At 12:06 PM 3/14/00 -0500, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>Please guys,
>
>Move this intrascendental thread to freebsd-chat !
>
>Zach Brown wrote:
>>
>> > Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
>> > undocumented". The linux community, years into it, are still totally
>>
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ian Mondragon wrote:
> please move this thread elsewhere immediately- at this point i really don't
> care where to. several people have requested the same thing over the course
> of the past couple days, yet certain people insist that they get *one* more
> comment in on the
please move this thread elsewhere immediately- at this point i really don't
care where to. several people have requested the same thing over the course
of the past couple days, yet certain people insist that they get *one* more
comment in on the "topic". this is a list for serious technical dis
> Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
> undocumented". The linux community, years into it, are still totally
> dependent on Alan Cox to fix drivers properly (mostly because the OS is
> completely undocumented and changes are made on a whim regularly). D.
This i
I am sorry, but this discussion REALLY belongs elsewhere. Please take it
to -chat or another forum where it belongs. Please? I was not able to get
my mail all weekend and was inundated with a deluge of mail on this debate.
There is a reason there are multiple lists.
-Kevin Stevens
Kevin Stevens
> > >http://home.wxs.nl/~asmodai/newbus-draft.txt comes to mind. And when
> > >that is finished the manpages will follow.
> > >
> > >That's also why I am wasting my time slowly documenting the FreeBSD
> > >internals in my spare time.
> >
> > "slowly" is the key word here. Real products are docum
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:44:04AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
>
> "slowly" is the key word here. Real products are documented before
> they are in commercial use.
The fact that they're documented, does not imply that their
documentation is also "good", though.
Oh, and let us not forget that some vend
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:32 PM 3/12/00 +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
> >
> >Exactly, and it also slightly pisses me off...
> >
> >Then I guess I wrote all the manpages and documents for nothing.
> >
> >elf.5 comes to mind for a very handy resource.
> >
> >http://home.wxs.
Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
>
> > > >That's also why I am wasting my time slowly documenting the FreeBSD
> > > >internals in my spare time.
> > >
> > > "slowly" is the key word here. Real products are documented before they are
> > > in commercial use.
> >
>
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000, Nate Williams wrote:
> > >That's also why I am wasting my time slowly documenting the FreeBSD
> > >internals in my spare time.
> >
> > "slowly" is the key word here. Real products are documented before they are
> > in commercial use.
>
> Really? That's very different from
> >That's also why I am wasting my time slowly documenting the FreeBSD
> >internals in my spare time.
>
> "slowly" is the key word here. Real products are documented before they are
> in commercial use.
Really? That's very different from my experience as a commercial
software developer.
And, i
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 04:14:34AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 09:19 AM 3/13/00 +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
> >I have yet to find a "real product" with good documentation.
>
> I hate when these discussions get so out of context. The original point
> regarded source code, and whether it was useful enoug
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:36:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
[open source is irrelevant because none but but the authors can
really fix things]
[open source _means_ that it's never finished]
[the existing commercial support sucks]
Seems like a pretty pointless and content-free set of remarks to
be ma
At 09:19 AM 3/13/00 +1300, Joe Abley wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:44:04AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
>> At 07:32 PM 3/12/00 +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
>> >That's also why I am wasting my time slowly documenting the FreeBSD
>> >internals in my spare time.
>>
>> "slowly" is the key word h
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 03:44:04AM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> At 07:32 PM 3/12/00 +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
> >That's also why I am wasting my time slowly documenting the FreeBSD
> >internals in my spare time.
>
> "slowly" is the key word here. Real products are documented before they are
At 07:32 PM 3/12/00 +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote:
>-On [2312 00:00], Joe Abley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:36:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
>
>>> Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
>>> undocumented".
>>
>>This is sillier.
>
>E
-On [2312 00:00], Joe Abley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:36:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
>> Another point is that Open Source is virtually synonomous with "Totally
>> undocumented".
>
>This is sillier.
Exactly, and it also slightly pisses me off...
Then I guess I wrot
Could we place relocate this topic to -chat or -advocacy, since it
doesn't seem that correct to be discussed on -hackers.
