has become
>self-referential. Add me to your kill file (which, of course, you're free
>to do), and you'll prove that you're part of the same phenomenon.
The noise generated about you is mostly due to your own actions. You made
the bed, and I hope that you like being adopted. I for one will NOT shun
you: I have better things to do with you, like adopt you as my own
personal flamebait.
>--Brett
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
>
--
<a mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu>Who is John Galt?</a>
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: galt@inconnu.isu.edu (John Galt), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 18:20:51 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>At 10:52 AM 1/19/2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>>Think "blanket party", as punishment for a members violation
>>of the rules established by the controlling membership.
>
>I haven't encountered the term "blanket party" since I read
>the book Don Quixote years ago. What is a good definition of
It's an old .mil term: it means that when a platoon is tired of taking the
punishment for one soldier's actions, the platoon eventually picks one
night and has a half dozen people trap the victim under their blankets
whille the rest of the platoon beats the tar out of said individual: see
"full metal jacket" for a depiction of one.
>it? (I'd assumed, from context, that it involved public
>humiliation and/or suppression of an individual.) And what
>rule (or rules) set by TPTB do you think I have violated?
The unwritten rule of not pissing off people like me.
>--Brett
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
>
--
<a mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu>Who is John Galt?</a>
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: paul@whooppee.com (Paul Goyette), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 18:23:40 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Can we please remove the netbsd-advocacy list from any continuation of
this thread? We don't need this, and it definitely is not in any way
promoting or advocating the use of NetBSD, other than possibly sending
some FreeBSD folks our way.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, John Galt wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> >At 10:10 AM 1/19/2001, Brad Knowles wrote:
> >
> >> Right, everyone who opposes or disagrees with Brett is inherently evil. I think we've heard this somewhere before.
> >
> >Yes. It's a statement commonly used to brand someone you are attacking
> >as "delusional" (as you do later in your message).
>
> Well, what's sauce for the goose...
>
>
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> My personal reason for opposing you most of the time is that I find you an excessively annoying and tedious person to deal with,
> >
> >I'm terribly sorry if you find it "annoying and tedious" that I will
> >not sit idly by while others attack me. I think it's my right to respond.
>
> YOU attacked ME, and I only responded after a couple of months of allowing
> you unhindered rein to lie, cheat, and steal, so yes, >I< DO expect you to
> shut up and not respond.
>
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> And with that, I think I'm about ready to killfile you, too. I believe that I am a rather tolerant person, and I've only ever killfiled two other people in my whole life with Unix (dating back to 1984), but there's only so much from you that even I am willing to put up with.
> >
> >Another common element of the piling-on and shunning that occurs
> >frequently here: a dramatic declration that the attacker is adding the
> >person being attacked to his kill file (and an implicit request to others
> >to do likewise).
>
> Funny, the only thing that I see resembling a pile around here is you, you
> steaming pile of maggot-ridden faeces.
>
>
> >> The worst of it is, in this particular case I think you have a valid point about there being a certain atmosphere of hazing with regards to the FreeBSD project -- maybe not from the committers themselves, but certainly by other people who are on the mailing lists and presumably have been on the mailing lists for some time.
> >
> >And yet you're not introspective enough to recognize that you're
> >participating in it.
>
> Perhaps he is, perhaps I am, but I can pretty much guarantee he and I have
> nothing in common except the fact that both of us despise you.
>
> >>Sadly, this point has now gotten lost in the noise that you have generated about yourself.
> >
> >Funny: looking back at this thread, it looks more as if you and a few others
> >have been generating noise about me. When I entered the conversation, I
> >merely agreed with a previous poster that the FreeBSD community had problems
> >with hazing and shunning. It's ironic that the exchange has become
> >self-referential. Add me to your kill file (which, of course, you're free
> >to do), and you'll prove that you're part of the same phenomenon.
>
> The noise generated about you is mostly due to your own actions. You made
> the bed, and I hope that you like being adopted. I for one will NOT shun
> you: I have better things to do with you, like adopt you as my own
> personal flamebait.
>
>
> >--Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> >with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> >
>
> --
> <a mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu>Who is John Galt?</a>
>
> Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
> -- Ferenc Mantfeld
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette | PGP DSS Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| Network Engineer, | BCD7 5301 9513 58A6 0DBC | paul@whooppee.com |
| Unix hacker, | 91EB ADB1 A280 3B79 9221 | pgoyette@juniper.net |
| & World Cruiser | | paul@mv-aftereight.com |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: dot@dotat.at (Tony Finch), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 18:42:47 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>Technically, FreeBSD is a stage 2 "cult", on the cusp of achieving
>legitimacy as a "religion" (I'll keep that analogy, since it's as apt
>as any). It's actually the first Open Source project that I'm aware
>of to reach this stage (it is at least the most visible to do so),
>and that makes it a very interesting subject of study.
AFAIAA Apache has never been a cult, since right from the start it was
developed by a group of equals. Admittedly the number of developers is
tiny compared to FreeBSD so it doesn't have the same scaling problems,
but it has remained reasonably stable over the last five years and has
gracefully handled a good deal of churn in the development team.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
"And remember my friend, future events such
as these will affect you in the future."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: galt@inconnu.isu.edu (John Galt), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 18:44:07 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>This is truly sad. In the message from "John Galt," we see him
Hey! The first time I managed to get a proper noun in his rants about me!
What's the matter, run out of pronouns? Or did you just learn how to read
four letter words?
>resorting to both falsehoods (which don't bear repeating;
Falsehoods? Read the Fucking archives, lackwit.
>suffice it to say that he hasn't said anything significant
>that ISN'T false) and veiled threats.
Veiled? If you say so: I thought I was being rather blunt. Okay, for the
cerebrally challenged like Brett, I shall restate it in terms even the
most pathetic excuse for a life form should understand (this means you
Brett): I'm going to adopt you, flamebait. Every time you say something
deserving of a flame, you need not worry about somebody missing it, as I
will already have the flame in route to you--even when you don't say
something deserving of a flame, you'll get one just because I'm just that
kind of person.
>It is this is the sort of person -- not I -- who deserves to
>be relegated to the "kill file."
Go ahead: I'll enjoy seeing the shoe on the other foot. You have weighed
in on three threads involving my killfile message, while you had every
indication that I could not have responded, since you were apparently in
my killfile. You had no qualms about slandering me behind my back, let's
see if you really trust that I have any.
>--Brett
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
>
--
<a mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu>Who is John Galt?</a>
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 21:46:07 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 11:58 AM 1/19/2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>Brett is a nice example here; if I had to psycho-analyze him
>(which I don't have the credentials to do, despite having helped
>several people study for a Master's in Psychiatric Socialwork,
>and having read everything they've read), I'd say that Brett is
>still here because FreeBSD is the closest social organization to
>what he wants to have come into existance. He can agree or he
>can disagree, that's only my opinion right now, with the evidence
>at hand.
Actually, there are other social structures that I'd prefer for an
open source operating system project. I work with the BSDs because
they are technologically sophisticated and their licensing (unlike
that of Linux) is ethical. I am greatly concerned about the BSDs'
reliance on the GNU toolchain and (in some cases) on GNU userland
utilities. FreeBSD uses the most GNU software, and this disturbs
me because it puts it most at the mercy of an organization whose
agenda requires the ultimate destruction of all alternatives --
including all of the BSDs.
I work with FreeBSD a fair amount of the time because it has
features that I often need. (When size or simplicity is an issue,
I use NetBSD or OpenBSD, because they remain closer to the
KISS philosophy that was prevalent at CSRG. Also, I can
squash their kernels and userlands into a smaller space, which
is helpful for some of the embedded applications I do.) I
monitor these lists because I need to keep informed about
features, security advisories, etc. I participate in the
conversations here because I can sometimes be helpful to fellow
users and administrators and often learn things. The pissing
contests I endure on the lists are their biggest drawback.
I'd like to influence the future direction and philosophy
of FreeBSD, but even simple and seemingly obvious suggestions
in these areas seem to be met with strong resistance. The
"leaders" are so territorial and resistant to outside
suggestions that they'll reject ideas that come from outside
the core group -- and, in particular, from me because
I've been labeled as "dangerous." So, my best success has come
when I've been able to get one of those leaders to say, "That's
a great idea; glad I thought of it!" Unfortunately, the kinds
of ideas that can be introduced via this technique are
limited. The absolute WORST way to bring up an idea, I've
found, is on the mailing lists -- which is a shame because
they're the community's primary avenues of communication.
I'd like to be able to make suggestions directly rather than
being forced to adopt "stealth" techniques, but it doesn't
seem possible with the current social climate or leadership.
The egos are too strong and the combative nature of some of
the key players prevents it. I hold out a faint hope that
there could be open, honest, relaxed, and less ego-laden
discussion, but sure don't see it on the horizon anytime soon,
at least for FreeBSD.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 21:51:49 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Please keep at it! You're making me look like an angel, even
in the eyes of those who demonized me before.
--Brett
At 07:43 PM 1/19/2001, John Galt wrote:
>Veiled? If you say so: I thought I was being rather blunt. Okay, for the
>cerebrally challenged like Brett, I shall restate it in terms even the
>most pathetic excuse for a life form should understand (this means you
>Brett): I'm going to adopt you, flamebait. Every time you say something
>deserving of a flame, you need not worry about somebody missing it, as I
>will already have the flame in route to you--even when you don't say
>something deserving of a flame, you'll get one just because I'm just that
>kind of person.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: galt@inconnu.isu.edu (John Galt), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 21:56:18 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>Please keep at it! You're making me look like an angel, even
>in the eyes of those who demonized me before.
Whom the gods make great, first they destroy, so the converse must be
true. Enjoy your "looking like an angel" for it will be transient.
>--Brett
>
>At 07:43 PM 1/19/2001, John Galt wrote:
>
>>Veiled? If you say so: I thought I was being rather blunt. Okay, for the
>>cerebrally challenged like Brett, I shall restate it in terms even the
>>most pathetic excuse for a life form should understand (this means you
>>Brett): I'm going to adopt you, flamebait. Every time you say something
>>deserving of a flame, you need not worry about somebody missing it, as I
>>will already have the flame in route to you--even when you don't say
>>something deserving of a flame, you'll get one just because I'm just that
>>kind of person.
>
>
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: galt@inconnu.isu.edu (John Galt), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 22:24:08 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
You don't listen when requested to trim headers, do you? And ctl-k just
taken out of the ASCII spec too... What a maroon!
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
>At 11:58 AM 1/19/2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
>>Brett is a nice example here; if I had to psycho-analyze him
>>(which I don't have the credentials to do, despite having helped
>>several people study for a Master's in Psychiatric Socialwork,
>>and having read everything they've read), I'd say that Brett is
>>still here because FreeBSD is the closest social organization to
>>what he wants to have come into existance. He can agree or he
>>can disagree, that's only my opinion right now, with the evidence
>>at hand.
>
>Actually, there are other social structures that I'd prefer for an
Yeah, there are others that you'd prefer, but those that you prefer AND
that will take you must number rather few, especially since I have my
doubts as to any society that doesn't have second thoughts about including
you after finding out about you.
>open source operating system project. I work with the BSDs because
>they are technologically sophisticated and their licensing (unlike
>that of Linux) is ethical. I am greatly concerned about the BSDs'
I need to get you and Raul Miller in the same room one of these days: he's
rabid GPL, you're rabid BSDL. Hopefully the two of you will cancel each
other out and the rest of us can get on with a happier life...
>reliance on the GNU toolchain and (in some cases) on GNU userland
>utilities. FreeBSD uses the most GNU software, and this disturbs
>me because it puts it most at the mercy of an organization whose
>agenda requires the ultimate destruction of all alternatives --
>including all of the BSDs.
>
>I work with FreeBSD a fair amount of the time because it has
>features that I often need. (When size or simplicity is an issue,
>I use NetBSD or OpenBSD, because they remain closer to the
>KISS philosophy that was prevalent at CSRG. Also, I can
>squash their kernels and userlands into a smaller space, which
>is helpful for some of the embedded applications I do.) I
>monitor these lists because I need to keep informed about
>features, security advisories, etc. I participate in the
>conversations here because I can sometimes be helpful to fellow
>users and administrators and often learn things. The pissing
>contests I endure on the lists are their biggest drawback.
