Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!dec4ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie>
Sender: use...@ieunet.ie (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland
Distribution: comp
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 03:03:49 GMT
Lines: 110
I am working in association with Hypermedia Concepts, Inc. to produce
a CDROM for release in the late-January/mid-February timeframe.
My initial plan is to provide one CD with the following contents:
386BSD (0.1) + patchkit + ??? (unpacked)
Linux 0.95(?) + ??? (unpacked)
X11R5 (PL17) + XFree86 1.1 (unpacked)
X11R5 contrib (compressed tar)
GNU sources (compressed tar)
Various miscellaneous utilities (compressed tar)
[ ??? = to be determined ]
This CD will be packed to the gills! ~680MB of everything you've
probably ever wanted on a CDROM.
Hypermedia Concepts is a well-established firm with the successful
"AB20 archives", "Fred Fish Collection" and "Fish on Line" CD's to
their credit, among others. They've done this before and I have every
confidence that we'll be able to have this CD out in a very short
period of time. International sales channels are also already well
set up, and prices will be adjusted to make the CD as good a deal
overseas as they are in the U.S.
I will be making No Money from sales this CDROM - I am doing it as a
public service (and because I really want to see this stuff on CDROM).
Technical details:
The CD will be will be mastered in ISO 9660 format (all filenames 8.3)
with a special source program (compilable under Linix or 386BSD) in the
top level directory that will create a symbolic link tree for you with
the long names for each file (each directory will contain an info file
mapping 8.3 -> long filenames). This will enable to you automatically
build link trees to the unpacked X11 and OS sources and build them
right off the CD, for example:
( mount CD on /cdrom )
% cdlink /cdrom/X11R5 /usr/src/X11R5
% cd /usr/src/X11R5
% make
(voila!) Of course, this would only need to be done once, unless you
later removed /usr/src/X11R5.
Note: It *is* possible for us to master the CD so that full filenames
are used, but we will then be unable to preserve case sensitivity and
you will then be unable to mount the CD from a DOS fileserver (or any
other filesystem driver that expects strict ISO9660 conformance).
What I'd like to hear from all of you are the following things:
1. Do you like the idea of Linux and 386BSD being distributed on one
CD? Would you prefer to have 2 CD's, one for Linux and one for
386BSD, both perhaps with more X11/GNU/misc goodies on them as a
result?
2. Do you have any strong religious convictions about my decision
to pack the CD in ISO9660 format? Even with the link program +
info file convention?
3. What would you like to pay for such a CD? $50? $60? $70?
(we don't intend to even approach the $100 mark, so don't worry)
4. If you could get it for $60 or so, what would you consider a
fair price for an update? $30? $20? Would you pay more for
the initial CD if you could pay less for the update?
I'm really not trying to gouge anyone by asking these questions ("Hey!
The suckers said they'd pay $70 for this! And we were only going to
charge $10! Hahahahahaha!!"), I'm really just trying to get a feel
for what you'd like to see in terms of pricing. We have some prices
already in mind, but are willing to be flexible up to the point where
mastering costs and misc charges don't murder Hypermedia.
Much of this is contingent on getting permission from the various
parties involved, but I don't see any immediate problems. I think
anything that makes 386BSD and/or Linux easier to get and keep
archives of is bound to be a Good Thing.
Also note that while several other CD's have been/are being offered
for 386BSD and Linux, I'm not doing this CD in an effort to compete
with them. My main focus in producing a CD that offers good value for
money (packed full) and is very aggressively priced so that students
and other traditionally penniless interest groups can get in on the
UNIX revolution [grin] as cheaply as possible. If you're looking for
a deal where you get updates-free-for-life, or "comes with a year of
telephone support" then you're not looking for my CD. Updates will be
very reasonably priced, but my primary objective is to get the
"buy-in" price as low as possible.
Please let me know what you think - I also welcome any opinions about
what people feel should be on the CD. It's up to me, so if you
convince me (and I have the space), it's in! [note: the authors will
have to agree as well, of course!].
Jordan Hubbard
--
Jordan Hubbard Lotus Development Ireland j...@whisker.lotus.ie
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR LOTUS - IT HAS PLENTY OF LAWYERS TO DO THAT FOR IT ALREADY
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!
usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!tfs.com!tfs.com!julian
From: jul...@tfs.com (Julian Elischer)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <1992Dec2.055049.24923@tfs.com>
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie> <ByM6vo.C8C@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 05:50:49 GMT
Lines: 38
In article <ByM6vo....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Jeff-Rand...@uiuc.edu (Jeff Randall) writes:
>j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
>>Linux 0.95(?) + ??? (unpacked)
>
>Currently Linux 0.98 patchlevel 5 is the latest version... Version 1.0
>is expected near the stated intended release date... you may want to
>gather the linux materials last... they are in a constant state of flux
>
>>The CD will be will be mastered in ISO 9660 format (all filenames 8.3)
>>with a special source program (compilable under Linix or 386BSD) in the
>>top level directory that will create a symbolic link tree for you with
>>the long names for each file (each directory will contain an info file
>>mapping 8.3 -> long filenames). This will enable to you automatically
>>build link trees to the unpacked X11 and OS sources and build them
>>right off the CD, for example:
>
>Perhaps using the rockridge extensions would be a better Idea than a
>non-standard program hacked up just for this CD.. I believe that the
>Linux CD-ROM driver already handles them and it would be likely that
>the 386BSD driver would eventually support it as well... if it doesn't
>already...
Bill jolitz has the rockridge running
I am sure we could get him to release it if we asked.
>--
>Jeff-Rand...@uiuc.edu (ASCII mail) THIS IS _NOT_ CCSO'S OPINION!!!
>jar42...@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu (NeXT mail) If It were, It would've had a
>wi.6...@n7kbt.rain.com (anon) more important name on it. =)
+----------------------------------+ ______ _ __
| __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / On assignment
| / \ jul...@tfs.com +------>x USA \ in a very strange
| ( OZ ) 2118 Milvia st. Berkeley CA. \___ ___ | country !