Hackers was meant for quality technical discussion, not discussions
about FUD, stupidity of people whom don't read official messages posted
prior to stating things, spinning o
nuts.
Thanks (not)
--
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is FreeBSD dead? Well, not in theory...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:36:31 -0500
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes...
>
> >The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scr
On Mar 11 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Michael Bacarella said:
> > Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
> > pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
> > with people who are scrutinizing this move?
>
> No, I only feel there's somet
> > >I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If
> > >you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
> > >one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
> > >BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
> > >
> > >Personally, I've
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:50:02AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> The FreeBSD genie is out of the bottle and has been for over 7 years
> now. Any attempts to put it back in are doomed to failure and
> everyone at BSDI knows this very well already. Do you folks honestly
> think I haven't cov
Paul Richards wrote:
>
> I'd like to the see the core team being more prominent in promoting
> FreeBSD to other commercial backers, rather than continuing to push WC
> as the home of FreeBSD.
The opportunity has always been there for another company to promote
and profit from FreeBSD. Not a sin
John Grimes wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Didier Derny wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> > > CDROM. (March 10 2000).
> > >
> > > I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selli
: > bsdi is doing everything to slow down the development of freebsd...
Hmmm. BSDi isn't paying my salary. Timing Solutions is. They tell
me to do or not to do development on their nickle. I commit code I've
completed. Where does BSDi enter into it at all? The answer is very
simple: no wher
> me..). WC/BSDI could take away the bandwidth. WC/BSDI could take away the
> hosting of servers, there are a ton of people with servers and bandwidth
> that would take over exactly what hub/freefall/bento/etc do right now. The
> USWest machines are living proof of that.
>
> I'd even venture to s
> > All I see here are a lot of fears and unfounded statements about who
> > BSDI are or what they're going to be in a year's time. If you think
> > you know all the answers to those questions, please introduce me to
> > your fortune teller! Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
> > th
> Corporations care only for their interests. Their stockholders will be
> pissed if they act otherwise. Do you really think there's something wrong
> with people who are scrutinizing this move?
No, I only feel there's something wrong with those who are both
scrutinizing it and jumping to a lot o
>me..). WC/BSDI could take away the bandwidth. WC/BSDI could take away the
>hosting of servers, there are a ton of people with servers and bandwidth
>that would take over exactly what hub/freefall/bento/etc do right now. The
>USWest machines are living proof of that.
>
>I'd even venture to say tha
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:51:01AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000311 03:54] wrote:
> > Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
> > and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.
>
> We'd be better off if people making suggestio
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 09:59:50AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
> > things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
> > for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
>
> How m
> > I'm not a doom-sayer, but try to understand this from our point of view.
[..snip..]
> does this clear up the difficulty for you?
> did they need to clear this with you first?
I had no difficulties in the first place. I entirely support this. I was
just speculating as to why people could be
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> your fortune teller! Otherwise, I'd say you're doing a lot more harm
> than good with this kind of speculation and have to seriously question
> your motives at this point.
(Well, I was going to stay away, but I can stand it no longer...)
Be sure
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Dennis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes...
>
> >The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scruffy
> >unshaven hacker to fix it for you, instead of suffering at the hands and
> >whims of, say, a FreeBSD "vendor" as you are doing. I would figure that
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> > > One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
> > > with the same quality.
>
> > I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
> > rationale fo
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>merge + give code to freebsd --> lack of $$ but future investment
>bsdi unhappy to have given code but thinking to the future
>freebsd users happy of the new features
Er, no.
I've known a lot of the BSDi folks since before there was a FreeBSD. One of
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 01:36:31PM -0500, Dennis wrote:
> Not realistically. First of all, most "scruffy unshaven hackers" are not
> qualified to make serious changes to important drivers. they might be able
> to find a stray pointer, but not to make structural improvement.
This is just silly.
>
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > > Then, what are the benefits for both parties ?
> > >
> > > For the FreeBSD project :
> > > - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)
>
> Merced? .
>
> > definately.
>
> I'm not sure if that is a good thing if it is p
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
> > with the same quality.
