Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!
rpal.rockwell.com!news.Stanford.EDU!rescomp.Stanford.EDU!yoda
From: y...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU (Terry Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: OpenBSD. PLEASE PLEASE!
Date: 17 Jan 1995 21:17:48 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <3fhc5s$atq@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rescomp.stanford.edu
I submit this as a plea to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and NetBSD.
I'm a new BSD user. And I've tried Linux too.
After reading all the posts it seems to me that at the root of both teams is
this. You both enjoy writing UNIX code. And you both want people to use
your OS. When all other considerations are gone, it seems only these two
remain.
But if you want people to use your code, then you have to stop thinking
like programmers for a second, and think marketing. Just for a second
mind you.
As a user, it's just plan confusing to have two BSDs. Because of Linux you
are facing an rapidly shrinking market share. And then the customer
base is again reduced a fold, because customers have to chose between two
BSDs. And furthermore not only is this half of a small market share, it
is further reduced because BSD as a whole is losing even more people to
Linux because BSD's fragmentation is just another reason to use Linux.
I've read that some BSD people don't give a hoot about Linux. I think that
this is a foolish attitude since Linux is your competition! And healthy
competition it is! Competition between yourselves serves nothing except
to intimidate potential users.
You want to enjoy what you are doing. Without that there is no project. You
also want a solid user base. Without it there is no project. I think the
future of BSD is in serious question right now. There is something about
BSD that I like that Linux lacks, and I'd really like to see BSD have a bright
future.
Someone said the perhaps 3/4 of the members of both teams were in favor of
a unified effort. Well those 3/4ths of you please speak up and take some
action!
Please! I think more than anything else you could do for BSD, more than any
new kernel code or new device driver, a unified effort
would be by far the best thing you could do for the users and potential users.
I think even a new name would further promote your creation. FreeBSD sounds,
well, free. It's sort of cheap sounding. Not something I'd particularly
want to use for, say, my business. It's not impressive. NetBSD, well net
just doesn't really mean anything to the user. What does the 'net' mean?
Actually I don't really care except for the fact that it doesn't mean
anything to me.
OpenBSD. NOW THAT'S A NAME! That's something I'd really want to show
people and brag about using. Add 3.0 to it and I think people would chose
it over linux just for the name itself!
In conclusion, I just want to thank all of you for this wonderful gift.
This world needs a free BSD 4.4lite-based OS package.
Sincerely,
Terry Lee
Computer Systems Consultant
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!gw1.att.com!
csn!yuma!purdue!haven.umd.edu!news.umbc.edu!eff!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!
hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!
unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu!user
From: ter...@cs.stanford.edu (Terry Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: OpenBSD. PLEASE PLEASE!
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 16:05:12 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <terryl-1901951605120001@tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu>
References: <3fhc5s$atq@nntp.stanford.edu> <3fhpm2$chu@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu
In article <3fhpm2$...@agate.berkeley.edu>, j...@violet.berkeley.edu
(Jordan K. Hubbard) wrote:
> In article <3fhc5s$...@nntp.stanford.edu>,
> Terry Lee <y...@rescomp.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> >I submit this as a plea to the wonderful developers of FreeBSD and NetBSD.
> >I'm a new BSD user. And I've tried Linux too.
>
> I'm sorry, Terry, but all of this is just incredibly naive. I'm somehow
> reminded of a wide-eyed flower child with beads in his hair saying
> "It's all so simple, why can't we all just love eachother and be friends
> and have no more war and live forever in bliss and eternal harmony?"
With all due respect, Jordan, merging two relatively small groups that
haven't really gotten along in the past is hardly eternal harmony. You
seem to be a bit prone to hyperbole. I may be mildly naive to the inner
workings of BSD, but certainly not 'incredibly' naive. I've taken the
time to follow all the relevant threads as much as possible.
> >After reading all the posts it seems to me that at the root of both teams is
> >this. You both enjoy writing UNIX code. And you both want people to use
> >your OS. When all other considerations are gone, it seems only these two
> >remain.
>
> Yes, AFTER all other considerations are gone, I suppose you're right! :-)
> But what makes you think that the other considerations can be so easily
> dismissed?
Based on what I've read, I certainly do NOT think that getting to a
unified effort would be easy at all. But it seems that at this point in
time, a divided effort is almost totally contrary to promoting a prolific
and solid user base. All the other considerations seem to me to be mostly
growing pains of some sort. Yes, they sound painful as hell, but I think
people need to stop a face the facts of life. If NetBSD and FreeBSD were
the only free UN*Xs around then things would look good for BSD, but they
are not the only ones, and the two combined are not even a close second
right now. Please understand, I say this with the greatest respect to the
teams. After all, I'm rooting for BSD!