+- X_.---._/ USA+(510) 704-3137(wk) \_/ \\
v
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!clarkson!news.clarkson.edu!nelson
From: nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
In-Reply-To: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie's message of 2 Dec 92 03:03:49 GMT
Message-ID: <NELSON.92Dec3001940@cheetah.clarkson.edu>
Sender: n...@news.clarkson.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie>
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 05:19:40 GMT
Lines: 16
In article <JKH.92Dec2030...@whisker.lotus.ie> j...@whisker.lotus.ie
(Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
I will be making No Money from sales this CDROM - I am doing it as a
public service (and because I really want to see this stuff on CDROM).
Why not? If you don't make any money, how are you going to advertise
it? Who's going to send out press releases? How are you going to
afford to make a follow-on product? Cover your risk?
Go ahead and try to make money. Try to make as much money as you want,
because there'll be lots of competition.
--
--russ <nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.
Peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the presence of a system for
resolving conflicts before war becomes necessary. War never creates peace.
Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!ieunet!dec4ie.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <JKH.92Dec3204242@whisker.lotus.ie>
Date: 3 Dec 92 20:42:42 GMT
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie>
<NELSON.92Dec3001940@cheetah.clarkson.edu>
Sender: use...@ieunet.ie (USENET News System)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland
Lines: 33
In-Reply-To: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu's message of 3 Dec 92 05: 19:40 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie
In article <NELSON.92Dec3001...@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
(Russ Nelson) writes:
In article <JKH.92Dec2030...@whisker.lotus.ie> j...@whisker.lotus.ie
(Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
I will be making No Money from sales this CDROM - I am doing it as a
public service (and because I really want to see this stuff on CDROM).
Why not? If you don't make any money, how are you going to advertise
it? Who's going to send out press releases? How are you going to
afford to make a follow-on product? Cover your risk?
Go ahead and try to make money. Try to make as much money as you want,
because there'll be lots of competition.
I'm sorry if this was unclear. *I* will be making no money for the
trouble of putting the release together - I was offered that right but
waived it. Hypermedia Concepts Inc will be making some money from it,
certainly enough to advertise, send out press-releases and provide a
follow-on product. They will not be making a *lot* of money, since
that's not their approach to these things (and the reason I approached
them about this in the first place). The president of Hypermedia's
goal is (as stated to me) to have the product make enough money to
be self-sustaining. He enjoys doing this sort of stuff.
I waived my right to make a buck on it so that the price could be kept
low. Certainly, there will be competition, but as my posting said,
I'm not out to "compete", I'm out to provide a solution at the lowest
possible cost.
Jordan
--
Jordan Hubbard Lotus Development Ireland j...@whisker.lotus.ie
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR LOTUS - IT HAS PLENTY OF LAWYERS TO DO THAT FOR IT ALREADY
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!daffy!
uwvax!cs.wisc.edu!jcargill
From: jcarg...@oka.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Cargille)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <jcargill.723416044@cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: n...@cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie>
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 20:54:04 GMT
Lines: 105
j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
>I am working in association with Hypermedia Concepts, Inc. to produce
>a CDROM for release in the late-January/mid-February timeframe.
>My initial plan is to provide one CD with the following contents:
>386BSD (0.1) + patchkit + ??? (unpacked)
>Linux 0.95(?) + ??? (unpacked)
>X11R5 (PL17) + XFree86 1.1 (unpacked)
>X11R5 contrib (compressed tar)
>GNU sources (compressed tar)
>Various miscellaneous utilities (compressed tar)
This sounds very much like the cd-rom that I've been talking about
doing for the past month of so...
However, I think my plans are a bit more aggressive. I'm planning on
a RockRidge disk, so that long-names are not a problem. I'm also
hoping that we can make it a bootable cd-rom. However, for these two
things to work out, we'll have to either wait for the release of 0.2,
or ask Bill for the code, and merge it into 0.1. I'm leaning toward
freezing a disc right after the 0.2 release.
I'd also like for just about everything to be unpacked. I think it
would be great if people with minimal hard disk space could build
kernels, X, and GNU stuff straight off the disc.
>Hypermedia Concepts is a well-established firm with the successful
>"AB20 archives", "Fred Fish Collection" and "Fish on Line" CD's to
>their credit, among others. They've done this before and I have every
>confidence that we'll be able to have this CD out in a very short
>period of time. International sales channels are also already well
>set up, and prices will be adjusted to make the CD as good a deal
>overseas as they are in the U.S.
There are some real advantages to doing this type of project through a
well-established firm. However, I think there are some disadvantages
as well (which I'll get to later).
>I will be making No Money from sales this CDROM - I am doing it as a
>public service (and because I really want to see this stuff on CDROM).
That was my basic take on the project as well. I think having a cheap
cd-rom with 386bsd (and possibly linux) would be a very good thing for
the user communities.
>3. What would you like to pay for such a CD? $50? $60? $70?
> (we don't intend to even approach the $100 mark, so don't worry)
Here's where we differ a bit. I wanted to go even cheaper than this.
I was planning on $30-$40 for initial distributions, and $15 or less
for updates. The "under $15" target might not be achievable
immediately, as it depends on amortizing mastering costs across a
reasonable volume (>100). But $15-$20 updates should be possible
right away.
>4. If you could get it for $60 or so, what would you consider a
> fair price for an update? $30? $20? Would you pay more for
> the initial CD if you could pay less for the update?
I'll take at face value your statement that you're not making any
money off of this project. However, rest assured that Hypermedia
*will* be making money at the prices you're suggesting.
Why don't you talk to the folks at Hypermedia, and see if they're
willing to undertake this project at the prices I was planning on. If
they are, I'll probably save myself the work and let you do it. If
they're going to charge what you suggest, I'll probably push ahead
with my project.
My reason for this is that I think a *really* cheap 386bsd
distribution would be a real boon to the 386bsd community. (The same
goes for Linux, though I'm not as familiar with that community)
If cds are cheap, more people will buy cdrom drives, and we can ship
new distributions even cheaper.
>Also note that while several other CD's have been/are being offered
>for 386BSD and Linux, I'm not doing this CD in an effort to compete
>with them. My main focus in producing a CD that offers good value for
>money (packed full) and is very aggressively priced so that students
>and other traditionally penniless interest groups can get in on the
>UNIX revolution [grin] as cheaply as possible.
Yeah, students are pretty close to my heart too, since I seem to be an
eternal one... ;-)
>If you're looking for
>a deal where you get updates-free-for-life, or "comes with a year of
>telephone support" then you're not looking for my CD. Updates will be
>very reasonably priced, but my primary objective is to get the
>"buy-in" price as low as possible.