> I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
> rationale for your fears here. Nobody has yet to come up with a
> single rea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes...
>The very fact that source is available means that you can pay any scruffy
>unshaven hacker to fix it for you, instead of suffering at the hands and
>whims of, say, a FreeBSD "vendor" as you are doing. I would figure that at
>least you (of all people) realize that some
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Paul Richards wrote:
> It's interesting that everyone is jumping up and down worrying about the
> effect that the merger between BSDI and WC will have. As you say, in
> *theory* FreeBSD has nothing to do with WC and is a totally independent
> project.
>
> In practice however
Paul Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The devil is in the detail. If the core team is stuffed full of WC and
> BSDI employees, who have a responsibility to their employer as well as
> to the project, then there will clearly be conflicts of interest and an
> undoubted leaning to solutions an
> > Then, what are the benefits for both parties ?
> >
> > For the FreeBSD project :
> > - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)
Merced? .
> definately.
I'm not sure if that is a good thing if it is pursued by the core team, at least not
for impopular or older targets.
> >> >What are their alternatives? Think about how the world is waking up to
> >> >Open Source. Think about how companies are realizing that a small group
> >> >of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of
> >> >contributors. What would you do if you didn't feel you
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
> > things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
> > for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
>
> How many different ways
> I am sure of the FreeBSD Projects intentions but like the previous post
> things can 'turn ugly fast with the greatest intentions' The fact a
> for-profit company controlling it's movements is cause for concern.
How many different ways can we say this? THE COMPANY DOES NOT CONTROL
THE FREEBSD
> Since WC didn't control any more than the server for the CVS tree, and
> since we all have mirrors of that thanks to cvsup, if they decided to
> make it unfree, then we as the FreeBSD development group would just
> nominate a different central server and life would continue as before, ...
> with
> FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will continue to
> distribute packaged versions of FreeBSD" Is this another way of saying
> that in the future that the distribution of FreeBSD may take on the Sun model
> for their "free" operating system software, which you pay $$$ for th
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> From: Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is
> > doing and let Walnut Creek merge.
>
> I don't see why that thought even crossed your mind.
>
> Anyone could "spinoff" FreeBSD anytime they wanted to
> the equations are quite simple
Only if you're taking powerful drugs, perhaps. There are a number of
things which are hardly "simple" here and let's go over them:
> bsd/os = $$ for bsdi
> freebsd = lack of bsd/os sold by bsdi --> lack of $$ for bsdi
False. If BSDI thought there was no money
Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, John Grimes wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> >
> > I don't entirely agree with the statement above. I would like to mention a
> > point to ponder. In the 13th paragraph of the announcement on the
> > FreeBSD.org website, I qu
> One day we will discover that we can't use FreeBSD as freely and / or
> with the same quality.
I wish you doom-sayers would actually come up with some conclusive
rationale for your fears here. Nobody has yet to come up with a
single reason as to how or why all these disaster scenarios would co
> I hope I'm totally wrong and that FreeBSD will continue as it was before
And I hope that people will actually wait to SEE if they're wrong
before acting as if they really know how this is all going to turn
out, as it appears you and several other people are already doing in
extremely premature
From: Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is
> doing and let Walnut Creek merge.
I don't see why that thought even crossed your mind.
Anyone could "spinoff" FreeBSD anytime they wanted to.
So far, there has been no compelling reason to do so
and
David Greenman wrote:
>
> >>I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If
> >>you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
> >>one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
> >>BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
> >>
>
I snipped the following from the cc:
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Didier Derny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
hope they don't mind 8-)
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Thierry.herbelot wrote:
> "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
> >
> [SNIP]
> >
> > If you think it's possible to bend the Fr
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000, John Grimes wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
>
> I don't entirely agree with the statement above. I would like to mention a
> point to ponder. In the 13th paragraph of the announcement on the
> FreeBSD.org website, I quote the following, "BSDI will conti
lso how some of my clients / friends see the things
>
> --
> Didier Derny
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Sam Leffler wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Didier Derny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTE
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Wes Peters wrote:
> Didier Derny wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> > CDROM. (March 10 2000).