> >But if you want people to use your code, then you have to stop thinking
> >like programmers for a second, and think marketing. Just for a second
> >mind you.
>
> Believe me. We DO think about "marketing." I am frequently taken
> to task by my peers for thinking too much about `marketing'. Our failure
> is not insufficient understanding of marketing. We know very well the
> deleterious effects of the non-merge situation, but we accept them because
> we know that life isn't quite the simplistic picture that you paint.
You accept them?! Perhaps I seem simplistic because perhaps you still
underestimate these deleterious effects. A free robust OS based on BSD
4.4! I think we are talking about a potential user base of hundreds of
thousands. And you're willing to resign to just a several thousand, or
more,... or less. Simplistic, yes! I'm going to go out on a limb here
and say that my perception is that BSD is dog paddling, and a unified
effort may be the difference between sink or swim.
> >I've read that some BSD people don't give a hoot about Linux. I think that
>
> Then you've hardly read the opinions of any of the BSD people that matter.
> I think both core teams are well aware of Linux's success, and many of
> the things that put it there. We hardly regard Linux as insignificant.
I apologize, I didn't mean insignificant. I thought the BSD FAQ gave a
definite impression that some BSD people really did not care to hear
about Linux or put it up against BSD. I realize now parts of the FAQ are
quite dated, and I may have misinterpreted them a bit.
> >You want to enjoy what you are doing. Without that there is no project. You
> >also want a solid user base. Without it there is no project. I think the
>
> Yes, yes. Do you think you're lecturing to a junior high school class here?
> Everything you've said has been incredibly obvious so far..
I apologize if I offended anyone.
> >Someone said the perhaps 3/4 of the members of both teams were in favor of
>
> You're certainly on the receiving end of a lot of bogus statistics! :-)
>
> >Please! I think more than anything else you could do for BSD, more than any
> >new kernel code or new device driver, a unified effort
> >would be by far the best thing you could do for the users and potential
users.
>
> While we're being so idealistic, do you think we might do something about
> world hunger?
Well, Linux might just be to BSD what world hunger is to the peoples of
this Earth.
Respectfully yours,
Terry Lee
P.S. Someone wrote to me and suggested that the term 'Open' tends to make
him want "to run away, very fast, screaming, from anything containing the
word 'open'. You may find more of this sentiment out there as you talk
to people. 'Open'ness has screwed the industry over many times, mostly
due to braindead interactions with various government agencies." Quite a
few people seem to like the sound of OpenBSD, but I see your point. My
point was just I think that names can make a big difference, and that the
current names had a couple failings.
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!udel!
gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!jkh
From: j...@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: OpenBSD. PLEASE PLEASE!
Date: 20 Jan 1995 18:26:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <3fov8v$rft@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <3fhc5s$atq@nntp.stanford.edu> <3fhpm2$chu@agate.berkeley.edu>
<terryl-1901951605120001@tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu
In article <terryl-1901951605120...@tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu>,
Terry Lee <ter...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>With all due respect, Jordan, merging two relatively small groups that
>haven't really gotten along in the past is hardly eternal harmony. You
>seem to be a bit prone to hyperbole. I may be mildly naive to the inner
Perhaps, and if I was overly sarcastic in my first reply then I apologise.
I've been a bit stressed-out lately (laughs long and bitterly for about
five minutes at the understatement) and prone to use nuclear weapons on
people when a gentle poke on the nose would probably do as well. My fault.
>workings of BSD, but certainly not 'incredibly' naive. I've taken the
>time to follow all the relevant threads as much as possible.
Well, let me just say then that the true dynamics of the situation CANNOT
be deduced by reading news, primarily because we've kept this kind of
dirty laundry under as tight a lid as possible (which is not to say that
we've always been successful). To really understand why it's more
complex, you'd have to be a member of the core team for either *BSD,
or someone very close to it. I know that this sounds like a cop-out,
but please just trust me on this one.
>You accept them?! Perhaps I seem simplistic because perhaps you still
>underestimate these deleterious effects. A free robust OS based on BSD
>4.4! I think we are talking about a potential user base of hundreds of
>thousands. And you're willing to resign to just a several thousand, or
>more,... or less. Simplistic, yes! I'm going to go out on a limb here
Then let me be more explicit: No matter how great the potential
gains, it's just not going to happen. Acceptance of this is GOOD since
it lets us get on with our lives, and it doesn't imply that we're
underestimating anything. Believe me! Anyone who's talked to both
core teams knows full well at this point that it's NOT POSSIBLE to merge
the groups! People in both *BSDs have already said that they'd go
away if this happened, and I don't care to see those people leave
EITHER group. What good would that do? You want to destroy both groups
in pursuit of an ideal? This sort of reminds me of a tale of a certain
golden goose and its owners who cut it open to get all the eggs out at once.