I think it should be lower. If necessary, I'll prove that it's
possible by doing it... ;-)
On question for you: Have either you or Hypermedia considered
including a contribution to the Jolitz's in the cd-rom price.
According to my survey, most respondents seemed to favor such a plan.
Jon
--
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Jon Cargille jcarg...@cs.wisc.edu
Want your .sig compressed? Reasonable rates
and fast turnaround. Call today!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!convex!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!
hp4at!mcsun!ieunet!dec4ie.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 CDROM - an update.
In-Reply-To: jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu's message of 3 Dec 92 20: 54:04 GMT
Message-ID: <JKH.92Dec4214333@whisker.lotus.ie>
Sender: use...@ieunet.ie (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie> <jcargill.723416044@cs.wisc.edu>
Distribution: comp
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 21:43:33 GMT
Lines: 74
I already responded to Mr. Cargille by mail, but I'll sum up some of the
points I made to him as it's about time to make them publically anyway.
1. I am shooting for the *lowest possible* price. If you all tell
me that you want it for $20, then by god I'll talk myself blue in
the face trying to get Hypermedia down to $20. So far, most of you
have expressed that $40-$60 is your desired price range and I'll
most certainly hit somewhere within that. A surprising number of
people have said $100! $150! Just make sure it gets made!!
Which brings us to my next point.
2. It's almost certain that a very low budget operation run by girl
scouts could manage to hit some ridiculously low price, but
I'm not sure I'd seriously consider hiring the girl scouts to do
this disk! :-) As someone who's tried to do a mass media release
himself (I foolishly volunteered to make tapes of the MIT X11R4
release), I can tell you all for a fact that it's No Fun At All and
quickly becomes a lot of hard, boring work. Sending letters, totalling
up bills and invoices from distributors, packaging, filling out credit
card forms, sending reams of stuff to the post office, it's all sort
of fun for about the first 6 weeks, then stuff "mysteriously" starts
piling up and getting out of control. Well, it's no mystery because
what happens is that you get *totally sick* of the whole thing and start
thinking up all kinds of excuses for not doing it that day ("Hmmm, think
I'll floss the dog's teeth today. He needs it and I've been putting it
off.") I really don't want that to happen, so I've linked up with
someone who has a proven track record. Take my word for it, folks, it's
worth an extra $10 to make sure your CD gets to you the same year, to say
nothing of the next release and the one after that.
Again, I'm not the one making any money from this, so I have nothing
to gain from trying to sell anyone on any of this - I'm just trying to
make people aware of the fact that it's a lot harder than it looks.
Trust me on this one. I'm also not trying to put down Mr. Cargill's
efforts - chances are, he's one of those totally together types that
just eats this stuff up and doesn't mind long term projects, but
I know from experience that *I'm* not, so I'm going to have it done by
professionals!
3. An overwhelming majority has voted for ISO9660 format so far. This
surprised me, actually, as I expected people to to scream for Rockridge.
Unless I see the winds blowing in a different direction, it's going to
be ISO9660 with the link strategy. NOTE: The link strategy I proposed
is NOT MY IDEA but rather that used by HP on their "HP LaserPro" disk,
so blame them if you don't like it! :-) Seriously, I'm still wide open
for suggestions as to a better scheme. It's just simply that I've used
HP's disk and seen that it works, so I'm inclined to go in that direction
unless I hear something better (that's not Rockridge).
4. As far as I can do it, every single thing will be unpacked. There will
be NO BINARIES on this release - it's source only. The thought of doing
a "binary for everything" Linux and 386BSD release is also under
consideration right now, but that would definately be a companion CD.
5. The contents are still up for vote. Once I get a preliminary list
done, I'll put it up for anonymous ftp (as well as mail it to anyone
who asks) and you can all comment on it. I will give the net every
possible opportunity to influence exactly what goes on the CD - this
will be a very "democratic" disk!
6. I won't waste any more net bandwidth on this issue. If anyone has
any further questions, don't hesitate to send me mail. I WILL reply
to any and all queries.
Thanks for bearing with me this far, and thanks for all the support
I've received from everyone! Every little bit helps keep me on track.
I should have official word from Hypermedia early next week on our
preliminary time table and pricing.
Jordan
--
Jordan Hubbard Lotus Development Ireland j...@whisker.lotus.ie
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR LOTUS - IT HAS PLENTY OF LAWYERS TO DO THAT FOR IT ALREADY
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!JUTS!griffin!gab10
From: ga...@griffincd.amdahl.com (Gary A Browning)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Subject: Interim release of 386bsd 0.1?
Message-ID: <c2QF02VQ2dZG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 5 Dec 92 08:03:41 GMT
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie> <jcargill.723416044@cs.wisc.edu>
<JKH.92Dec4214333@whisker.lotus.ie>
Sender: netn...@ccc.amdahl.com
Distribution: comp
Organization: Amdahl Corporation
Lines: 54
It sounds like Jordan Hubbard is going to produce his CD ROM with
386bsd 0.1 on it since 0.2 is not likely going to be out by then.
Do we really want an unpatched version of 0.1 to be on that disk?
Do you really want to answer all of those questions again and again
about where to find the FAQ and the patchkit that they should apply.
At a minimum, we should have him include the FAQ and patchkit.
Better yet, why don't *we* put together our own release 0.15? Just
take 0.1 and apply the patchkit and maybe a few other patches, pick
a new boot kernel, add the FAQ, and put out a temporary release. I
heard that 0.2 will not be out until March. I really do not want to
put pressure on Bill to speed up the 0.2 release (and we have never
been very successful at this anyway).
If you are concerned about what Bill would think about a 0.15, we can
ask him. My guess (and no, I have not talked to him) is that he
would not want an unpatched 0.1 on the CD either.
I am concerned that:
(1) many of the Guru's answering questions are getting tired of
repeating themselves.
(2) I doubt that any two users of 386bsd are running with the same
patch level of the O/S. There are 58 semi-official patches in
the pathkit, there are many minor patches that are not. I have
a stack of patches posting since the introduction of 0.1 the I
do not know if they are still needed or useful. I have another,
larger stack of patches posted since 0.2 that I also need to go
through and decide if they are still needed or useful.