You want to stop pissing contests, put away your pathetic excuse for a
penis.
>I'd like to influence the future direction and philosophy
TRUST me, you do more to influence the direction of FreeBSD than any ten
others. When you espouse something, people avoid it like the plague.
>of FreeBSD, but even simple and seemingly obvious suggestions
>in these areas seem to be met with strong resistance. The
>"leaders" are so territorial and resistant to outside
>suggestions that they'll reject ideas that come from outside
>the core group -- and, in particular, from me because
>I've been labeled as "dangerous." So, my best success has come
Okay, I'll help here: I dub thee "dangerously stupid".
>when I've been able to get one of those leaders to say, "That's
>a great idea; glad I thought of it!" Unfortunately, the kinds
ROFLMAO! Stop, you're KILLING me!
>of ideas that can be introduced via this technique are
>limited. The absolute WORST way to bring up an idea, I've
Other than the header "From: Brett Glass <whatever it is this week>"?
>found, is on the mailing lists -- which is a shame because
>they're the community's primary avenues of communication.
>
>I'd like to be able to make suggestions directly rather than
>being forced to adopt "stealth" techniques, but it doesn't
>seem possible with the current social climate or leadership.
....or the current suggester...
>The egos are too strong and the combative nature of some of
>the key players prevents it. I hold out a faint hope that
>there could be open, honest, relaxed, and less ego-laden
The open part's easy: it's already there. The honest part is kind of
ruled out when you're one of the participants. The relaxed part is
also kind of out around you: you are probably the LEAST relaxing person I
have had the misfortune to encounter. As for "less ego-laden": yeah,
riiiight. Your ego expands to exceed the capacity of any given vessel
rather quickly.
>discussion, but sure don't see it on the horizon anytime soon,
>at least for FreeBSD.
>
>--Brett
>
>
>
>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
>with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
>
--
I can be immature if I want to, because I'm mature enough to make my own
decisions.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: dan@langille.org ("Dan Langille"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 01:06:06 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 19 Jan 2001, at 9:27, Brett Glass wrote:
> In other words, "take your hazing like a man."
No. I don't consider this hazing. You're the one that brought up
yourself as a hazing recipient.
> Sorry, Dan, but Neil's message was the most insidious, nasty sort
> of put-down.
But Brett, you missed the points.... Never mind. It's all been said before
anyways. And no, Neil's message was very succient. The Galt
message falls in the category you mentioned. Not Neil's message.
> You should have the guts to condemn his behavior
> rather than participating in the pecking party.
I gave you some recommendations, which you chose to ignore.
No problem with that. My advice is nothing special.
[snip]
> >And please don't reply to me either. Thanks.
I guess that request was useless. Please, do not CC me on this
thread. Don't even bother to reply to me. I think I've made my point.
--
Dan Langille
pgpkey - finger dan@unixathome.org | http://unixathome.org/finger.php
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 04:07:12 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 02:05 AM 1/20/2001, Dan Langille wrote:
>I guess that request was useless. Please, do not CC me on this
>thread. Don't even bother to reply to me. I think I've made my point.
"Don't even bother to reply to me" == "I am now going to insult you,
and do not want you to refute what I say. So, I'll ask you not to
reply so that if you do, I can label you as rude."
Sigh.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: crh@outpost.co.nz (Craig Harding), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 05:29:57 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
(bugger, replied to Brett instead of -chat)
Brett Glass wrote:
> At 02:05 AM 1/20/2001, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> >I guess that request was useless. Please, do not CC me on this
> >thread. Don't even bother to reply to me. I think I've made my point.
>
> "Don't even bother to reply to me" == "I am now going to insult you,
> and do not want you to refute what I say. So, I'll ask you not to
> reply so that if you do, I can label you as rude."
Uh Brett, which part of Dan's message was insulting you? I can't find
it. I've attached the entire post below for your reference.
-- C.
---cut here---8<---cut here---
On 19 Jan 2001, at 9:27, Brett Glass wrote:
> In other words, "take your hazing like a man."
No. I don't consider this hazing. You're the one that brought up
yourself as a hazing recipient.
> Sorry, Dan, but Neil's message was the most insidious, nasty sort
> of put-down.
But Brett, you missed the points.... Never mind. It's all been said
before
anyways. And no, Neil's message was very succient. The Galt
message falls in the category you mentioned. Not Neil's message.
> You should have the guts to condemn his behavior
> rather than participating in the pecking party.
I gave you some recommendations, which you chose to ignore.
No problem with that. My advice is nothing special.
[snip]
> >And please don't reply to me either. Thanks.
I guess that request was useless. Please, do not CC me on this
thread. Don't even bother to reply to me. I think I've made my point.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 08:21:24 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 19 Jan, John Baldwin wrote:
> [ cc's trimeed, no need to spam NetBSD with this :) ]
>
> On 19-Jan-01 opentrax@email.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 Jan, Nik Clayton wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:06:49PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
>>>> Speaking as a relative newcomer to FreeBSD, I definitely feel
>>>> that there is a certain amount of hazing that goes on. If you want
>>>> to contribute to the project, you're expected to write code.
>>>
>>> Manifestly not true. Write new documentation or help improve existing
>>> documentation.
>>>
>>> That's probably the fastest track to getting a commit bit as well.
>>>
>> I have to disagree Nik.
>
> Actually JMJ, I originally got my commit bit to do documentation stuff by
> converting the Committer's Guide from plain text to DocBook with appropriate
> markup. I then meandered my way over into the src/ tree where I now spend my
> time engaged in SMP hacking. I still like to do docs, I've written several
> kernel manpages and FAQ entries. The Documentation Project is certainly an
> easy way to get involved with the project.
>
I don't believe you comments do anything to dispell(sp?) the comments
made by Terry. At best, you comments support his position.
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: dan@langille.org ("Dan Langille"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 09:02:04 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 20 Jan 2001, at 5:06, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 02:05 AM 1/20/2001, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> >I guess that request was useless. Please, do not CC me on this
> >thread. Don't even bother to reply to me. I think I've made my point.
>
> "Don't even bother to reply to me" == "I am now going to insult you,
> and do not want you to refute what I say. So, I'll ask you not to
> reply so that if you do, I can label you as rude."
Fucking hell Brett! I did not insult you. Now fuck off. Good bye.
--
Dan Langille
pgpkey - finger dan@unixathome.org | http://unixathome.org/finger.php
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: res03db2@gte.net (Robert Clark), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 16:26:39 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 09:51:56PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 11:58 AM 1/19/2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> >Brett is a nice example here; if I had to psycho-analyze him
> >(which I don't have the credentials to do, despite having helped
> >several people study for a Master's in Psychiatric Socialwork,
> >and having read everything they've read), I'd say that Brett is
> >still here because FreeBSD is the closest social organization to
> >what he wants to have come into existance. He can agree or he
> >can disagree, that's only my opinion right now, with the evidence
> >at hand.
>
> Actually, there are other social structures that I'd prefer for an
> open source operating system project.
Start a project. (I intend to.) The evolution of social
structures doesn't have to end here.
The value of opensource software doen't have to end with operating
systems.
I work with the BSDs because
> they are technologically sophisticated and their licensing (unlike
> that of Linux) is ethical. I am greatly concerned about the BSDs'
> reliance on the GNU toolchain and (in some cases) on GNU userland
> utilities. FreeBSD uses the most GNU software, and this disturbs
> me because it puts it most at the mercy of an organization whose
> agenda requires the ultimate destruction of all alternatives --
> including all of the BSDs.
How long does it take for something as big as FreeBSD to make
even a small course change? Big ships have big rudders. Steady,
long term, positive interaction with the project may cause
and outcome you like. Maybe not.
In regard to GNU;
The processor is closed source. The operating system is open
source. The line between has to be drawn somewhere?
In a way, I'm supprised that the instruction set isn't licensed.
>
> I work with FreeBSD a fair amount of the time because it has
> features that I often need. (When size or simplicity is an issue,
> I use NetBSD or OpenBSD, because they remain closer to the
> KISS philosophy that was prevalent at CSRG. Also, I can
> squash their kernels and userlands into a smaller space, which
> is helpful for some of the embedded applications I do.) I
> monitor these lists because I need to keep informed about
> features, security advisories, etc. I participate in the
> conversations here because I can sometimes be helpful to fellow
> users and administrators and often learn things. The pissing
> contests I endure on the lists are their biggest drawback.
You learn from people, the products of people, or from the
pissing match. What else is there?
>
> I'd like to influence the future direction and philosophy
> of FreeBSD, but even simple and seemingly obvious suggestions
> in these areas seem to be met with strong resistance. The
> "leaders" are so territorial and resistant to outside
> suggestions that they'll reject ideas that come from outside
> the core group -- and, in particular, from me because
> I've been labeled as "dangerous."
In this context, how dangerous can an idea be? I imagine
that depends on the idea, and the target audience for the
idea.
So, my best success has come
> when I've been able to get one of those leaders to say, "That's
> a great idea; glad I thought of it!" Unfortunately, the kinds
> of ideas that can be introduced via this technique are
> limited. The absolute WORST way to bring up an idea, I've
> found, is on the mailing lists -- which is a shame because
> they're the community's primary avenues of communication.
>
Maybe being a martyr is your cause? Maybe the reality of the
situation can't be aproximated in email?
Maybe you suffer from the same issues as the "leaders"?
Do I mean to suggest these things? No, they could all apply to
any of us. It just seems that what people say differs more
than what people *are*.
If this project is different things to different people,
it only follows that what people say will never agree.
> I'd like to be able to make suggestions directly rather than
> being forced to adopt "stealth" techniques, but it doesn't
> seem possible with the current social climate or leadership.
> The egos are too strong and the combative nature of some of
> the key players prevents it. I hold out a faint hope that
> there could be open, honest, relaxed, and less ego-laden
> discussion, but sure don't see it on the horizon anytime soon,
> at least for FreeBSD.
Can a person offer a suggestion, without actually hoping that
the suggestion be taken?
Doesn't a unsolicited suggestion then always seek to change
someone's will? To force someone's hand?
>
> --Brett
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Thanks for the chance to interact, if even in email, [RC]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG (John Baldwin), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 16:42:59 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 20-Jan-01 opentrax@email.com wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Jan, John Baldwin wrote:
>> [ cc's trimeed, no need to spam NetBSD with this :) ]
>>
>> On 19-Jan-01 opentrax@email.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 19 Jan, Nik Clayton wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 01:06:49PM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
>>>>> Speaking as a relative newcomer to FreeBSD, I definitely feel
>>>>> that there is a certain amount of hazing that goes on. If you want
>>>>> to contribute to the project, you're expected to write code.
>>>>
>>>> Manifestly not true. Write new documentation or help improve existing
>>>> documentation.
>>>>
>>>> That's probably the fastest track to getting a commit bit as well.
>>>>
>>> I have to disagree Nik.
>>
>> Actually JMJ, I originally got my commit bit to do documentation stuff by
>> converting the Committer's Guide from plain text to DocBook with appropriate
>> markup. I then meandered my way over into the src/ tree where I now spend
>> my
>> time engaged in SMP hacking. I still like to do docs, I've written several
>> kernel manpages and FAQ entries. The Documentation Project is certainly an
>> easy way to get involved with the project.
>>
> I don't believe you comments do anything to dispell(sp?) the comments
> made by Terry. At best, you comments support his position.
Huh? You mean that the fact that I couldn't just walk in and demand a commit
bit, but that I had to demonstrate some base level of competency first is
hazing? Hmm. How do you decide which people to hire then? Does it involve
drawing names out of a hat?
> Jessem.
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: ragnar@sysabend.org (Jamie Bowden), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 17:19:33 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, John Galt wrote:
:On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
:
:>Please keep at it! You're making me look like an angel, even
:>in the eyes of those who demonized me before.
:
:Whom the gods make great, first they destroy, so the converse must be
:true. Enjoy your "looking like an angel" for it will be transient.
You'll be the one procmailed to /dev/null if you carry through. Get a
real name, use it, don't be an asshole. Bret's inflammatory, but he's not
malicious for it's own sake.