These are volunteers here, and if they've been led to water, shown how to
drink it and still don't want to drink, then pushing their heads under
until they drown hardly seems constructive. The teams are already
firmly on the path to their own individual destinies, and if this
pisses off a few external folks who just don't see why we can't get
together, then I'm sorry. I'm tired of people trying to fight this
battle when it's obvious to all the generals that it's been lost.
I'm not just being pessimistic, either. I've been at the center of
these discussions for the last year! I understand the subtleties.
Now this is not to say that something amazing might not happen in the
future, and if it does I'll certainly be willing to look at it,
but for now I would much prefer that both groups be left alone to do
their thing as best possible.
Regards,
Jordan
Path: pad-thai.cam.ov.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!
agate!news.Stanford.EDU!tip-mp9-ncs-3.stanford.edu!user
From: ter...@cs.stanford.edu (Terry Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: OpenBSD. PLEASE PLEASE!
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 00:04:59 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <terryl-2201950004590001@tip-mp9-ncs-3.stanford.edu>
References: <3fhc5s$atq@nntp.stanford.edu> <3fhpm2$chu@agate.berkeley.edu>
<terryl-1901951605120001@tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu> <3fov8v$rft@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tip-mp9-ncs-3.stanford.edu
In article <3fov8v$...@agate.berkeley.edu>, j...@violet.berkeley.edu
(Jordan K. Hubbard) wrote:
> Well, let me just say then that the true dynamics of the situation CANNOT
> be deduced by reading news, primarily because we've kept this kind of
> dirty laundry under as tight a lid as possible (which is not to say that
> we've always been successful). To really understand why it's more
> complex, you'd have to be a member of the core team for either *BSD,
> or someone very close to it. I know that this sounds like a cop-out,
> but please just trust me on this one.
After getting some quite amazing e-mail, I believe you on this one.
Thanks for the clearer explanation.
> Now this is not to say that something amazing might not happen in the
> future, and if it does I'll certainly be willing to look at it,
Well, I'll still pray for the miracle. It sounds like for this to happen,
the generals need to come out an BURY THE HATCHET. Whichever general
steps forth to call to his comrads to do this will be a gentleman and
hero (IMHO).
Anyhow, I think I'm going to stick with BSD. One important reason is
because it's so close to BSDI which still carries a lot more weight in the
commercial world than Linux. Ones suggestion/request: if we can't have it
all with a unified BSD, then how about making it a high priority to
maintain BSDI binary compatibility. Why? Because BSDI pulls a lot of
weight with commercial software developers who often develop important
products. For example, Netscape Navigator, and Netscape Commerce server,
and TIA (these are just things I've come across in my limited
experience). Linux has gained a bit of weight in this area, but BSDI is
still far ahead. By being fully binary compatible with BSDI, the *BSDs
could leverage off of BSDIs success and thus gain a step ahead of Linux.
Mostly compatible just isn't good enough. I think close to fully
compatible could really catapult *BSD's success. The runaway success of
Linux is mostly in the public sector (the People's UN*X), and a more
commercial approach would be a good angle to target a different sector of
the market than that of Linux. Also, the public sector might start to
consider *BSD more 'commercial grade' than Linux, and 'upgrade'! Such an
approach I think is consistent with the fact that *BSD is based on BSD4.4,
which in itself is a reason to upgrade.
This and also more user friendly installation and configuration tools
might help to get a leg up on Linux, and really make *BSD fly!
Of course, a unified BSD would do a lot also, but maybe I should get out
of my dreamworld. But dreams come true sometimes right?
Best regards,
Terry
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!
news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!agate!
violet.berkeley.edu!jkh
From: j...@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: OpenBSD. PLEASE PLEASE!
Date: 23 Jan 1995 16:51:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <3g0mqq$p0f@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <3fhc5s$atq@nntp.stanford.edu>
<terryl-1901951605120001@tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu> <3fov8v$rft@agate.berkeley.edu>
<terryl-2201950004590001@tip-mp9-ncs-3.stanford.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu
In article <terryl-2201950004590...@tip-mp9-ncs-3.stanford.edu>,
Terry Lee <ter...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>commercial world than Linux. Ones suggestion/request: if we can't have it
>all with a unified BSD, then how about making it a high priority to
>maintain BSDI binary compatibility. Why? Because BSDI pulls a lot of
I can't speak for NetBSD, but this is already of GREAT importance to
the FreeBSD group. As I said before, anyone sending me a NetBSD or
BSDI binary that doesn't work (and is statically linked) will receive
my full support on ironing out the problems.