(3) we are losing new users of 386bsd due to the complexities of
getting started. Have any of you seasoned users tried to explain
to a potential 386bsd user how he/she should get started? I
eventually gave up and said that I would just give him a copy of
my system (and I am not even sure if mine has all of the right
patches).
(4) we no longer have a good reference release on which to work on
furthur developments. We have made quite a few overlapping
patches. I believe one of the reasons Terry created the patchkit
was to help with the problem. Maybe the patchkit coordinator
can comment on if this is still a problem (sorry, his name escapes
me for the moment).
If we ask Julian nicely, maybe we can use ref.tfs.com for this (In fact,
maybe ref.tfs.com has all of this done already).
What does the net have to say?
--
Gary Browning | Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a
| great idea hits you, and just before you realize
| what is wrong with it.
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!aisb!awb
From: a...@ed.ac.uk (Alan W Black)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 CDROM - an update.
Message-ID: <AWB.92Dec5093117@otter.uk.ac.ed.aisb>
Date: 5 Dec 92 09:31:17 GMT
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie>
<jcargill.723416044@cs.wisc.edu> <JKH.92Dec4214333@whisker.lotus.ie>
Sender: n...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Dept of AI, Edinburgh University, UK
Lines: 71
In-Reply-To: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie's message of 4 Dec 92 21:43:33 GMT
[I replied to Jordan personally with some of these issues but I think
they are also relevant here - awb ]
In article <JKH.92Dec4214...@whisker.lotus.ie> j...@whisker.lotus.ie
(Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
> 3. An overwhelming majority has voted for ISO9660 format so far. This
> surprised me, actually, as I expected people to to scream for Rockridge.
> Unless I see the winds blowing in a different direction, it's going to
> be ISO9660 with the link strategy. NOTE: The link strategy I proposed
> is NOT MY IDEA but rather that used by HP on their "HP LaserPro" disk,
> so blame them if you don't like it! :-) Seriously, I'm still wide open
> for suggestions as to a better scheme. It's just simply that I've used
> HP's disk and seen that it works, so I'm inclined to go in that direction
> unless I hear something better (that's not Rockridge).
I'm surprised that people really want IS09660 with no extensions. It makes
little sense for unpacked sources, as most things will need to be renamed.
This means you have to use some form of shadow tree to look at the
files. But large shadow trees are unacceptably slow also symbolic
links do take up a lot of space. Ideally access should be by some
form of translucent file system but at present there isn't any in
386bsd or Linux. The only reason to strictly follow ISO9660 would
be so that the sources could be viewed through DOS (and Macs ?) of course
the Makefiles wouldn't work (the files with have the wrong names) even
if you could have a reasonable run time environment under DOS for
compiling UNIX software it would be a lot of work.
However most if not all people who use this disk will be running under
Unix (386bsd, Linux or even SunOS) *all* of these support the Rockridge
extensions, *all* of these can write to DOS file systems so if you really
want these files under DOS you can get them. But if you make it
so that DOS can access them then the disk becomes next to useless under
Unix.
Can someone tell me why strict ISO9660 would be better than Rockridge
full names ? Do people want IS09660 because they don't understand the
Rockridge extensions or is there some real reason ?
If anything I find the Rockridge extensions a compromise. Ideally the
disk should be a 386bsd filesystem. Then it could support symbolic
links (as well as reall filenames) such the current 386bsd src
format (using the obj directory for compiled files) neatly fits
in with the idea of a read only disk. But this limits the use
of the disk to 386bsd systems only.
> 4. As far as I can do it, every single thing will be unpacked. There will
> be NO BINARIES on this release - it's source only. The thought of doing
> a "binary for everything" Linux and 386BSD release is also under
> consideration right now, but that would definately be a companion CD.
Hmm I would like binaries too. There are an awful lot of binaries
with 386bsd (and Linux) I don't like keeping them all installed at
once so I often delete things. But when I want them back it would
really useful if my CD had them on it so I could easily copy them back
or even run them from that. I think having the binaries is necessary
(though if you are pushed for space they could be packed).
> Thanks for bearing with me this far, and thanks for all the support
> I've received from everyone! Every little bit helps keep me on track.
> I should have official word from Hypermedia early next week on our
> preliminary time table and pricing.
Thanks for listening to us.
Alan
Alan W Black 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, UK
Centre for Cognitive Science tel: (+44) -31 650 4627
University of Edinburgh email: a...@ed.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!convex!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!
hp4at!mcsun!ieunet!dec4ie.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: Interim release of 386bsd 0.1?
In-Reply-To: gab10@griffincd.amdahl.com's message of 5 Dec 92 08: 03:41 GMT
Message-ID: <JKH.92Dec6180852@whisker.lotus.ie>
Sender: use...@ieunet.ie (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie> <jcargill.723416044@cs.wisc.edu>
<JKH.92Dec4214333@whisker.lotus.ie>
<c2QF02VQ2dZG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 18:08:52 GMT
Lines: 40
I know that I promised not to waste more net.bandwidth on this issue, but
this is really something I should clarify right now.
It sounds like Jordan Hubbard is going to produce his CD ROM with
386bsd 0.1 on it since 0.2 is not likely going to be out by then.
Do we really want an unpatched version of 0.1 to be on that disk?
Do you really want to answer all of those questions again and again
about where to find the FAQ and the patchkit that they should apply.
At a minimum, we should have him include the FAQ and patchkit.
I'm sorry that I didn't make this clear from the start. The 386BSD I
release will be based heavily on what I'm running now, with some extra
enhancements (e.g. things I don't generally use, but may be of use to
someone else).
This means that you'll be getting the base 0.1 distribution
(necessary, for reference purposes) + the latest patchkit at time of
distribution + Julian's SCSI drivers + the PCFS driver + multiport
serial driver + shared libs + contributed patches + just about
anything else I find useful on ref.tfs.com.
With each bit of patch or driver code will be a README describing what
it does and whether applying it is something that everyone needs to
do, or whether it's an "at-your-own-risk" kind of patch, like the
shared libraries. I'm well aware that some of the stuff is about to
be outdated (like the shared libs) or is not well supported and will
make note of such facts, when appropriate.
I will also include the current incarnation of the 386BSD and Linix
FAQs.
As I said before: The contents list will be made available via anon
ftp several weeks before pressing. You'll all have a chance to ask
for the inclusion of your favorite patch or package well before I
press the CD.