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <alaric@alaric.org.uk>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brad.knowles@skynet.be (Brad Knowles), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 19:07:53 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 4:36 PM -0800 2001/1/19, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> s/write code/contribute/
>
> That's all it is, and if you think about it, it's basically a truism.
There are plenty of ways to contribute that do not require
writing code, however my personal experience is that those other
methods do not tend to be valued by many members of the FreeBSD
community.
Your experience may be different, but that doesn't change mine.
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
======================================================================
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brad.knowles@skynet.be (Brad Knowles), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 19:07:56 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 5:52 PM +0000 2001/1/19, Terry Lambert wrote:
> ...In other words, there's really no way to "ban" someone
> who is really determined, and willing to out-spend you,
> unless you are willing to cut your own throat. The Internet
> has no "prison" equivalent.
Even in the real world, a sufficiently determined person can wind
up performing most any crime they like. Locking them up is not
enough -- the only way to permanently stop them is to end their life.
In this respect, the 'net really isn't any different, although it
does probably make it easier to succeed in by-passing the control
mechanisms.
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
======================================================================
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: dan@langille.org (Dan Langille), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sun Jan 21 19:45:01 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
> At 4:36 PM -0800 2001/1/19, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > s/write code/contribute/
> >
> > That's all it is, and if you think about it, it's basically a truism.
>
> There are plenty of ways to contribute that do not require
> writing code, however my personal experience is that those other
> methods do not tend to be valued by many members of the FreeBSD
> community.
The lack of *perceived* value may be related to the people who see your
contributions. I say perceived because your contributions may well have
been valued, it's just that you didn't get enough positive feedback.
The types of things people value vary greatly. One coder may
greater appreciate the work of another coder because it lets them
accomplish something. Personally, the type of work I appreciate most
is that of the port maintainers and of the documentation project? Why?
Because the OS isn't much use if you can't get the apps you want. And
documentation is what lets you use the OS in the first place.
These non-code contributions are very much appreciated. It's just
that the people who appreciate it are not in the vocal sector of the
community. For example, I know that my work on FreeBSD Diary is appreciated
by the readers. Why? Because the number of feedback comments I get saying
"thanks, your site helped me a lot!".
> Your experience may be different, but that doesn't change mine.
It's unfortunate that your experience didn't include any appreciation
of your work. If you like the type of work you did, keep doing it. If
you dislike the lack of displayed appreciation, try another type of
contribution. But don't give up.
For the lurkers and non-coders out there: this article generated the most
amount of feedback. It shows a few easy ways you can contribute
regardless of your skill level.
<http://freebsddiary.org/advocacy.html>
Keep
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
I was sitting here reading the histories of FreeBSD and NetBSD and trying
to make sense of it all. Both split off from 386BSD in 1993. That much
everyone seems to agree on. As near as I can tell, FreeBSD split in
mid-1993 and NetBSD in earler 1993. But why didn't the FreeBSD group just
become a 385-militant wing of the NetBSD development effort? Why was a
different project needed?
Thank you, J~
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: fran@reyes.somos.net (Francisco Reyes), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 10:06:42 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, James Howard wrote:
> I was sitting here reading the histories of FreeBSD and NetBSD and trying
> to make sense of it all. Both split off from 386BSD in 1993. That much
> everyone seems to agree on. As near as I can tell, FreeBSD split in
> mid-1993 and NetBSD in earler 1993. But why didn't the FreeBSD group just
> become a 385-militant wing of the NetBSD development effort? Why was a
> different project needed?
Politics, different points of views, big egos...(one, some or all of
those) The same goes for why OpenBSD came to be and why there are still 3
BSDs.
What I never understood is why "officially" they don't coperate more with
each other. I believe that unoficially some of the developers
work/help/contribute to more than one of the BSDs.
Does anyone know what ever happened to the push for an unified port
system?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: nik@FreeBSD.ORG (Nik Clayton), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 10:22:59 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:36:29PM -0500, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, James Howard wrote:
>
> > I was sitting here reading the histories of FreeBSD and NetBSD and trying
> > to make sense of it all. Both split off from 386BSD in 1993. That much
> > everyone seems to agree on. As near as I can tell, FreeBSD split in
> > mid-1993 and NetBSD in earler 1993. But why didn't the FreeBSD group just
> > become a 385-militant wing of the NetBSD development effort? Why was a
> > different project needed?
>
> Politics, different points of views, big egos...(one, some or all of
> those) The same goes for why OpenBSD came to be and why there are still 3
> BSDs.
>
> What I never understood is why "officially" they don't coperate more with
> each other. I believe that unoficially some of the developers
> work/help/contribute to more than one of the BSDs.
Lots of the developers work on more than one BSD. What would you like
to see in order to make that 'official'?
> Does anyone know what ever happened to the push for an unified port
> system?
http://www.openpackages.org/
N
--
Internet connection, $19.95 a month. Computer, $799.95. Modem, $149.95.
Telephone line, $24.95 a month. Software, free. USENET transmission,
hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Thinking before posting, priceless.
Somethings in life you can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard.
-- Graham Reed, in the Scary Devil Monastery
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 10:43:00 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 17 Jan, James Howard wrote:
> I was sitting here reading the histories of FreeBSD and NetBSD and trying
> to make sense of it all. Both split off from 386BSD in 1993. That much
> everyone seems to agree on. As near as I can tell, FreeBSD split in
> mid-1993 and NetBSD in earler 1993. But why didn't the FreeBSD group just
> become a 385-militant wing of the NetBSD development effort? Why was a
> different project needed?
>
Actually at that time NetBSD was the militant wing.
386BSD, and I believe I was the last hold out for it, biggest problem
was the authors themselves. While the are extremely talented people
the times were filled with much mistrust.
Some facts:
An offical patch-kit run by many of the members of FreeBSD was the
pre-cursor to both FreeBSD and NetBSD, as well as OpenBSD.
At one time everyone worked on 386BSD, but again, as you'll
find on many history articles the authors were very un-responsive.
When NetBSD broke off it was considered militant. The was partly
because Chris Demitrious did not get along with people. Other people
were upset becuase their patches (submissions to the patchkit effort)
were not accept. There was much ill feelings. Chris is now a different
person, I think he learned things. Those other peoples are now
the core team at NetBSD.
Theo de Raadt was the most militant, hence the hard-line at OpenBSD.
NetBSD people, as they tell it, just want Theo to not yell at people.
He considered it censorship (see recent DDJ article).
Many other fact worked their way in. Aside from the stuff I've
mentioned, there is still lots of ill feelings towards the authors
of 386BSD. Another factor is BSDi. Many individual (most not now
at BSDi) actually started rumors and incited mis-trust.
AT&T also added pressure at the time by claiming Unix was a
National (treasure??) and therefore should be consider un-exportable.
This in a similar way as we have controls over munitions.
This notion was defeated in the courts, but by an out-of-court
settlement. Part of the settlement did not allow anyone
to talk about it.
AT&T sold Unix to Novell for $1 Billion dollars in the middle
of this and in reallity it was Novell that settled. BTW, this
$1B almost bankrupted(sp?) Novell.
There is more to this story, but let's wait for the denials
to come in first. :-)
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: howardjp@well.com (James Howard), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 11:41:23 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 opentrax@email.com wrote:
> Many other fact worked their way in. Aside from the stuff I've
> mentioned, there is still lots of ill feelings towards the authors
> of 386BSD. Another factor is BSDi. Many individual (most not now
> at BSDi) actually started rumors and incited mis-trust.
(Brief background, I am bored. I noticed a trend that everytime someone
mentions BSD on Slashdot, someone asks what the differences are between
the BSDs, aside from hype. I am trying to resolve that question.)
So at this point, I am trying to figure out why NetBSD and FreeBSD didn't
pool resource early. I know why OpenBSD exists so that is not a question
(though great quotes are appreciated:).
Why did Jolitz pull support from 386BSD? And what was BSDi doing at the
time?
Jamie
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: david@fundy.ca (David Maxwell), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 11:54:35 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 11:40:57AM -0800, James Howard wrote:
> (Brief background, I am bored. I noticed a trend that everytime someone
> mentions BSD on Slashdot, someone asks what the differences are between
> the BSDs, aside from hype. I am trying to resolve that question.)
>
> So at this point, I am trying to figure out why NetBSD and FreeBSD didn't
> pool resource early.
I wasn't involved - here's my understanding from the discussions I've
seen.
Well, for the Kernel, that woudn't have been possible - FreeBSD didn't
want to be slowed down by doing all that 'portability' stuff, and NetBSD
wasn't willing to be Intel only.
In userland, there probably could have been (and still could be?) more
co-development and sharing.
> Why did Jolitz pull support from 386BSD? And what was BSDi doing at the
> time?
It was a project to do the port, it was never something he had intended
to maintain - he didn't 'pull' support, he just refused to get suckered
into ongoing work he didn't want to do.
BSDi was fighting the USL lawsuit I believe.
--
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like
mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear,
but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live
in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: pfg1+@pitt.edu ("Pedro F. Giffuni"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 12:29:37 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
I couldn't resist adding some FUD to all this :).
James Howard wrote:
>
....
>
> So at this point, I am trying to figure out why NetBSD and FreeBSD didn't
> pool resource early. I know why OpenBSD exists so that is not a question
> (though great quotes are appreciated:).
>
Because we were trying to implement the "multipath optimization
method" (AKA MOM). This method, coldly thought up by the early BSD
gurus after consultations with the Usenet oracle, gave us the option
to explore different optimization and CI paths without the bothersome
requirement of sharing the same tree. The methods of crosspolination
and evolution by friendly competition were developed simultaneously...
> Why did Jolitz pull support from 386BSD? And what was BSDi doing at the
> time?
>
There are three possible explanations;
1) The guy was a genius, he surely had more important things to do
(for humanity not just for hackers !).
2) He was busy reading a joke list from some kid in Finland building a
Toy OS.
3) There's the legend that there are some secret tapes with his last
developments waiting to be released until the world were "ready".
BSDi was debugging Jolitz' code and pondering how to take over the
world...They sued AT&T first you know... they were also setting out
the last details of the MOM theory.
that's what I've concluded after years of carefully reading the
archives and interpreting ...
Pedro.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: fran@reyes.somos.net ("Francisco Reyes"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 13:06:06 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:52:44 +0000, Nik Clayton wrote:
>> What I never understood is why "officially" they don't coperate more with
>> each other. I believe that unoficially some of the developers
>> work/help/contribute to more than one of the BSDs.
>
>Lots of the developers work on more than one BSD. What would you like
>to see in order to make that 'official'?
A list, even if minimal, of things which the "architects" (i.e.
core on FreeBSD, don't know it's equivalent on NetBSD) agreed to
at least consider the other OS. I am not saying they should
consult each other for everything, but they could at least keep
in other in mind that would be great.
>> Does anyone know what ever happened to the push for an unified port
>> system?
>
> http://www.openpackages.org/
That is a very good start on "bringing the BSDs together".
francisco
Moderator of the Corporate BSD list
http://www.egroups.com/group/BSD_Corporate
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 15:42:28 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 17 Jan, James Howard wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 opentrax@email.com wrote:
>
>> Many other fact worked their way in. Aside from the stuff I've
>> mentioned, there is still lots of ill feelings towards the authors
>> of 386BSD. Another factor is BSDi. Many individual (most not now
>> at BSDi) actually started rumors and incited mis-trust.
>
> (Brief background, I am bored. I noticed a trend that everytime someone
> mentions BSD on Slashdot, someone asks what the differences are between
> the BSDs, aside from hype. I am trying to resolve that question.)
>
Okay.
> So at this point, I am trying to figure out why NetBSD and FreeBSD didn't
> pool resource early. I know why OpenBSD exists so that is not a question
> (though great quotes are appreciated:).
>
Again, the start was 386BSD, then the "Unoffical Patch Kit".
The UPK was written by Terry Lambert, then run by Dave Burgess
and later Rodney Grimes. Jordan Hubbart was also a main person into.
Jordan was one of the founders of FreeBSD.
NetBSD pulled out early from the 386BSD effort. Their direction
was based on BSD tradition; make run on everything. Again, they
left mostly because of tensions between the authors of 386BSD
and the UPK. That is, people were making fixes to 386BSD, but
the only way to incorporate them for more that 1 1/2 year was
the UPK.