We consider BSDI compatibility to be a major feature of FreeBSD 2.0
and will continue to maintain it.
>Of course, a unified BSD would do a lot also, but maybe I should get out
>of my dreamworld. But dreams come true sometimes right?
Even when they don't, they make great broadway musicals.. :-)
Jordan
P.S. "La dolce BSD" anyone? :-)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!udel!
gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.indirect.com!wes
From: w...@indirect.com (Barnacle Wes)
Subject: Re: OpenBSD. PLEASE PLEASE!
Message-ID: <D2wA13.JEr@indirect.com>
Sender: use...@indirect.com (Darin Wayrynen)
Organization: the briney, briney deep
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 05:31:50 GMT
References: <3fhc5s$atq@nntp.stanford.edu> <3fhpm2$chu@agate.berkeley.edu>
<terryl-1901951605120001@tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu> <3fov8v$rft@agate.berkeley.edu>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 32
Jordan K. Hubbard (j...@violet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Then let me be more explicit: No matter how great the potential
: gains, it's just not going to happen. Acceptance of this is GOOD since
: it lets us get on with our lives, and it doesn't imply that we're
: underestimating anything. Believe me! Anyone who's talked to both
: core teams knows full well at this point that it's NOT POSSIBLE to merge
: the groups! People in both *BSDs have already said that they'd go
: away if this happened, and I don't care to see those people leave
: EITHER group. What good would that do? You want to destroy both groups
: in pursuit of an ideal? This sort of reminds me of a tale of a certain
: golden goose and its owners who cut it open to get all the eggs out at once.
: These are volunteers here, and if they've been led to water, shown how to
: drink it and still don't want to drink, then pushing their heads under
: until they drown hardly seems constructive. The teams are already
: firmly on the path to their own individual destinies, and if this
: pisses off a few external folks who just don't see why we can't get
: together, then I'm sorry. I'm tired of people trying to fight this
: battle when it's obvious to all the generals that it's been lost.
: I'm not just being pessimistic, either. I've been at the center of
: these discussions for the last year! I understand the subtleties.
I have an idea: if there are really that many people interested in "OpenBSD",
why don't they get togehter and form an OpenBSD core team? They could sup
FreeBSD-current and NetBSD-current, and regularly produce OpenBSD-current
for supping for those who think this is important. The goal of the OpenBSD
team would, of course, be to support all applications, utilities, and
drivers supported by the union of {Free,Net}BSD. At the same time, they
could stop sniveling at the {Free,Net}BSD core teams to merge. Enough!
Even if you don't have a life of your own, stop trying to use someone
else's!
Wes Peters
Path: pad-thai.cam.ov.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!
udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!jkh
From: j...@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: OpenBSD. PLEASE PLEASE!
Date: 24 Jan 1995 17:44:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <3g3e9p$8h8@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <3fhc5s$atq@nntp.stanford.edu>
<terryl-1901951605120001@tip-mp4-ncs-9.stanford.edu> <3fov8v$rft@agate.berkeley.edu>
<D2wA13.JEr@indirect.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu
In article <D2wA13....@indirect.com>, Barnacle Wes <w...@indirect.com> wrote:
>I have an idea: if there are really that many people interested in "OpenBSD",
>why don't they get togehter and form an OpenBSD core team? They could sup
>FreeBSD-current and NetBSD-current, and regularly produce OpenBSD-current
>for supping for those who think this is important. The goal of the OpenBSD
>team would, of course, be to support all applications, utilities, and
>drivers supported by the union of {Free,Net}BSD. At the same time, they
>could stop sniveling at the {Free,Net}BSD core teams to merge. Enough!
>Even if you don't have a life of your own, stop trying to use someone
>else's!
Well. I floated this EXACT SAME idea at USENIX this year, and you'd be
amazed at the number of people who sort of turned pale and shut up when
I suggested that maybe they would like to do it? :-)
Yes, there is nothing in the world to stop all the various dissenters, whiners
and bible thumping "there must be only one!" folk who have cried out for the
merge over the last 2 years from getting together and actually doing
something constructive like this. Even if they didn't do their own releases
and called themselves `OpenBSD', they could still take the role of an
impartial 3rd party who's job it was to get changes brought across between
the two. I'd certainly be willing to work with such a group.
But you see, all of that is WORK, and most of the merge proponents would
rather just sit in their armchairs and complain! :-)
Jordan