Jordan
--
Jordan Hubbard Lotus Development Ireland j...@whisker.lotus.ie
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR LOTUS - IT HAS PLENTY OF LAWYERS TO DO THAT FOR IT ALREADY
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!
tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 CDROM - an update.
Message-ID: <Byv0uK.C36@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <jcargill.723416044@cs.wisc.edu> <JKH.92Dec4214333@whisker.lotus.ie>
<AWB.92Dec5093117@otter.uk.ac.ed.aisb>
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1992 22:51:56 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <AWB.92Dec5093...@otter.uk.ac.ed.aisb> a...@ed.ac.uk (Alan W Black) writes:
>Can someone tell me why strict ISO9660 would be better than Rockridge
>full names ? Do people want IS09660 because they don't understand the
>Rockridge extensions or is there some real reason ?
>
>If anything I find the Rockridge extensions a compromise. Ideally the
>disk should be a 386bsd filesystem. Then it could support symbolic
>links (as well as reall filenames) such the current 386bsd src
>format (using the obj directory for compiled files) neatly fits
>in with the idea of a read only disk. But this limits the use
>of the disk to 386bsd systems only.
Rockridge allows for symbolic links, fifos (which I forgot to add to
the linux iso filesystem - on my list of things to do), and block and character
devices. I have actually seen Rock Ridge disks with symbolic links on them,
and the linux filesystem handles them just fine. Adam reports that block
and character devices also work just fine.
-Eric
--
Eric Youngdale
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!dec4ie.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Subject: Re: Interim release of 386bsd 0.1?
In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of 6 Dec 92 00: 50:56 GMT
Message-ID: <JKH.92Dec7014519@whisker.lotus.ie>
Sender: use...@ieunet.ie (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie> <jcargill.723416044@cs.wisc.edu>
<JKH.92Dec4214333@whisker.lotus.ie>
<c2QF02VQ2dZG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
<1992Dec6.005056.16851@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Distribution: comp
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 01:45:19 GMT
Lines: 14
Basically, I have my doubts about putting even patched 0.1 on a
CD-ROM until we can at least make it run on most of the hardware out
there (think of the returns from COMPAQ users alone).
This is why I have refused to put any binary data on the disk for now
(and am looking at a binary disk as a second-tier effort in any case).
The target I'm trying to hit is people that are ALREADY running 386BSD
or Linux, not new users! Please make no mistake about this.
Jordan
--
Jordan Hubbard Lotus Development Ireland j...@whisker.lotus.ie
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR LOTUS - IT HAS PLENTY OF LAWYERS TO DO THAT FOR IT ALREADY
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!
newsfeed.rice.edu!nb.rockwell.com!wade
From: w...@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <1992Dec11.225241.1941@nb.rockwell.com>
Sender: w...@nb.rockwell.com (Wade Guthrie)
Organization: Rockwell International
References: <JKH.92Dec2030349@whisker.lotus.ie> <ByM6vo.C8C@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
<1992Dec2.055049.24923@tfs.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:52:41 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <1992Dec2.055049.24...@tfs.com>, jul...@tfs.com (Julian Elischer)
writes:
> In article <ByM6vo....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Jeff-Rand...@uiuc.edu (Jeff Randall)
> writes:
> >
> >>The CD will be will be mastered in ISO 9660 format (all filenames 8.3)
Hoooray!!!!
> >Perhaps using the rockridge extensions would be a better Idea than a
> >non-standard program hacked up just for this CD.. I believe that the
> >Linux CD-ROM driver already handles them and it would be likely that
> >the 386BSD driver would eventually support it as well... if it doesn't
> >already...
The Linux cd-rom drivers may support this already, but if you don't already
HAVE Linux up and running on your system, the point is moot. I would not
like to see the Rockridge extensions, 'cause then I wouldn't be able to
load Linux from the CD on a system that currently has only DOS.
Wade Guthrie
w...@nb.rockwell.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!adam
From: a...@netcom.com (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <1992Dec12.055725.23540@netcom.com>
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
References: <ByM6vo.C8C@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Dec2.055049.24923@tfs.com>
<1992Dec11.225241.1941@nb.rockwell.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:57:25 GMT
Lines: 50
In article <1992Dec11.225241.1...@nb.rockwell.com> w...@nb.rockwell.com
(Wade Guthrie) writes:
>The Linux cd-rom drivers may support [the Rockridge extensions]
>already, but if you don't already
>HAVE Linux up and running on your system, the point is moot. I would not
>like to see the Rockridge extensions, 'cause then I wouldn't be able to
>load Linux from the CD on a system that currently has only DOS.
>
>Wade Guthrie
>w...@nb.rockwell.com
My Linux/GNU/X CD is a counter-example to your claim. The CD
uses the Rockridge extensions, but you can install it on a system that
"has only DOS" or that has no software at all. This is because the
distribution includes a boot floppy that boots linux and then mounts
the CD.
Even on a distribution that did not include a boot floppy,
the inclusion of Rock Ridge extension information would not make
it any harder to install. After all, you can still read a Rockridge
disk with a system that only understands iso9660, although the filenames
will appear in iso9660 level 1 (DOS style) or iso9660 level 2 (similar
to VMS) formats.
Do you understand that the CD that Jordan is talking about
doing is a pure source code CD? An unpacked linux source tree wouldn't
be that useful in installing Linux on your system. If all of the
Linux binaries in the world disappeared tomorrow, I imagine that there
would be a lot of work involved in rebuilding a complete working Linux
system again. Installing Linux from a CD that contains only source
code is essentially the same problem.
I do, however, see two uses for the ability to look at a Rockridge
disk with binaries, like mine, under an iso9660 reader that doesn't
support the Rockridge extensions (in particular, DOS). On a subsequent
version of my Linux/GNU/X CD, I'll probably include rawrite.exe so that
it will be possible to recreate the boot floppy, and I'll probably also
include some kind of runlinux.exe program so that it will be possible
to boot directly to linux from DOS. Those are about the only real uses
that I see for the underlying non-Rockridge iso9660 file system on my CD.
As for Jordan's CD, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't include
the Rockridge extensions, unless it breaks some buggy iso9660 CDROM
reader or something.