The UPK had many problems it was a disaster (Sorry Terry).
The UPK was never intended to run for more than a few months,
but one (1) year later it was the only to get things to work.
> Why did Jolitz pull support from 386BSD? And what was BSDi doing at the
> time?
>
Originally Bill Jolitz worked and had shares in BSDi (he may still
have claims) BSDi was started with the code that Bill had returned
to UCB. However, problems started when Rob Kolstad (then CEO) and
others started activites of a gray nature (Sorry can't follow up on
this). Bill while a great technologist had words with BSDi, pulled
out of BSDi, mysteriously had his UCB accounts canceled and eventually
got some help from UCSF.
Some time later my partner John Sokol ran into Bill Jolitz.
As it turns out a class mate of Bill's told John.
John had been working on an "un-encumbered" version of
Unix with several people. Because of the mess, John agreed to
help Bill, but Bill place several restrictions on the help.
One restriction was not to release the code until Bill felt
it was ready.
Unfortuneally, here is where the story turns. Chris Demetrious,
a founder of NetBSD, release the code prematurely. This upset
many people, including BSDi, AT&T and UCB. But the cat was
out of the bag and we had to move. The "unoffical" release
was further furstrated when corrupt copies mysteriously made
it on to Chris's version, and versions stored at UCB.
The incident was quickly followed up with an offical 0.0
release. This release while workable had a very poorly written
floppy driver that furstrated the release. The release version
was patch in 0.1 with version that were in MS-DOS file format
(128k chunks I think) that allowed people to at last be able
to get it running.
Note: the previous version was an all or nothing release.
That is, once you started from the first diskette and
completed with the 20th diskette, if anything went wrong
you had to start over.
With the 0.1 release, at least people could work and move
forward, but many drivers and the VM had problems - hence
the UPK.
As time went on and AT&T filed suite against BSDi, and
UCB against AT&T. The situation got ugly. John Sokol
got a visit from the Stanford University President.
Bill Jolitz had a cross burned on his lawn. Dave Burgess,
then in the US ARMY, got a visit from the Military Police.
Needless to say, there was alot of tension at the time.
As you might imagine retreat was a good option for all.
Bill and Lynn Jolitz found refuge in completing their
book, The Basic Kernel: Source Code Secrets. They also
worked on finishing the offical 1.0 version. However,
Bill in his entusasium wanted to make it the best he
could and I'm told he swapped out the Virtual Memory
system twice.
As time went on, but well before 1.0, a Newsgroup formed
and Chris Demetrious became the Moderator. The group
was form as a support mechanisum(sp?) for Bill.
However, individuals (no longer at BSDi) continously
sent messages to cause insurrection and undermined
trust in the community. Eventually, NetBSD was formed
because of the reasons I stated earlier.
FreeBSD form later but many of the original FreeBSD
people were upset at the NetBSD people becuase
they still wanted to support Bill. Eventually
I was the last person standing in support of Bill
and the tension and flames wars (at that time)
centered around anything I said or did.
Most of the bad blood was (and still is) because
of how code contribtions are handled. The result
as you can see is both groups have Open CVS trees,
unheard of before then, and Open PRs (Problem Reports).
In addition, no one person can stop a piece of code
and no one person has a final say so.
It is well understood, if you don't like the situation,
write your own. This stances comes mostly from Bill Jolitz
because that was his final words when 1.0 was finally
released.
In a sense, alot of the bad blood is Bill's fault, but
other people (including myself) must share the blame.
I could have done more at the time to mend fences, but
I knew that the community could not move forward
without a commone enemy. The eventually found one.
It was Bill and Lynn Jolitz, the original authors
of 386BSD.
So, today myself and other people you would not expect
are trying to get the community back together.
I can mention Rick Moen of the Cabal, and Ernest
Prabhakar Appple's Open Source Project Manager.
Together they and other people I should mention are
working hard to get the groups back together, but
as I've said, there is too much bad blood out there.
Best Regards,
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 22:27:10 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Minor nits:
> > So at this point, I am trying to figure out why NetBSD and FreeBSD didn't
> > pool resource early. I know why OpenBSD exists so that is not a question
> > (though great quotes are appreciated:).
>
> Again, the start was 386BSD, then the "Unoffical Patch Kit".
> The UPK was written by Terry Lambert, then run by Dave Burgess
> and later Rodney Grimes. Jordan Hubbart was also a main person into.
> Jordan was one of the founders of FreeBSD.
Rodney Grimes, then Nate Williams and Jordan Hubbard. Dave
Burgess took over the "Unofficial FAQ" from me before I handed
off the patchkit.
As a rule of thumb, unless I'm passionate about the subject (and
so can't trust it to someone else), I have this tendency to get
things that I think are neat or need to work to the point where
they work, and then find someone to hand them to so I can go on
to the next thing on my "important things that won't otherwise
get done" list.
> NetBSD pulled out early from the 386BSD effort. Their direction
> was based on BSD tradition; make run on everything. Again, they
> left mostly because of tensions between the authors of 386BSD
> and the UPK. That is, people were making fixes to 386BSD, but
> the only way to incorporate them for more that 1 1/2 year was
> the UPK.
>
> The UPK had many problems it was a disaster (Sorry Terry).
> The UPK was never intended to run for more than a few months,
> but one (1) year later it was the only to get things to work.
It was a very basic version control system, which relied on a
human being, rather than software, to ensure that order of
operation was maintained.
Contrary to your repeated opinion of my intent in writing the
scripts which created, managed, and installed the patches, the
software itself was intended to last a very long time. It is
still in use today at at least 6 commercial organizations, none
of which, incidently, I ever worked for: the code was adopted
on its merits.
The patchkit had several attributes:
o It ensured patch application would not fail due to
conflicting authors changes to the same file.
o It was the only realistic method of integrating lots
of Usenet-posted patches, without retarding progress
by setting up a control hierarchy, like the one in
effect in all longer-lived open source projects today.
NB: 386BSD lived a very long time -- from the
establishment of the first patchkit release,
through to the establishment of the FreeBSD
0.1 (quickly, 1.0) source tree, all public
work on 386BSD was done in the context of
Usenet postings and/or patchkit patches --
quite fine with the patchkit.
o It worked around the "damage" of the actual source
code control system being unavailable to all but a
few people.
NB: Linux _still_ uses a limited availability
("keys to the kingdom") model; this works
for them because Linux, being only a kernel,
is orders of magnitude less code than any
BSD system. For all its faults, Linus is
sincerely wrong about his arguments against
source control -- though there are valid
ones, as the next point shows, Linus never,
to my knowledge, actually points to them,
since they are points against having a
"Linus" figure, as well.
o It required that patch conflict domains be well-known
on a per file basis, so that application of patches
could be serialized based on the topology of their
affect.
NB: CVS has this attribute; use of CVS, like use
of the patchkit, constrains BSD growth in
many ways, including acting as a brake on
not only the rate of growth, but the rate of
growth of the rate of growth. If I had been
aware of "mutual security" games at the time
I created it, I would have picked a different
approach, which did not have a centralized
control constraint as an emergent property,
and there would probably not be a "core team"
structure today, nor would having "commit
priviledges" be such a big deal (or stumbling
block, depending on your point of view).
o Developement under its auspices significantly
outstripped the ability of Bill Jolitz to keep up
with the work, as anything other than an editor,
a role for which he was unprepared.
NB: This is a good thing: all works should outlive
their authors utility; we have an Internet
today, despite the regrettable deaths of John
Postel and Richard Stevens, precisely because they
built things to last, instead of for their own
aggrandization. This process is called "monument
building", and engineers who do other than
likewise are diddling themselves.
o It had no sense of history: there was no modification
history, other than ordering, and there was no real
accreditation.
NB: This is good; it keeps away people who are in
it for ego. Unfortunately, it also attracts
those same people, since it provided a chokepoint
that was insufficiently decentralized to survive
an egomaniac. Like Linux, FreeBSD has been very
lucky, but not as lucky as it could have been,
lacking such a chokepoint in the incarnations of
its organization.
It's also bad, if you want to protect public
projects from intentional disruption, by Luddites
or power-seekers who look to wield power for its
own sake. Again, luck has played a role here,
since the organizational incarnations we've seen
haven't required perfect altruism in order to
continue to at least function.
o It was still to slow, for some people.
NB: Another bad point; I mostly blame this on the
implicit serialization of operations, which means
CVS has the same problem: FreeBSD, under CVS, has
occasionally been too slow for people, including
myself on several occasions.
Larry McVoy's source code control system, and
Perforce's system, both overcome this problem, by
offering the capability for multiple lines of
developement (often abbreviated on Larry's mailing
lists as "LODs"). Unfortunately, both systems
attach unacceptable economic restrictions on the
use of their software for overcoming this problem
in the BSDs, since they add cost to commercial use,
but don't incent the projects themselves, which
have already adjusted to the concept, and are
unlikely to change without incentive (no BSD
project, so far as I have been able to tell, seems
to see increased rate of growth or rate of increase
in rate of growth as incentive; mostly they view
both as a threat. Of course, that's what they've
been trained to do, by their initial choice of
tools).
So the patchkit was not a failure, it was an experiment, and it
had perhaps too much success, particularly as a braking system
where people wanted a "downhill racer", and a multiplier of
effort, where other people wanted an "atomic pile" instead of
a "nuke".
--
As an aside:
Actually, I view the whole thing as a useful applied sociology
experiment, from which much useful information derived. If I
had the academic credentials as a social scientist to be seriously
published in the field, or wasn't busy with other things to the
point of being unable to waste time acquiring them, I'd write
several papers on the topic. As it is, I've shared the models and
information with others (including the Sante Fe Institute and
the Foresight Institute) who had an interest and appeared to
understand them, so I'm not a single chokepoint myself.
I've since used the information gained to successfully identify
the minimum amount of effort required to trigger four still-viable
Open Source software projects, and some of the people whom I
shared information with have triggered no less than six others.
--
The commentary by "Jesse M" in response to these questions failed
to answer them...
> > Why did Jolitz pull support from 386BSD?
Bill Jolitz supported Lynne Jolitz after a Usenet tirade that,
while understandable, under the circumstances of the time, a
lot of people took personally. One of the things he did as
part of this support of his wife was to revoke the right of the
patchkit people to use the "386BSD" name for a "386BSD 0.5
interim release". Rather than waste the work, which was quite
substantial, they followed the NetBSD example and committed the
code to a CVS tree, and released FreeBSD instead.
In retrospect, my public advice to Bill Jolitz to trademark the
name "386BSD", which everyone assumed he had done, when he was
revoking rights to use the name, was probably a bad move.
> > And what was BSDi doing at the time?
BSDI was pursuing a commercial version of BSD, as well as
fending off a lawsuit brought on by their waking up the USL
lawyers with their "1-800-ITS-UNIX" phone number, which the
USL lawyers hated, since lawyers don't understand the concept
of namespaces (see ".COM" for other examples of the trademark
namespace being applied to orthogonal namespaces).
Once awake, the USL lawyers refused to go back to sleep,
even after the phone number "problem" was fixed, since the
law is used as a business weapon, as well as making trademarks
into a defensive obligation.
I can't speak to the agendas involved; I have no idea why UCB
did not rip USL a new one, since MIT offered to bankroll them,
including putting their patent portfolio behind the effort
(anyone with a patent portfolio large enough can find infringement
by anyone with a technology dependent business; patents were being
granted despite obviousness even back then, and the problem has
only gotten worse since then, with the patenting of algorithms as
if they were processes).
[ ... 386BSD ... ]
> With the 0.1 release, at least people could work and move
> forward, but many drivers and the VM had problems - hence
> the UPK.
Actually, the patchkit solved a _lot_ of problems people had
with the 386BSD 0.1 distribution. Only a few of these were
related to something other than the distribution structure,
which was the biggest problem most people had with the 0.1
release
Yeah, I know the VM system was a problem: I did the first
public patch for it with my first FAQ release (it was in the
top three original reasons for the FAQ). But most people had
a problem with having to wait for the promised "0.2 release",
which was supposed to incorporate most of the Usenet patches,
but which never materialized. The promises of "soon now" and
the faith in Bill frimly taking the steering wheel of the bus
(eventually) was the reason I labelled both the FAQ and the
patchkit as "unofficial": I did so with the full expectation
that "official" replacements would be forthcoming.