> >
> > I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> > it's own BSD could at the same
+[ Didier Derny ]-
| it was this announcement, but it's only words, the reallity can be
| very different...
|
| the equations are quite simple
No they're not. Your equations are naive, and show that you do not realise
what FreeBSD is worth to BSDi
ow some of my clients / friends see the things
--
Didier Derny
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Sam Leffler wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Didier Derny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:02 AM
>
* Kevin M Geraci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000311 03:54] wrote:
> Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
> and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.
We'd be better off if people making suggestions like this would
"spin off".
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> When you see something wrong, you can speak up, but stop complaining about
> stuff that hasn't even happened yet. You could generate enough ill
> feelings and bad publicity to *cause yourself* the exact thing you're
> worried about.
>
One day we wi
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Didier Derny writes:
> : I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1)
>
> I think you are wrong. Dead wrong. This will allow the WC to pump
> more money into the FreeBSD organization to fix some of the gl
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing
and let Walnut Creek merge with BSDi with out FreeBSD.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is doing and let Walnut Creek
merge.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Maybe FreeBSD needs to "spin off" like Slackware is.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
I'm sorry Dennis but I find it a bit difficult to swallow
your assessment of other people's business acumen and
their ability to relate to markets.
The race isn't over yet, hell everybody's just warming up :-)
--
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wit
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Michael Bacarella wrote:
> A BSDI represenative tried for days to convince me over the phone why I
> should pay for BSD/OS even though FreeBSD was free, or at least a CD
> order away, and FreeBSD even has source code.
>
> I asked about why we should buy a
> Will there be some kind of "business-like" presentation of all the
> goodies which will comme from this merge of codebases ? (BSD-mergemania
> for Dummies (TM) ?)
I really couldn't say at this stage. Hopefully? :)
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe fre
Dennis wrote:
> the people buying linux servers from VAR research and the like dont care
> about source, they care about functinality. Thats why BSDI doesnt get it.
> its not about the source, its about the price. People perceive that BSD/OS
> and FreeBSD are substantially similar in functionalt
At 2:27 PM +0200 3/10/00, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:00:20 +0100, Johnathan Meehan wrote:
>
> > That is not fair, Sheldon. Didier has some concerns, and I
> > cannot blame him.
>
>I guess what I wrote makes for a very harsh comment in isolation
>from the grin I had on my face whi
Dennis wrote:
>
> Open Source is a lot of bunk. People want stuff that works. Linux is
> growing in popularity because since 2.2 came out it actually works well.
> Linux had the marketing in place and they are soaring. We sell 10 to 1
> linux now. I was getting bloodied pushing FreeBSD. Its like
At 14:15 10.03.00 -0600, you wrote:
>
>FreeBSD won't be dead until they pry the source code from our cold dead
>fingers :-)
>
>There are a lot of hardware companies that had invested substantially in
>BSD 4.3 knockoffs and Mach kernel knockoffs. The natural upgrade path for
>those development eff
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Didier Derny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> CDROM. (March 10 2000).
>
> I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
>
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
> > For the FreeBSD project :
> > - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)
> > - better Intel SMP ?
> > - new developpers ?
> > - increased credibility via the support network of BSDi ?
>
> Hopefully all of those things, though just days after the merg
> For the FreeBSD project :
> - many more supported platforms (Sparc, PowerPC, Arm ?)
> - better Intel SMP ?
> - new developpers ?
> - increased credibility via the support network of BSDi ?
Hopefully all of those things, though just days after the merger is no
time to be making promises either.
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
> If you think it's possible to bend the FreeBSD project to anyone's
> corporate will then you've never even come close to understanding who
> we are or what we stand for. That's a shame since one would think 6
> years to be more than enough time to gain su
> I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
And I can't imagine how *anyone* could take this perspective given
any of the stuff they've read so far.