--
Adam J. Richter Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312 PO Box 8418
Albany CA 94706 Berkeley CA 94707-8418
(510) 528-3209 (510) 526-7531, fax: (510) 528-8508
a...@netcom.com yggdra...@netcom.com
Another member of the League for Programming Freedom (lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu).
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!
hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu!ericy
From: er...@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Eric Youngdale)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Date: 12 Dec 1992 16:56:16 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <1gd5jgINNf7v@life.ai.mit.edu>
References: <ByM6vo.C8C@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1992Dec2.055049.24923@tfs.com>
<1992Dec11.225241.1941@nb.rockwell.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In article <1992Dec11.225241.1...@nb.rockwell.com> w...@nb.rockwell.com
(Wade Guthrie) writes:
>> >Perhaps using the rockridge extensions would be a better Idea than a
>> >non-standard program hacked up just for this CD.. I believe that the
>> >Linux CD-ROM driver already handles them and it would be likely that
>> >the 386BSD driver would eventually support it as well... if it doesn't
>> >already...
>
>The Linux cd-rom drivers may support this already, but if you don't already
>HAVE Linux up and running on your system, the point is moot. I would not
>like to see the Rockridge extensions, 'cause then I wouldn't be able to
>load Linux from the CD on a system that currently has only DOS.
I am sorry, but this is totally incorrect. Rock Ridge is an extension
to ISO9660. This means that it is still a valid ISO9660 disc that can be read
on any DOS system. This is because there are actually two filenames for every
file on a Rock Ridge disk - an ISO9660 8.3 name and the Rock Ridge name. DOS
will use the 8.3 name, as will any other system that does not use the Rock
Ridge extensions. Linux, SunOS and any other system that do understand Rock
Ridge will use the Rock Ridge name. The linux filesystem even has an option
that lets you tell it to ignore the Rock Ridge extensions, and if you use this
you get the 8.3 names.
I think it would be a serious mistake to make a 386bsd/linux disk
without Rock Ridge.
-Eric
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!
undergrad.math.waterloo.edu!cayley.uwaterloo.ca!wgsteven
From: wgste...@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Stevens)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <Bz5z4n.FoC@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
Sender: n...@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1992Dec2.055049.24923@tfs.com> <1992Dec11.225241.1941@nb.rockwell.com>
<1gd5jgINNf7v@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:48:22 GMT
Lines: 7
With regards to all this information on CD, can someone tell me when
the CD is expected to be produced, who i can get info from, and all
that other stuff?
Thanks,
Warren
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!adam
From: a...@netcom.com (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: 386BSD + LINIX + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM - let us know what you want!
Message-ID: <1992Dec12.233537.12931@netcom.com>
Organization: Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
References: <1992Dec11.225241.1941@nb.rockwell.com> <1gd5jgINNf7v@life.ai.mit.edu>
<Bz5z4n.FoC@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:35:37 GMT
Lines: 19
In article <Bz5z4n....@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> wgste...@cayley.uwaterloo.ca
(Warren Stevens) writes:
>With regards to all this information on CD, can someone tell me when
>the CD is expected to be produced, who i can get info from, and all
>that other stuff?
[I've already mentioned this on comp.os.linux, so I've removed that
group from the Newsgroups line.]
The Yggdrasil Linux/GNU/X Operating System distribution on
CDROM has been shipping since Tuesday. You can get more information
by anonymous FTP from netcom.com:~ftp/pub/yggdrasil or by contacting me.
--
Adam J. Richter Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated
409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312 PO Box 8418
Albany CA 94706 Berkeley CA 94707-8418
(510) 528-3209 (510) 526-7531, fax: (510) 528-8508
a...@netcom.com yggdra...@netcom.com
Another member of the League for Programming Freedom (lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu).
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!lgc.com!lgc.com!danson
From: dan...@lgc.com (Doug Anson)
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process (Re: 386BSD + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM)
Message-ID: <1992Dec13.021307.24664@lgc.com>
Sender: use...@lgc.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: voodoo.lgc.com
Organization: LandMark Graphics Corporation LGC
References: <1gd5jgINNf7v@life.ai.mit.edu> <Bz5z4n.FoC@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
<1992Dec12.233537.12931@netcom.com> <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:13:07 GMT
Lines: 42
In article <1ge0aaINN...@neuro.usc.edu>, mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
|> # The Yggdrasil Linux/GNU/X Operating System distribution on
|> #CDROM has been shipping since Tuesday. You can get more information
|> #by anonymous FTP from netcom.com:~ftp/pub/yggdrasil or by contacting me.
|>
|> YES. But, this isn't the 386bsd source/binary disk. It only has Linux.
|>
|> Perhaps yggdrasil should drop a note on USL/AT&T's president notifying him
|> of intent to distribute 386bsd-0.1 (not calling it unix & not using a unix
|> phone no), providing a full cpio tape of the information to be included on
|> the cd-rom, and inviting the Death Star within 30 days to show specific
|> cause why this information should not be distributed in it's current form,
|> and to suggest any specific changes which would need to be made to avoid
|> any potential for release of specific AT&T/USL trade secrets or copyrighted
|> materials. This approach would make it difficult for AT&T/USL to claim at
|> some future date they were harmed by release of source code, documentation,
|> and binary executables to which they made no objections.
|>
|> Whether or not AT&T/USL has a specific office for this purpose, disclosure
|> of the full content of the proprosed CD-ROM distribution would certainly
|> obligate AT&T/USL to make a good faith effort to indicate whether any code
|> infringed on their proprietary rights. We could even invite them to request
|> a specific extention of time (not to exceed 90 days) to accomplish a review.
... It seems to me that this action would automatically involve the 386bsd
users in the current USL/BSDI lawsuit -- Personally, I believe that USL will
stop at no end to ensure that only they ship anthing resembling a *NIX
system. As a result, they'd probably state that they probably would *NOT* want
the inclusion of 386bsd into the CDROM (and maybe linux as well). I basically
dont trust USL at all. (personal opinion only -- please dont flame).
Doug
--
-------------------------------------------
Doug Anson
Internet: dan...@lgc.com
Phone: 713.560.1274
FAX: 713.560.1277
SNAIL: Landmark Graphics Corporation LGC
15150 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX 77079
-------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!rrz.uni-koeln.de!unidui!
math.fu-berlin.de!Sirius.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!udel!sbcs.sunysb.edu!sbstaff2!sayre
From: sa...@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Johannes Sayre)
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process (Re: 386BSD + GNU + X11R5 on CDROM)
Message-ID: <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd, alt.suit.att-bsdi
Sender: use...@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: sbstaff2
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
References: <1992Dec12.233537.12931@netcom.com> <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:54:18 GMT
Lines: 17
In article <1992Dec13.021307.24...@lgc.com> dan...@lgc.com (Doug Anson) writes:
>In article <1ge0aaINN...@neuro.usc.edu>, mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
[...]