NB: Actually, I'm proud of doing that: if it had been
successful, we'd probably have an organization that
would be much more helpful to people with problems,
and much less likely to say things like "you want it
fixed, where's the code, you whiney moron?". I'm
not that happy with the clique-ish nature of the
community that's developed, where everyone thinks
it's the order of the universe that "newbies must
pay their dues". The BSD community has grown to
resemble a college fraternity, with its own set of
"hazing" rules, which, thankfully, Linux and other
Open Source software projects seem to have sucessfully
avoided.
[ ... ]
> As time went on, but well before 1.0, a Newsgroup formed
> and Chris Demetrious became the Moderator. The group
> was form as a support mechanisum(sp?) for Bill.
The newsgroup was a side-note, and brought on mostly by a
hypersensitive attitude of legal political correctness,
which haunts its name to this day. The comp.unix.bsd group
was perfectly adequate to the job, and was used for it for
quite a long time.
> However, individuals (no longer at BSDi) continously
> sent messages to cause insurrection and undermined
> trust in the community. Eventually, NetBSD was formed
> because of the reasons I stated earlier.
NetBSD people were merely less patient with Bill's 0.2
release promises, and went off on their own much earlier.
> FreeBSD form later but many of the original FreeBSD
> people were upset at the NetBSD people becuase
> they still wanted to support Bill.
FreeBSD and NetBSD pretty much evolved independently, at
nearby times.
FreeBSD people were not upset at the NetBSD people, per se;
they merely didn't "rally to the flag", once a new banner
was declared. Much of that had to do with the work being
carried out by a small group, in nominal seclusion, to get
out from under what appeared to be the yoke of promises
which would never materialize, in their opinions. In fact,
they turned out to be right, but through no fault of their
own. There was only a minimal amount of friction, mostly
caused by people who didn't understand the necessity of the
serialization of the production of patchkit patches; this
went away for everyone but a few "stamp collector"
personalities (people who hold unreasonably strong grudges
forever) when the FreeBSD/386BSD 0.5 split occurred, which
was very shortly after the original (0.8) NetBSD release.
> In a sense, alot of the bad blood is Bill's fault, but
> other people (including myself) must share the blame.
> I could have done more at the time to mend fences, but
> I knew that the community could not move forward
> without a commone enemy. The eventually found one.
> It was Bill and Lynn Jolitz, the original authors
> of 386BSD.
I disagree. The "bad blood", what there is of it, is the
result of a fringe of volatile personalities, which have
mostly been purged from the natural chokepoints of the
various BSD-derived projects.
I really don't buy the "common enemy" theory for most
events in the Open Source community; the only place that
really applies is in a project "split", and that generally
only happens as a result of very strong ideological reasons.
One of the reasons I constantly caution against splits,
even though I clash as much as anyone, on ideological
grounds, is that the new project will _inevitably_ attract
the most volatile elements to itself; that's what has
historically happened in _any_ social schism, throughout
human history. You don't have to run an experiment too
many times before you can predict the outcome which will
result from running it yet again.
Without strong ideological reasons, coupled with the power
in the system being embedded in a much smaller group of
people with a conflicting ideology, you'll always end up
with a rabble. This is why the U.S. electoral system, as
strange as it looks, has been so successful, and why the
relatively recent "core team" reforms in FreeBSD have had
the effect of making it even more unlikely that there will
be a true "FreeBSD schism" in the near future.
> So, today myself and other people you would not expect
> are trying to get the community back together.
> I can mention Rick Moen of the Cabal, and Ernest
> Prabhakar Appple's Open Source Project Manager.
> Together they and other people I should mention are
> working hard to get the groups back together, but
> as I've said, there is too much bad blood out there.
Again, I must disagree. The U.S., Australia, and the U.K.
are the best of friends these days, but they hardly want
to become a single country. You don't need to point at
putative "bad blood" to explain why there are three
seperate and distinct groups.
I think the reason the "openports" thing hasn't really
gotten anywhere yet in displacing the ports trees of the
various projects, is that there is not demonstrable benefit
for the majority of the people doing the actualy work: the
people with the power to "officially" adopt it in place of
the existing systems currently in use by the various
projects. Like source code control systems, the people
involved have been "trained", by weeding out all of the
people who clash with the system, through self selection.
Just providing a replacement system is not sufficient
incentive to cause a change-over: the existing system is
metastable, and won't "tunnel" of its own accord, even though
it would mean moving to a state of _net_ lower energy, since
they are measuring their energy only in their own realm, and
the net value in all BSD realms is irrelevent to them.
Continuing with this example (once all subelements have been
integrated, there's really no difference between the projects,
and one will "fade away", should we ever get to that point),
you would need either buy-in from the principals in each of
the groups, or you would need to provide an _additional and
compelling benefit_ to overcome social inertia. I think it's
that simple: no "bad blood" need apply, as an explanation.
NB: If you're interested, the status quo here is called
a "Richardson Non-Linear Mutual Security Game"; an
analytical mechanics buff would recognize it as a
"damped driven harmonic oscillator", where the damping
force exceeds the driving force. If you understood
that, then it's also probably obvious to you now how
you could preterb two of the systems sufficiently to
force your new paradigm to be adopted naturally; it's
also probable that you'll recognize it involves at
least some work on your part.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: dan@langille.org ("Dan Langille"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 22:47:59 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 18 Jan 2001, at 6:26, Terry Lambert wrote:
> NB: Actually, I'm proud of doing that: if it had been
> successful, we'd probably have an organization that
> would be much more helpful to people with problems,
> and much less likely to say things like "you want it
> fixed, where's the code, you whiney moron?".
Yes, that's a rather unfortunate side of FreeBSD which I'd rather see the
back of.
> I'm
> not that happy with the clique-ish nature of the
> community that's developed, where everyone thinks
> it's the order of the universe that "newbies must
> pay their dues".
I've not yet considered it clique-ish, but now that you mention it, I've had
more than one encounter with a committer who felt it was beneath them
to deal with an issue I brought up. In brief, they said they had better
things to do. I've always been a advocate of helping when and where
you can. The level at which one can help changes as experience is
gained. It's a moving threshold.
> The BSD community has grown to
> resemble a college fraternity, with its own set of
> "hazing" rules, which, thankfully, Linux and other
> Open Source software projects seem to have sucessfully
> avoided.
Could you please elaborate on the "hazing" rules?
> I think the reason the "openports" thing hasn't really
> gotten anywhere yet in displacing the ports trees of the
> various projects, is that there is not demonstrable benefit
> for the majority of the people doing the actualy work:
Do you mean openpackages.org? That project is still fairly
new. We're not even at the stage of having a ports tree ready
for public consumption.
--
Dan Langille
The FreeBSD Diary - http://freebsddiary.org/
FreshPorts - http://freshports.org/
NZ Broadband - http://unixathome.org/broadband/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Thu Jan 18 23:30:13 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
More corrections...
> When NetBSD broke off it was considered militant. The was partly
> because Chris Demitrious did not get along with people. Other people
> were upset becuase their patches (submissions to the patchkit effort)
> were not accept. There was much ill feelings. Chris is now a different
> person, I think he learned things. Those other peoples are now
> the core team at NetBSD.
There were some patches released in patchkit format (reverse
engineered) that ignored the need to serialize operations. I
think that after the people who did this had "Makefile"s
explained to them, and were offered the real patchkit tools,
the conflict problems went away. NetBSD was (per my other
posting) mostly people who were tired of waiting, and thought
progress was too slow, and weren't willing to leave it in what
they percieved as "too slow" hands. Let's be honest: it's
still "too slow" for some of us... no matter what camp we are
currently in.
> AT&T also added pressure at the time by claiming Unix was a
> National (treasure??) and therefore should be consider un-exportable.
AT&T (USL) tried to claim trade secret status for UNIX; BSD
Net/2 contained the components they were complaining about,
but following disclosure, they had no trade secret status.
UCB was not accountable anyway, since the code derived from
code licensed without non-disclosure clauses, under the old
Western Electric license. UCB EECS in fact did not renew
their UNIX license when the Western Electric license changed
to prohibit disclosure, so the cat was already out of the bag,
even if one ignores the Lions book, published by the University
of New South Wales, under the same Western Electric license,
lacking a non-disclosure requirement.
AT&T was, in fact, under a consent decree based on an antitrust
action under the Sherman Antitrust act, preceeding the breakup
(the "Judge Green Decision"), prohibited from making money on
software, or of obtaining any intellectual property protection
for UNIX, whatsoever.
Technically, then, the "harm", even if provably real, wasn't
monetarily recoverable; a circuit court judge basically said
that, when he admonished USL about their attempt at a restraining
order. The part that got the press, though was when he called
their claims frivolous on trade secret grounds.
I never heard the export issue, but I would think that if it
were an issue, it would be a National Security issue, not an
issue of national propriety, since UNIX was used in most of
the digital telephone switches manufactured, particularly
those from Northern Telecom and AT&T. These switches were
sold outside the US at the time, anyway.
Mostly, USL continued the suit out of a risk-reward calculation
(IMO), and it escalated to places other than BSDI because of
early briefs filing for summary dismissal on the basis of
"failure to exercise due dilligence" (basically, some people
who I believe are long gone from BSDI "hid behind" UCB when the
bully came out to beat them up [an overreaction to the "yo mama"
of the "1-800-ITS-UNIX" phone number])
> AT&T sold Unix to Novell for $1 Billion dollars in the middle
> of this and in reallity it was Novell that settled. BTW, this
> $1B almost bankrupted(sp?) Novell.
Novell bought USL for $80M, which is only 8% of the figure
you quote. This is the same price they charged Sun to get
out of royalty payments, and the later sale of USL to SCO was
nothing but gravy for them: very good ROI, in fact.
Novell settled because it was a P.R. nightmare, and many of
the "Novell USG - UNIX Systems Group" and now dissociated Bell
Labs people, including Dennis Ritchie, threatened to testify or
file Amicus Curie briefs on behalf of UCB, totally undermining
USL's legal case.
The $1B purchase made at around the same time was the purchase
of Word Perfect. Along with AppWare (another company started
with finding from the Noorda Family Trust, and later purchased
by Novell), which provided Novell with "COM" and "DCOM"-like
technology, any the purchase of spreadsheet software from Borland,
this was Novell's entry into competition with Microsoft. The
AppWare purchase triggered the others, since Novell found out
that third party companies would not voluntarily commoditize
their software into invisible non-logo'ed component-ware, unless
you bought them and forced them to do it (or you were able to
wield monopolistic power in the marketplace to force them to do
it, as Microsoft later did with COM).
The reason the purchase was such a bone-head move was that it was
the first time that a company had used the well-known Novell
company valuation benchmark (PPE - Profit Per Employee) to
inflate their apparent value to astronomical heights. In order
to do this, Word Perfect cancelled free support, cancelled all
forward looking products, all pen-based products, all marginal
products (like post 4.2 for UNIX and VMS), etc., and then let
those employees go. Cutting your workforce nearly in half at
the end of a corporate fiscal year does wonders for PPE (if
you can't change the numerator, change the denominator). Don't
think that Novell didn't learn from this: big does not necessarily
equal stupid.
Novell was (and still is) a pretty shrewd company; any company
that sticks around for any real length of time, and outlives
the initial cult-of-personality that started it by a management
generation plus one, is probably in it for the long haul. It's
definitely on my "hold" list, and I'm likely to upgrade it, if
the price continues to stay low with the current P/E ratio for
much longer (and I can get it for the price of a fractional long
term capital gains cash-out of some other investments ;-))...
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 00:13:00 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
> > The BSD community has grown to
> > resemble a college fraternity, with its own set of
> > "hazing" rules, which, thankfully, Linux and other
> > Open Source software projects seem to have sucessfully
> > avoided.
>
> Could you please elaborate on the "hazing" rules?
It's where you take the new guys and make them eat worms until
you feel they've eaten enough worms that they can be full
members of the club.
You can tell you are a full member of the club when you are
allowed take the new guys and make them eat worms until you
feel they've eaten enough worms that they can be full members
of the club.