FreeBSD will remain, as I have gone to great pains to s
FreeBSD won't be dead until they pry the source code from our cold dead
fingers :-)
Seriously, as one of the people who saw the potential for FreeBSD in the
commercial world back in '94 just prior to the release of 2.0-BETA I
do have to say that this is "the next level" that FreeBSD must go to.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Didier Derny writes:
: I've been using FreeBSD since August 1994 (FreeBSD 1.1.5.1)
I think you are wrong. Dead wrong. This will allow the WC to pump
more money into the FreeBSD organization to fix some of the glaring
problems that we have now.
Warner
To Unsubsc
>Could somebody clear this up for me? If FreeBSD is still going to go along
>doing what it does, then what happens if I write a device driver for
>WhizzoNewProduct(TM), that the commercial side is developing as an "added
>value feature"? Say, for example, I beat them to the punch. As pointed to
>instead of NT. Instead of Linux. The existing BSD market is too small. They
>have failed to convince the world that BSD is the answer. Outside of the
>US. linux is totally dominant.
I'm not sure where you get your market demographics, but at least in Japan,
FreeBSD is on par with Linux in po
Hi y'all,
> "People perceive that BSD/OS
> and FreeBSD are substantially similar in functionalty, and freebsd is
free.
> The source is only important to a tiny, tiny portion of the market. The
> hackers list is not the market...corporate america is the market."
(Dennis)
Some of us live outside A
>>I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If
>>you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
>>one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
>>BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
>>
>>Personally, I've been running FreeB
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Dennis wrote:
>
> >I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If
> >you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
> >one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
> >BSDidier has a nice ring to i
>I fail to see how you can read anything bad into this announcement. If
>you're really concerned, you have just as much right to the code as any
>one else, feel free to take the 4.0 code base and create your own system.
>BSDidier has a nice ring to it.
>
>Personally, I've been running FreeBSD si
At 12:34 PM 3/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> >What are their alternatives? Think about how the world is waking up to
>> >Open Source. Think about how companies are realizing that a small group
>> >of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of
>> >contributors. What woul
- Original Message -
From: "Didier Derny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 3:02 AM
Subject: Is FreeBSD dead ?
> Hi,
>
> I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> CDROM. (March 1
Didier Derny wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> CDROM. (March 10 2000).
>
> I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
>
> Has the FreeBSD project
> >What are their alternatives? Think about how the world is waking up to
> >Open Source. Think about how companies are realizing that a small group
> >of paid engineers simply can't keep up with a world-wide organization of
> >contributors. What would you do if you didn't feel you could keep
> 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 m
At 02:27 PM 3/10/00 +0200, you wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:00:20 +0100, Johnathan Meehan wrote:
>
>> That is not fair, Sheldon. Didier has some concerns, and I cannot
>> blame him.
>
>I guess what I wrote makes for a very harsh comment in isolation from
>the grin I had on my face while I wa
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:00:20 +0100, Johnathan Meehan wrote:
> That is not fair, Sheldon. Didier has some concerns, and I cannot
> blame him.
I guess what I wrote makes for a very harsh comment in isolation from
the grin I had on my face while I was typing. :-)
> I find it difficult to believe
Hi,
> You're going to feel like a real idiot when you actually read the
> announcement properly. Go back and read it through from beginning to
> end. :-)
That is not fair, Sheldon. Didier has some concerns, and I cannot blame him.
I'm reassured by the comments that have been made, both here and
hi, there!
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Didier Derny wrote:
> I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> CDROM. (March 10 2000).
>
> I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
>
> H
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 11:02:38AM +, Didier Derny wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> CDROM. (March 10 2000).
>
> I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> it's own BSD could at the same time let another
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 11:02:38 GMT, Didier Derny wrote:
> I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> CDROM. (March 10 2000).
>
> I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
Yo
On Fri 2000-03-10 (11:02), Didier Derny wrote:
> I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
> CDROM. (March 10 2000).
>
> I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
> it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
Let's hope y
Hi,
I've just read the announcement of the merge of BSDI and Walnut Creek
CDROM. (March 10 2000).
I guess it's a sad day for FreeBSD. I can't imagine how a company selling
it's own BSD could at the same time let another BSD free.
Has the FreeBSD project become the test-bed for BSDI ? or
the s
100 matches
Mail list logo
