> As long as they keep their grubbly little hands off of it, and dont let the
> ciscos and uunets of the world (who both own a piece of bsdi) dictate
> policy, and as long as several key developers dont go work for BSDI (they
> would have already if they were going to I think)....it shouldnt be much
> different.
As far as I know, UUNET had to divest their equity interest in BSDI at
the time that we (UUNET) went public years ago (or maybe it was when
we took some VC funding.. too long ago now.) The AT&T lawsuit was
still simmering at the time, and that degree of uncertainty was deemed
hostile to raising money.
In retrospect, UUNET probably should have kept a piece. Over the past
few years, UUNET has funded BSDI to add specific features (like doing
the SPARC port) but that was a conceptually simple contracting
arrangement that resulted in the code being available to all BSDI
users.
What's interesting in all this is to consider all the various Internet
embedded application "wins" that FreeBSD and BSDI have. Just the
ones that I can think about off the top of my head: Juniper Networks,
Mirapoint, Whistle (FreeBSD) and Ascend in the GRF platform (BSDI).
There are certainly others that escape me at the moment. BSDI has
a nice embedded packaging of their product, and FreeBSD has gone in
that direction too with things like PicoBSD. I think there's a big
potential here to vigerously pursue that high-reliablity Internet
infrastructure market with the combinations of the technology. In
particular, BSDI can bring the support for those "vertical" applications
for OEM's that want to buy it.
These are obviously just my opinions, influenced by low blood sugar,
and not necessarily those of UUNET's.
louie
(aka [EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