Most military organizations have the same type of initation
rites, except the Rangers, where, when they take you and make
you eat worms, it's called "training", and you know what you
are getting into before you sign up for it.
Basically, it means "technically meaningless behaviour that
does nothing to advance the organization, which you are
nonetheless expected to engage in as part of the price of
participation, above and beyond the value of the effort which
you are willing to donate to the cause".
> > I think the reason the "openports" thing hasn't really
> > gotten anywhere yet in displacing the ports trees of the
> > various projects, is that there is not demonstrable benefit
> > for the majority of the people doing the actualy work:
>
> Do you mean openpackages.org? That project is still fairly
> new.
Yeah, "openpackages", thanks.
> We're not even at the stage of having a ports tree ready
> for public consumption.
That was rather my point. When you get to where you have a
ports tree ready for public consumption, how are you going to
get the projects to switch over to the new system? A lot of
people have an investment in continuing to do things the way
they have always done them, particularly the poor slobs^W^W
people who thanklessly^W cheerfully maintain individual ports,
and have an exiting investment in getting on a project specific
committers list, and have invested heavily in learning a project
specific way of doing a port.
Getting a ports tree ready for public consumption is probably
the least of the worries you are going to have to address,
unless you already have buy-in from at least two of the projects,
at least one of which is FreeBSD.
It's not an impossible task, but you need to address the
biggest issues first, in order to minimize risk to the point
of getting sufficient volunteer effort to get something ready,
and it's very hard to nail down a commitment from a BSD project
from people who have the power to make them, without presenting
a fait accompli. The main watershed event will be when one of
the projects drops their packaging system, and all "cvsup"
for that project is from your site instead of the project
specific site.
Don't worry about it; it was just a handy example, and you
already have Satoshi and some of the others on board, so it's
probably not as much of a political uphill battle as it seems
from the outside (which is what made it a good example).
As a pointer of the type that I hinted at: a compelling value
that you could add would be browser-based installation, using
your own web server (or mirrors) that have a MIME-type that
runs a signature validation program based on certificates of
known signers, so the installations can be done as "root"
with a single click for install. Another value would be to
do a local browser plug-in to seperate "installed" and
"uninstalled" views, but you could do that by downloading the
certificate signed signature first, and then checking for an
exisitng install based on that (but it's less pretty), or by
using a local hierarchy ("file browse") in order to get the
same effect.
It's pretty trivial to do all of these things, if you require
OpenSSH and some other things to be installed before you go
(you would need to patch the local copy of the MIME types for
the browser to invoke your scripts, though...).
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 00:39:26 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 18 Jan, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Minor nits:
>
>>...[Trimmed]...
>>
>> Again, the start was 386BSD, then the "Unoffical Patch Kit".
>> The UPK was written by Terry Lambert, then run by Dave Burgess
>> and later Rodney Grimes. Jordan Hubbart was also a main person into.
>> Jordan was one of the founders of FreeBSD.
>
> Rodney Grimes, then Nate Williams and Jordan Hubbard. Dave
> Burgess took over the "Unofficial FAQ" from me before I handed
> off the patchkit.
>
Thanks for the correction Terry.
>>...[Trimmed]...
>>
>> NetBSD pulled out early from the 386BSD effort. Their direction
>> was based on BSD tradition; make run on everything. Again, they
>> left mostly because of tensions between the authors of 386BSD
>> and the UPK. That is, people were making fixes to 386BSD, but
>> the only way to incorporate them for more that 1 1/2 year was
>> the UPK.
>>
>> The UPK had many problems it was a disaster (Sorry Terry).
>> The UPK was never intended to run for more than a few months,
>> but one (1) year later it was the only to get things to work.
>
> It was a very basic version control system, which relied on a
> human being, rather than software, to ensure that order of
> operation was maintained.
>
> Contrary to your repeated opinion of my intent in writing the
> scripts which created, managed, and installed the patches, the
> software itself was intended to last a very long time. It is
> still in use today at at least 6 commercial organizations, none
> of which, incidently, I ever worked for: the code was adopted
> on its merits.
>
Thanks for that correction also, Terry.
I'll make note of that in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[TRIMMED<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> In a sense, alot of the bad blood is Bill's fault, but
>> other people (including myself) must share the blame.
>> I could have done more at the time to mend fences, but
>> I knew that the community could not move forward
>> without a commone enemy. The eventually found one.
>> It was Bill and Lynn Jolitz, the original authors
>> of 386BSD.
>
> I disagree. The "bad blood", what there is of it, is the
> result of a fringe of volatile personalities, which have
> mostly been purged from the natural chokepoints of the
> various BSD-derived projects.
>
> I really don't buy the "common enemy" theory for most
> events in the Open Source community; the only place that
> really applies is in a project "split", and that generally
> only happens as a result of very strong ideological reasons.
>
We can discuss this theory at a later time Terry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[TRIMMED<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
I thank Terry Lambert for his corrections and comments.
Evidence by this time shows the bad blood I was talking
about. (ie. the snipping about the tape driver)
As may be evident there is along way to go. I don't
expect that within my life time this effort will resolve
enough differences so that we will have one (1) BSD.
However, in retrospect(sp?) and after meeting with
members of the NetBSD, OpenBSD and Darwin groups it
is my belief that BSD is only stronger by these
different, if not divided, efforts. For as each
group evolves (and this is where Terry and I differ
in opinion, That is I say evolve) we will see
different approaches to different problems.
Meanwhile *BSD continues to grow now in the
real world vs. the previous academinc environment.
Best Regards,
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 00:43:12 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 18 Jan, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2001, at 6:26, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> The BSD community has grown to
>> resemble a college fraternity, with its own set of
>> "hazing" rules, which, thankfully, Linux and other
>> Open Source software projects seem to have sucessfully
>> avoided.
>
> Could you please elaborate on the "hazing" rules?
>
Sure watch this.
Those who thought they could simply become scientist
by enter CSRG have be fallen to reallity. It is now their
role in life to track bugs and repeat the "see I told you so"
retoritc.
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 00:56:22 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 18 Jan, Terry Lambert wrote:
> More corrections...
>
>> AT&T sold Unix to Novell for $1 Billion dollars in the middle
>> of this and in reallity it was Novell that settled. BTW, this
>> $1B almost bankrupted(sp?) Novell.
>
> Novell bought USL for $80M, which is only 8% of the figure
> you quote. This is the same price they charged Sun to get
> out of royalty payments, and the later sale of USL to SCO was
> nothing but gravy for them: very good ROI, in fact.
>
The figure I'm quoting was one I was given.
If it is incorrect, then I need to get the correcting
reference. Both John and I are working on a History of BSD.
As such, the correct nature of facts becomes us.
If you can please Terry, and reference information, rather
that word of mouth, would assist us greatly.
> The $1B purchase made at around the same time was the purchase
> of Word Perfect. Along with AppWare (another company started
Terry, I've forwarded this information to John as a
possible error in our notes.
Best Regards,
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 01:47:05 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
> >> AT&T sold Unix to Novell for $1 Billion dollars in the middle
> >> of this and in reallity it was Novell that settled. BTW, this
> >> $1B almost bankrupted(sp?) Novell.
> >
> > Novell bought USL for $80M, which is only 8% of the figure
> > you quote. This is the same price they charged Sun to get
> > out of royalty payments, and the later sale of USL to SCO was
> > nothing but gravy for them: very good ROI, in fact.
>
> The figure I'm quoting was one I was given.
> If it is incorrect, then I need to get the correcting
> reference. Both John and I are working on a History of BSD.
> As such, the correct nature of facts becomes us.
>
> If you can please Terry, and reference information, rather
> that word of mouth, would assist us greatly.
I got "uncooked" numbers, as a senior employee with stock, so
it's not exactly "word of mouth". 8-).
Not only that, Novell almost made 100% ROI in one year.
> > The $1B purchase made at around the same time was the purchase
> > of Word Perfect. Along with AppWare (another company started
> Terry, I've forwarded this information to John as a
> possible error in our notes.
See:
http://www.secinfo.com/dr6nd.b43.htm#191stPage
The $268.7 includes a $9.4M debt assumption, does not include
the $80.5M Sun paid, does not include net sales by USL, and
the value of the Novell stock at the time the transaction
actually went through.
I guess you could subtract out the earlier "investment in USL",
which was actually a stock swap so that both companies had
some skin in the game over Univel, so I think it shouldn't
count as anything but a $17M paper cost.
See also pg193 for income figures (you have to multiply the
missing percentage, but it's simple algebra):
http://www.secinfo.com/dr6nd.b43.htm#193rdPage
Not including the overvaluation, the cost was $178.8M. If
you include what Word Perfect did to the Novell stock, the
cost drops to about $87.3M; I guess it depends on how you
want to cook the books...
For more more fun, look at the 1992 numbers for the VAX/VMS
deal; I was one of 3 engineers responsible for that nice $15M
number. Robert Withrow, also a FreeBSD person, was on the
DEC side of that deal, as their primary (IMO) engineering
contribution...
I figure that I personally paid for almost 6% of the USL
purchase with around one year of work, and between the 3
of us, it was over 17%.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: nik@FreeBSD.ORG (Nik Clayton), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 03:21:16 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:26:15AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Actually, I view the whole thing as a useful applied sociology
> experiment, from which much useful information derived. If I
> had the academic credentials as a social scientist to be seriously
> published in the field, or wasn't busy with other things to the
> point of being unable to waste time acquiring them, I'd write
> several papers on the topic.
That didn't prevent ESR from trying. . .
N
--
Internet connection, $19.95 a month. Computer, $799.95. Modem, $149.95.
Telephone line, $24.95 a month. Software, free. USENET transmission,
hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Thinking before posting, priceless.
Somethings in life you can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard.
-- Graham Reed, in the Scary Devil Monastery
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in (Rahul Siddharthan), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 03:21:19 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Nik Clayton said on Jan 18, 2001 at 09:26:24:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:26:15AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Actually, I view the whole thing as a useful applied sociology
> > experiment, from which much useful information derived. If I
> > had the academic credentials as a social scientist to be seriously
> > published in the field, or wasn't busy with other things to the
> > point of being unable to waste time acquiring them, I'd write
> > several papers on the topic.
>
> That didn't prevent ESR from trying. . .
Besides, physicists have been known to publish papers in serious
sociology journals, so why not programmers?
See
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/#papers
(for those who haven't heard of this: it's worth the visit)
R.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: opentrax@email.com, 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 03:21:29 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 18 Jan, Terry Lambert wrote:
>> >> AT&T sold Unix to Novell for $1 Billion dollars in the middle
>> >> of this and in reallity it was Novell that settled. BTW, this
>> >> $1B almost bankrupted(sp?) Novell.
>> >
>> > Novell bought USL for $80M, which is only 8% of the figure
>> > you quote. This is the same price they charged Sun to get
>> > out of royalty payments, and the later sale of USL to SCO was
>> > nothing but gravy for them: very good ROI, in fact.
>>
>> The figure I'm quoting was one I was given.
>> If it is incorrect, then I need to get the correcting
>> reference. Both John and I are working on a History of BSD.
>> As such, the correct nature of facts becomes us.
>>
>> If you can please Terry, and reference information, rather
>> that word of mouth, would assist us greatly.
>
> I got "uncooked" numbers, as a senior employee with stock, so
> it's not exactly "word of mouth". 8-).
>
> Not only that, Novell almost made 100% ROI in one year.
>
>
>> > The $1B purchase made at around the same time was the purchase
>> > of Word Perfect. Along with AppWare (another company started
>> Terry, I've forwarded this information to John as a
>> possible error in our notes.
>
> See:
>
>...[Trimmed]...
>
Thanks, Terry. I've forward the information to John. Concrete
information will help us paint the picture correctly. :-)
Jessem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: cfuhrman@tfcci.com (Chris Fuhrman), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 06:28:16 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Howdy,
I'm trying to represent, in my mind, the "BSD Family Tree" and have come
up with the following ASCII drawing based on discussions here. Please
note:
* I am not an artist :)
* I am assuming that OpenBSD split from NetBSD after BSD 4.4-Lite was
release. I am using the "dotted" lines to show BSD 4.4-Lite's
influence on Net- and FreeBSD.