>... It seems to me that this action would automatically involve the 386bsd
>users in the current USL/BSDI lawsuit
... which would suit some people just fine. The success of UNIX, and the
particular way in which it succeeded, has made people in all sorts of fields
and organizations insecure and/or resentful. Bad advice will be generally
rampant in such times.
flame away.
sa...@cs.sunysb.edu
I speak for myself only.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!gauss!bogstad
From: bogs...@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process
Message-ID: <1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Sender: n...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Usenet news system)
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
References: <1992Dec12.233537.12931@netcom.com> <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu>
<1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:32:40 GMT
Lines: 30
In article <1992Dec13.165418.5...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> sa...@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu
(Johannes Sayre) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.021307.24...@lgc.com> dan...@lgc.com (Doug Anson) writes:
>>In article <1ge0aaINN...@neuro.usc.edu>, mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>... It seems to me that this action would automatically involve the 386bsd
>>users in the current USL/BSDI lawsuit
>
>... which would suit some people just fine. The success of UNIX, and the
>particular way in which it succeeded, has made people in all sorts of fields
>and organizations insecure and/or resentful. Bad advice will be generally
>rampant in such times.
I'ld like to know why people think that USL won't sue the Jolitzes
if they win against BSDI. Is there something magically wrong that BSDI did
that the Jolitzes didn't. (Okay, BSDI charges money.) Still, I'ld like
386BSD and the other freeware Unix clones to succeed to the extent that I
can purchase support for them. I'm quite happy to hack on my own system for
fun, but when I go to work it would be nice to be able to use the same
system. Until I can safely trade some of my employers money for less
hacking on the company time clock, I won't be able to do this. I can
understand that this might not be the primary goal of either Jolitz (386BSD)
or Linus (Linux); but I would hope that neither one of them would mind their
software being used for something besides hacking. I predict that if it
appears even remotely that 386BSD or Linux are starting to encroach on the
commercial Unix market; USL will take any and all legal steps possible to
stop their further distribution.
Bill Bogstad
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!
destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!news.byu.edu!ux1!
fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process
Message-ID: <1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: n...@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
<1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:59:13 GMT
Lines: 87
In article <1992Dec13.183240.23...@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> bogs...@gauss.cs.jhu.edu
(Bill Bogstad) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.165418.5...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> sa...@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu
>(Johannes Sayre) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec13.021307.24...@lgc.com> dan...@lgc.com (Doug Anson) writes:
>>>In article <1ge0aaINN...@neuro.usc.edu>, mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>... It seems to me that this action would automatically involve the 386bsd
>>>users in the current USL/BSDI lawsuit
>>
>>... which would suit some people just fine. The success of UNIX, and the
>>particular way in which it succeeded, has made people in all sorts of fields
>>and organizations insecure and/or resentful. Bad advice will be generally
>>rampant in such times.
>
> I'ld like to know why people think that USL won't sue the Jolitzes
>if they win against BSDI. Is there something magically wrong that BSDI did
>that the Jolitzes didn't. (Okay, BSDI charges money.) Still, I'ld like
>386BSD and the other freeware Unix clones to succeed to the extent that I
>can purchase support for them. I'm quite happy to hack on my own system for
>fun, but when I go to work it would be nice to be able to use the same
>system. Until I can safely trade some of my employers money for less
>hacking on the company time clock, I won't be able to do this. I can
>understand that this might not be the primary goal of either Jolitz (386BSD)
>or Linus (Linux); but I would hope that neither one of them would mind their
>software being used for something besides hacking. I predict that if it
>appears even remotely that 386BSD or Linux are starting to encroach on the
>commercial Unix market; USL will take any and all legal steps possible to
>stop their further distribution.
First off, if USL wins the BSDI suit, there won't be any need to go after
either Linux or 386BSD. If USL does win, I predict a motion for summary
judgement against UCB, and that will pretty much cut off 386BSD at it's
roots. This would be rather unfortunate, at least from my point of view,
and probably, in the long run, USL's; certainly USL is aware of the benefits
it has reaped from University level research. The question remains as to
whether they are willing to trade fututre benefits for control of the
market; the answer may suprise us.
Second, Linux is arguably more like SVR3 (and by extension SVR4) than
386BSD; this, I believe, puts it in more danger of censure. The thing
that has protected Linux so far is its international (non-US) origin.
This is not something USL has to worry about forever, it's simply an
inconvenience to prosecution, not a barrier. If a judgement were given
regarding copyright infringement by Linux against USL's materials, it
wouldn't matter that the judgement occurred in the US; Linus' government
would be forced by the Berne convention to uphold the judgement.
I think a company pressing a CDROM in the US would provide a convenient
(and less expensive for USL) target of prosecution for such infringment,
and thus perhaps provide a vehicle for establishing an anti-Linux
judgement. A CDROM publisher is a hell of a lot more likely to plead
_nolo_contendre_ (no contest) in return for limited damage claims.
Admittedly, we are already at this point with the release of 386BSD on
CDROM, and it's subsequent distribution at InterOp. The issue that
protects this from prosecution is probably the fact that, since no
money was exchanged, it's possible for the publisher to claim that the
distribution was done under "first use" law -- thus invalidating the
USL claim to damages regardless of intent or infringement.
I think the point that BSDI has charged for the code is perhaps USL's
strongest argument towards the required preponderance of evidence that
they have been damaged financially: 51% guilty is 100% guilty in
civil suits. I don't think this is mitigated by the fact that McDonalds
could claim to be financially damaged by Burger King in precisely the
same way.
In any case, it is probably bad politics to provoke a response from
USL prior to a decision in the current suit, and a commercial CDROM of
386BSD or Linux seems the surest means of provocation. If USL wins
it's suit, it's 100% that you will owe them damages. If a summary
judgement is rendered (by a "no contest" plea by the publisher), you
will only add to the case against BSDI. Better to wait and see.