* I can't remember if there were any interim releases between Net/2 and
4.4-Lite
* I am not placing Apple's Darwin on here. I *think* it's based off of
FreeBSD and, if so, I'll be happy to add it.
* While this drawing loosely illustrates the time line, it is not, by
any means, "to scale".
* I am not responsible if your e-mail package munges the drawing. It
looked okay in pine dammit so it should look okay in yours ;)
Please feel free to e-mail me any glaring mistakes and I'll be happy to
repost this.
+-----------+
| BSD Net/2 |
+-----------+
| |
+-----------+ |
| 368BSD | +-----------+
+-----------+ |BSD4.4 Lite| - - - +
| | +-----------+
| | |
| +-----------+
| | NetBSD | < - - - - - - - +
| +-----------+
| | |
+-----------+ |
| FreeBSD | < - - | - - - - - - - - +
+-----------+ |
+-----------+
| OpenBSD |
+-----------+
--
Chris Fuhrman | Twenty First Century Communications
cfuhrman@tfcci.com | Software Engineer
(W) 614-442-1215 x271 |
(F) 614-442-5662 | PGP/GPG Public Key Available on Request
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: hubert.feyrer@informatik.fh-regensburg.de (Hubert Feyrer), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 06:28:21 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Chris Fuhrman wrote:
> I'm trying to represent, in my mind, the "BSD Family Tree" and have come
> up with the following ASCII drawing based on discussions here. Please
> note:
See: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/history.html
Please keep me off the CC: list!!!
- Hubert
--
Hubert Feyrer <hubert.feyrer@informatik.fh-regensburg.de>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: keichii@iteration.net ("Michael C . Wu"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 06:48:04 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 08:44:02AM -0500, Chris Fuhrman scribbled:
| I'm trying to represent, in my mind, the "BSD Family Tree" and have come
| up with the following ASCII drawing based on discussions here. Please
| note:
/usr/share/misc/bsd-family-tree :)
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| keichii@peorth.iteration.net | keichii@bsdconspiracy.net |
| http://peorth.iteration.net/~keichii | Yes, BSD is a conspiracy. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: cfuhrman@tfcci.com (Chris Fuhrman), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 06:48:28 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> See: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/history.html
>
This includes pretty much more than I could in any ASCII-art diagram *g*
Even includes the latest releases of the Linux kernel, NetBSD, FreeBSD,
and OpenBSD :)
--
Chris Fuhrman | Twenty First Century Communications
cfuhrman@tfcci.com | Software Engineer
(W) 614-442-1215 x271 |
(F) 614-442-5662 | PGP/GPG Public Key Available on Request
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: howardjp@well.com (James Howard), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 07:03:05 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Chris Fuhrman wrote:
> I'm trying to represent, in my mind, the "BSD Family Tree" and have come
Hey, that's my working title! It sucks too, so suggestions are
welcome. As soon as I have a completed draft, I will be posting it.
But something is missing here, I have seen several long postings on
software development methodology and the history of BSD in the 90s. This
is overkill, I am look for 100 words or less (less is more) which can say
shortly why NetBSD and FreeBSD didn't join forces early on. A full
history of BSD or Unix is far beyond the scope of my project. I also want
to avoid inflaming or opening up old wounds, but I also want to make sure
I don't lie to the reader. :)
Jamie
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 14:32:28 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 11:26 PM 1/17/2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>As an aside:
>
>Actually, I view the whole thing as a useful applied sociology
>experiment, from which much useful information derived. If I
>had the academic credentials as a social scientist to be seriously
>published in the field, or wasn't busy with other things to the
>point of being unable to waste time acquiring them, I'd write
>several papers on the topic.
A lack of credentials -- or a lack of ethics -- hasn't stopped
one Eric Raymond from writing papers on this topic, most of
them self-serving propaganda. You SHOULD publish, Terry; you
make a lot more sense than Eric and wouldn't simply be out to
increase the value of your stock.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 15:04:43 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Wednesday, 17 January 2001 at 11:40:57 -0800, James Howard wrote:
>
> Why did Jolitz pull support from 386BSD? And what was BSDi doing at
> the time?
OK, let's look at some time lines. I'm currently travelling, so I
don't have hard facts to back up all these statements, which are from
my recollection. Feel free to counter them with facts.
pre-1990: Some people at the Computer Sciences Research Group in
Berkeley realized that the days of the CSRG were numbered,
and work on releasing the Berkeley code in unencumbered
form, primarily for people who wanted TCP/IP stacks. The
result was the Berkeley Networking Tape, later called
Net/1. It didn't pretend to be an operating system, but it
was a complete TCP/IP stack.
Still at Berkeley, Bill Jolitz and some others work towards
porting 4.3BSD Reno to the 386, and making the result
unencumbered. They failed, but Bill described the work in a
very detailed series of articles in Dr. Dobbs Journal,
starting (I think) in early 1991.
mid-1991: The CSRG released Net/2, the unfinished attempt at a 4.3BSD
port to the 80386. A large proportion of the CSRG members,
including Mike Karels, Kirk McKusick, Chris Torek and Bill
Jolitz, join up with some others, notably (at a later date;
I think 1 December 1991) Rob Kolstad, to create a company
called Berkeley Software Design Inc. (BSDI) to market this
software. Quite early on people started writing the
abbreviation as "BSDi", but they didn't in fact lower-case
the i until April 2000.
It's not clear what Bill Jolitz thought the goals of BSDI
were. Rob Kolstad told me that he got very upset towards
the end of the year because BSDI wanted to charge money for
the system. It's not clear how he thought they were going
to be viable without doing so, but he left BSDI on 1
December 1991, not before he had destroyed all his work.
Feb 1992: BSDI releases the first Beta versions of their commercial
operating system, BSD/386.
Mar 1992: Bill Jolitz releases the first alpha version (0.0) of his
free operating system, 386BSD.
14 July: Bill Jolitz releases version 0.1 of 386BSD.
At this point, BSD/386 was quite a usable system. I was
running both Interactive UNIX/386, a System V.3.2
derivative, and BSD/386 0.3.3, and the BSD/386 was already
much more polished than Interactive. By all accounts 386BSD
was still a disaster. I once started trying to install it,
but didn't get very far.
Apr 1993: NetBSD 0.8 came out.
Dec 1993: FreeBSD 1.0 came out.
End 1995: Dr. Dobbs markets "386BSD 1.0" on CD-ROM for $99, promising
support. It was a disaster, no support was forthcoming, and
the documentation was in a proprietary Microsoft format. I
don't know that anybody ever got it running: by that time
FreeBSD and NetBSD were just too far ahead, and the CDs were
a lot cheaper.
So why did Bill "pull support"? I don't think he did. He never
offered any support, and much of the ill-feeling came from people who
thought that he should put their patches back into the base. That
would have been a sensible thing to do, of course, but he obviously
didn't want to do it. I suspect that he found the whole thing had
grown over his head. In hindsight, it's surprising that it took so
long for the NetBSD and FreeBSD people to get started. If it had
happened earlier, it's possible that people might have got over their
differences and formed a united BSD project. I don't know if that
would have brought better results.
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: kris@catonic.net (Kris Kirby), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 17:33:30 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
> A lack of credentials -- or a lack of ethics -- hasn't stopped
> one Eric Raymond from writing papers on this topic, most of
> them self-serving propaganda.
No offense Brett, but I imagine some people are thinking the same thing
about you.
(Before you start to rip into me, realize that I do not have you
kill-filed, unlike others. Hint Hint.)
-----
Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said.
<kris@nospam.catonic.net> |
-------------------------------------------------------
"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 17:57:01 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Wednesday, 17 January 2001 at 15:36:06 -0500, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:52:44 +0000, Nik Clayton wrote:
>
>>> What I never understood is why "officially" they don't coperate more with
>>> each other. I believe that unoficially some of the developers
>>> work/help/contribute to more than one of the BSDs.
>>
>> Lots of the developers work on more than one BSD. What would you like
>> to see in order to make that 'official'?
>
> A list, even if minimal, of things which the "architects" (i.e.
> core on FreeBSD, don't know it's equivalent on NetBSD)
The NetBSD core group. But, like the FreeBSD core team, they're not
the architects. The committers are the architects.
> agreed to at least consider the other OS. I am not saying they
> should consult each other for everything, but they could at least
> keep in other in mind that would be great.
Well, I agree with Nik that things are getting a lot closer. But I
think that the way to come closer together is for the individual
subprojects to work together. And I think that's happening.
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: pfg1+@pitt.edu ("Pedro F. Giffuni"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 19:20:44 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Greg Lehey wrote:
>
....
>
> > agreed to at least consider the other OS. I am not saying they
> > should consult each other for everything, but they could at least
> > keep in other in mind that would be great.
>
> Well, I agree with Nik that things are getting a lot closer. But I
> think that the way to come closer together is for the individual
> subprojects to work together. And I think that's happening.
>
A comment from an outsider: The codebases are converging slowly but
around the same principles. UBC and SMP, altough still early on
NetBSD, FreeBSD's initial multiplatform support, and the concept of
auditing derived from OpenBSD, are signs that the projects are sharing
objectives (maybe) for the first time.
Having three BSD camps has been great...did you notice that NetBSD's
development spurred when OpenBSD was created?? Maybe it's the time for
a unified "Free" BSD, maybe not.
This is just my personal view, and I don't really know the actors
here, but I don't see OpenBSD folding back into any other project.
While difficult, I would see NetBSD merging with FreeBSD in a
future..how far? nobody knows... when people have worked on a great
project for so many years it's difficult to move another camp
suddenly.
cheers,
Pedro.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 20:14:06 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
> >Actually, I view the whole thing as a useful applied sociology
> >experiment, from which much useful information derived. If I
> >had the academic credentials as a social scientist to be seriously
> >published in the field, or wasn't busy with other things to the
> >point of being unable to waste time acquiring them, I'd write
> >several papers on the topic.
>
> A lack of credentials -- or a lack of ethics -- hasn't stopped
> one Eric Raymond from writing papers on this topic, most of
> them self-serving propaganda. You SHOULD publish, Terry; you
> make a lot more sense than Eric and wouldn't simply be out to
> increase the value of your stock.
I said "seriously".
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 22:03:27 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 11:47 PM 1/17/2001, Dan Langille wrote:
>Could you please elaborate on the "hazing" rules?
Try some of the flames, etc. to which I've been subjected
over time. And I wasn't even trying to become a committer
(I program in C when I *have* to, not because I like to).
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 22:03:28 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 03:58 PM 1/18/2001, Kris Kirby wrote:
>No offense Brett, but I imagine some people are thinking the same thing
>about you.
>
>(Before you start to rip into me, realize that I do not have you
>kill-filed, unlike others. Hint Hint.)
I'm glad you don't. But your statement is not fair. Unlike ESR,
I care about ethics and am not merely trying to promote my own
financial success at my colleagues' expense.
As for the kill files: this is part of the hazing/shunning that
was alluded to in earlier messages in this thread. It's a power
game.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: reg@FreeBSD.ORG (Jeremy Lea), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 22:24:21 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 09:56:34PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> As for the kill files: this is part of the hazing/shunning that
> was alluded to in earlier messages in this thread. It's a power
> game.
ROTFL...
Brett, I think you need to lighten your view of the world. The kill
files are there because people do this for fun, and reading a your
rants, flames and paranoid delusions just isn't fun!
Regards,
-Jeremy
--
FreeBSD - Because the best things in life are free...
http://www.freebsd.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 22:26:55 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 11:21 PM 1/18/2001, Jeremy Lea wrote:
>Brett, I think you need to lighten your view of the world. The kill
>files are there because people do this for fun, and reading a your
>rants, flames and paranoid delusions just isn't fun!
I see that you don't believe I've completed the obligatory
"hazing" yet.
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in (Rahul Siddharthan), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 22:28:15 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Brett Glass said on Jan 18, 2001 at 23:25:18:
> At 11:21 PM 1/18/2001, Jeremy Lea wrote:
>
> >Brett, I think you need to lighten your view of the world. The kill
> >files are there because people do this for fun, and reading a your
> >rants, flames and paranoid delusions just isn't fun!
>
> I see that you don't believe I've completed the obligatory
> "hazing" yet.
You mean, you think reading your rants, flames and paranoid
delusions *is* fun?
Rahul.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 22:56:43 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 11:36 PM 1/18/2001, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>I was perfectly serious, and so is everyone else who you think is
>hazing you.
You're being rude, annoying and childish. Quit playing schoolyard
games.
--Brett Glass
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in (Rahul Siddharthan), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 23:20:38 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
Brett Glass said on Jan 18, 2001 at 23:33:13:
> At 11:27 PM 1/18/2001, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>
> >You mean, you think reading your rants, flames and paranoid
> >delusions *is* fun?
>
> Another fun aspect of the hazing: those doing it have a
> tendency to "pile on."
I'm not hazing. How could I? You've been around on the FreeBSD lists
much longer than me...
I was perfectly serious, and so is everyone else who you think is
hazing you.
Rahul
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: greywolf@starwolf.com (Greywolf), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 23:21:34 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Brett Glass wrote:
# Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:25:18 -0700
# From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
# To: Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG>
# Cc: Kris Kirby <kris@catonic.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG,
# netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG
# Subject: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
#
# At 11:21 PM 1/18/2001, Jeremy Lea wrote:
#
# >Brett, I think you need to lighten your view of the world. The kill
# >files are there because people do this for fun, and reading a your
# >rants, flames and paranoid delusions just isn't fun!
#
# I see that you don't believe I've completed the obligatory
# "hazing" yet.
Beg pardon, good sirs, but is this what usually happens on the FreeBSD
lists, or is this back-and-forth merely an anomaly provided for the
amusement of the casually-included NetBSD crowd?
When there was a statement made about "hazing", it was made to sound
as though it covered both NetBSD and FreeBSD. Observing the ping-pong
match in progress, I think I can safely say that the newbies in NetBSD
are treated with much less of a hazing than they are in FreeBSD. Why
this is, I'm not sure.
Regarding ego-boo, anyone who's ever contributed code is not exempt.
How many people look at something they've written or patched and
smiled as it worked? I know I do that. In the grand scheme of things,
it's insignificant -- nobody knows (or cares) that I submitted the code.
It works, and that's all that matters, and that's just fine with me,
especially considering that I'm not a brilliant coder and can't do device
drivers.
Regarding the splits: I was only present for the Net/Open split, and
I must confess I was a bit dismayed that it happened. In doing my part
to try and step in and avert the split, I received no less than several
very good pixel-lashings from parties involved and have probably succeeded
in alienating several people. So much for good intentions, but life goes
on.
You have no idea how many times I've mentioned that I'm tangentially
involved with BSD (read: I use it and occasionally submit problems and,
even less frequently, code to fix them) and been accosted for having such
hostile mailing lists. I ask "Which BSD are you talking about?"
I'm told either OpenBSD or FreeBSD. I think I've had a small percentage
of them report being on NetBSD, so we're not on a high horse over here,
especially when stuff that smells like System V or Solaris decides to
ride into town. We have our very own System V advocate, and that creates
some rather...um...lively discussions, especially when people are forced
to look at why they object to importing the mechanism in question ("Does
it suck because it's technically unsound, or does it suck just because
it's System V?")
[Are there any TOTALLY uninitiated people out there who are unaware of
the rivalry between the SysV camp and the BSD camp? Ask someone sometime
on either side of the fence for why their way is better, but get the
other side of the story, too, and make your own decisions.]
Sorry to ramble; someone just happened to twiddle the boot flag on
something that's been compiling on the hard drive that is my brain...
# --Brett
--*greywolf;
--
*BSD is much like a tipi: No windows, no gates, and an apache inside.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Fri Jan 19 23:36:26 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 11:27 PM 1/18/2001, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>You mean, you think reading your rants, flames and paranoid
>delusions *is* fun?
Another fun aspect of the hazing: those doing it have a
tendency to "pile on."
--Brett
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG (John Baldwin), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 00:32:18 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 19-Jan-01 Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:58 PM 1/18/2001, Kris Kirby wrote:
>
>>No offense Brett, but I imagine some people are thinking the same thing
>>about you.
>>
>>(Before you start to rip into me, realize that I do not have you
>>kill-filed, unlike others. Hint Hint.)
>
> I'm glad you don't. But your statement is not fair. Unlike ESR,
> I care about ethics and am not merely trying to promote my own
> financial success at my colleagues' expense.
>
> As for the kill files: this is part of the hazing/shunning that
> was alluded to in earlier messages in this thread. It's a power
> game.
Actually, that is because many people have noticed that you tend to say the
same thing over and over, and since they don't agree with you, they'd just as
soon not see the same thing that they disagree with over and over. As a
committer, I can safely say that no hazing took place for me to become a
committer. I know that hazing is and is not: I was in both a military college
and a fraternity at school. :) What is true is that FreeBSD is rather bottom
heavy (lots of coders). However, part of this derives from its nature: the
reason people are committers is because they can add something to the
repository. Things like articles in magazines aren't stored in the CVS
repository, so they don't lend themselves to gaining commit access as it were.
Neither does QA type work. However, these items are just as essential as the
stuff that is in the repo. One thing that would be helpful is to find ways to
reward this work similar to the ways that we reward people who submit code.
For example, a @FreeBSD.org mail address and/or homepage. Hopefully, such
would encourage peopel to do stuff like QA, which we sorely need more of.
However, there is one way in which FreeBSD is kind of like a frat, and that is
that the community attracts people that are somewhat similar. This is true for
almost any organization. When a company hires people, it wants to hire people
who fit in with the existing culture, not someone who will just cause constant
uproars. I'm afraid, Brett, that some people find you to be at odds with large
portions of the rest of the community, which is why you haven't garnered as
wide acceptance as you would like.
> --Brett
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: si@chemicalterrorism.com ("Si."), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: RE: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 01:39:57 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
ffs cant you people give it a rest or take it somewhere....
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
[mailto:owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Brett Glass
Sent: 19 January 2001 06:55
To: Rahul Siddharthan
Cc: Jeremy Lea; Kris Kirby; freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
At 11:36 PM 1/18/2001, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
>I was perfectly serious, and so is everyone else who you think is
>hazing you.
You're being rude, annoying and childish. Quit playing schoolyard
games.
--Brett Glass
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: nbm@mithrandr.moria.org (Neil Blakey-Milner), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 01:56:41 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Thu 2001-01-18 (23:33), Brett Glass wrote:
> >You mean, you think reading your rants, flames and paranoid
> >delusions *is* fun?
>
> Another fun aspect of the hazing: those doing it have a
> tendency to "pile on."
I know this runs the risk of starting a "Brett vs. World" pile-on, and
it was indeed inspired in part by the behaviour that Brett describes (I
assume in a deprecatory manner), but since we're spouting about social
groups, entrance, hazing, and so forth...
Part of many groups, is the person who never realises that people in the
group really don't approve of his behaviour, and _really_ don't agree
with his rhetoric, despite his numerous anonymous referrals to people
who do. The possible reasons he gives to himself are either mass
delusion or mass stupidity within the members of the group. Of course
they want him to behave this way; they'd be stupid not to.
This person sometimes, but not always, complains about how the group
shouldn't badmouth him to within the group, or with others, and accuses
them of backstabbing his attempts to do "what the group really wants,
but just doesn't know it".
What this person doesn't really understand is that he isn't showing the
respect of the group necessary to have reciprocal respect. While it's
usual for groups to have members of varying beliefs, it is unusual for
groups to allow in members who show fundamentalist tendencies in areas
where there are varying beliefs within the population and push that
vision as a vision for the entire group. If this fundamentalist nature
also continues to drive new members of the group, this compounds the
hesitancy to admit this person as a member to the group. This person
tends to not to realise the group exists for purposes other than which
he believes it should have, and tends not to change his views.
I'm not a qualified student of social science, but I have seen this
within two groups of which I am a member (a militant feminist and an
anti-discrimination group, and an anti-religious person in a an
organisation opposing the benefits accorded to certain religious groups
at a university).
I also managed to realise I was inhibiting my own entry into a group due
to my drive for a belief that was not yet even thought about, let alone
shared. However, upon realisation, I toned down the rhetoric, and
joined the group for the sake of the group, not my personal causes, as
the group exists for its own purposes, not necessarily my own.
Subsequently, those purposes have become increasingly similar to mine,
as I contribute to the group, and prove my worth as a member of the
group, and with the natural sharing and modification of views of members
in the group.
(I'll make this on-topic by mentioning that this has to do with BSD
advocacy. Or something.)
Neil
--
Neil Blakey-Milner
nbm@mithrandr.moria.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: dan@langille.org ("Dan Langille"), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 02:19:37 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 19 Jan 2001, at 11:56, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
> I know this runs the risk of starting a "Brett vs. World" pile-on, and
> it was indeed inspired in part by the behaviour that Brett describes (I
> assume in a deprecatory manner), but since we're spouting about social
> groups, entrance, hazing, and so forth...
Brett, don't be offended. Don't reply. Don't start justifying anything.
Just take what Neil has said and digest it. For a few weeks.
And please don't reply to me either. Thanks.
--
Dan Langille
pgpkey - finger dan@unixathome.org | http://unixathome.org/finger.php
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: nik@FreeBSD.ORG (Nik Clayton), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 02:42:57 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:29:33AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> heavy (lots of coders). However, part of this derives from its nature: the
> reason people are committers is because they can add something to the
> repository. Things like articles in magazines aren't stored in the CVS
> repository, so they don't lend themselve s to gaining commit access as it
> were.
Oh yes they are. doc/<lang>/articles/.
There's a distinct lack of people handling them at the moment, and my
spare time is somewhat limited at the moment, but the facility is there.
N
--
Internet connection, $19.95 a month. Computer, $799.95. Modem, $149.95.
Telephone line, $24.95 a month. Software, free. USENET transmission,
hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Thinking before posting, priceless.
Somethings in life you can't buy. For everything else, there's MasterCard.
-- Graham Reed, in the Scary Devil Monastery
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG (John Baldwin), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 02:50:59 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
On 19-Jan-01 Nik Clayton wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:29:33AM -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
>> heavy (lots of coders). However, part of this derives from its nature: the
>> reason people are committers is because they can add something to the
>> repository. Things like articles in magazines aren't stored in the CVS
>> repository, so they don't lend themselve s to gaining commit access as it
>> were.
>
> Oh yes they are. doc/<lang>/articles/.
>
> There's a distinct lack of people handling them at the moment, and my
> spare time is somewhat limited at the moment, but the facility is there.
Erm, so far we haven't had copies of articles sent in to DDJ, which is what I
was hinting at. I was not aware that we wished to import such things. My
point was more that there are things that one can do to contribute to the
project that aren't rewarded with committership at the moment. If that makes
any sense.
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brad.knowles@skynet.be (Brad Knowles), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
發信站: NCTU CSIE FreeBSD Server (Sat Jan 20 04:14:51 2001)
轉信站: Ptt!FreeBSD.csie.NCTU!not-for-mail
At 10:31 PM -0500 2001/1/18, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> Having three BSD camps has been great...did you notice that NetBSD's
> development spurred when OpenBSD was created?? Maybe it's the time for
> a unified "Free" BSD, maybe not.
What I see that is actually happening is that each project is
taking code and concepts from the other two projects (and re-working
them as needed), as they have needs and interests that permit/require
them to do so. So, as FreeBSD becomes more portable, it takes stuff
from NetBSD and then does some re-working. As NetBSD becomes more
powerful (e.g., adding SMP), they take code from FreeBSD and then do
some re-working. As either FreeBSD or NetBSD become more secure,
they rummage around through the OpenBSD code to see what can be
re-used.
So, over time, these three projects are continuing to
cross-pollinate with each other, and ultimately some time in the
distant future, you may very well see the resulting hybrid get so
close, and after a number of the original players have either retired
or changed their more radical views over the years, you may actually
see a point where the core people agree that it no longer makes sense
to keep the projects separate, and there is essentially a vote taken
(and won) to agree to fully merge what little is left.
However, I don't see this happening on a fast time table. I
think we're probably talking about another ten to twenty years, at
least.
--
These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy
======================================================================
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- <
發信人: brad.knowles@skynet.be (Brad Knowles), 看板: FB_chat
標 題: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?