Terry Lambert
te...@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lamb...@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!funic!nntp.hut.fi!usenet
From: j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process
In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Message-ID: <1992Dec15.223317.158@nntp.hut.fi>
Sender: use...@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lusmu.cs.hut.fi
Reply-To: j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
References: <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
<1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:33:17 GMT
Lines: 26
In article <1992Dec14.165913.6...@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, terry@cs (A Wizard of Earth C)
writes:
>Second, Linux is arguably more like SVR3 (and by extension SVR4) than
>386BSD; this, I believe, puts it in more danger of censure. The thing
>that has protected Linux so far is its international (non-US) origin.
>This is not something USL has to worry about forever, it's simply an
>inconvenience to prosecution, not a barrier. If a judgement were given
>regarding copyright infringement by Linux against USL's materials, it
>wouldn't matter that the judgement occurred in the US; Linus' government
>would be forced by the Berne convention to uphold the judgement.
Is this really so? I don't think so, but what do I know. First, I
think Berne is much more limited than the current trend of the U.S.
application of copyright laws to just about anything. Second, as
Linux's country of origin is Finland I think it would be the Finnish
laws that would apply, not U.S.
>I think a company pressing a CDROM in the US would provide a convenient
>(and less expensive for USL) target of prosecution for such infringment,
>and thus perhaps provide a vehicle for establishing an anti-Linux
>judgement. A CDROM publisher is a hell of a lot more likely to plead
>_nolo_contendre_ (no contest) in return for limited damage claims.
But how would this stop distribution of Linux? Perhaps in USA, but
elsewhere?
//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,misc.legal.computing,misc.int-property
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!funic!nntp.hut.fi!cs.hut.fi!arl
From: a...@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke)
Subject: AT&T vs Linux .. no deal (was: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process)
In-Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:33:17 GMT
Message-ID: <ARL.92Dec16065745@deathstar.cs.hut.fi>
Lines: 77
Sender: use...@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: deathstar.cs.hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
References: <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
<1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
<1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
<1992Dec15.223317.158@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:57:51 GMT
Lines: 77
comp.unix.bsd taken out. nothing to do with it.
In article <1992Dec15.223317....@nntp.hut.fi> j...@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:
In article <1992Dec14.165913.6...@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, terry@cs (A Wizard of Earth C)
writes:
: >Second, Linux is arguably more like SVR3 (and by extension SVR4) than
: >386BSD; this, I believe, puts it in more danger of censure. The thing
: >that has protected Linux so far is its international (non-US) origin.
Censure, where? At least Finland is _free_ country, we
have not yet used to lick USA's *** we have done it
decades with our eastern neighbor ;-)
: >This is not something USL has to worry about forever, it's simply an
: >inconvenience to prosecution, not a barrier. If a judgement were given
: >regarding copyright infringement by Linux against USL's materials, it
: >wouldn't matter that the judgement occurred in the US; Linus' government
: >would be forced by the Berne convention to uphold the judgement.
:
: Is this really so? I don't think so, but what do I know. First, I
: think Berne is much more limited than the current trend of the U.S.
: application of copyright laws to just about anything.
I'm not even sure does Berne cover software.
: Second, as Linux's country of origin is Finland I think it would
: be the Finnish laws that would apply, not U.S.
And under the Finnish laws there would be no danger to
loose. It would take years here, we do not have layers
which can understand software and international laws.
U.S. laws would be noted in our court, but they do
not have any value here. In fact Linus Torvalds might profit
a lot of such a sue [Finnish 'Prosessioikeus Pr 1,21,4$',
my copy is old 1963].
Our Finnish law _hardly_ resembles the U.S. law.
AT&T would have to translate papers (at least $100 a piece ;-),
thousands of them. It would go through all 3 stages of
our Finnish court system i.e. at least 5 years (?), and
AT&T even then can't be sure if they win (Linus pays), or
they loose (AT&T pays ;-). It would be much much cheaper
for AT&T to pay Linus some sum, like $1,000,000 not
to distribute Linux ;-) ....
The funny part is that Linus does not have to be
a millionaire to win a large company. AT&T, what is it? ;-)
[Pr 24a].
: >I think a company pressing a CDROM in the US would provide a convenient
: >(and less expensive for USL) target of prosecution for such infringment,
Hopefully, I'm going to print Linux manuals, possibly
in China, will AT&T sue me? I'm waiting .. Some parts
may contain Linux kernel sources ...
: >and thus perhaps provide a vehicle for establishing an anti-Linux
: >judgement. A CDROM publisher is a hell of a lot more likely to plead
: >_nolo_contendre_ (no contest) in return for limited damage claims.
:
: But how would this stop distribution of Linux? Perhaps in USA, but
: elsewhere?
I'm really not sure how it's possible to prevent
redistribution without a court order?
Damage claims here, if they are high, court might
set it quite low (few thousands of dollars, or
if AT&T loose they have to pay to Linus Torvalds).
I think AT&T vs. Linux is obsolete, there's just
no case.
: //Jyrki
arl
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!philapd!apdnm!apdnmi!spoetnix.idca.tds.philips.nl!
wilko
From: wi...@russia.idca.tds.philips.nl (Wilko Bulte)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process
Message-ID: <wilko.724689346@spoetnix.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:35:46 GMT
References: <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
<1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
<1992Dec15.033540.483@cheops.qld.tne.oz.au> <9212152245.31@rmkhome.UUCP>
Sender: n...@idca.tds.philips.nl
Lines: 10
Yuck. All this makes me feel infected: I've seen AT&T and SCO source. Will
this make me forever a no-go for GNU-ish software?
Wilko
--
| / o / / _ Wilko Bulte Domain: wi...@idca.tds.philips.nl
|/|/ / / /( (_) EasyNet: HLDE01::BULTE_W uucp : [mcsun,sun4nl]!philapd!wilko
|d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Enterprise - IISS/SE voice: +3155-432372
fax: +3155-432103 DTN: 829 2372 PO Box 245 - 7300 AE Apeldoorn - The Netherlands
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!utzoo!henry
From: he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process
Message-ID: <BzJ9Cn.8IB@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:57:58 GMT
References: <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
<1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
<1992Dec15.033540.483@cheops.qld.tne.oz.au> <9212152245.31@rmkhome.UUCP>
<wilko.724689346@spoetnix.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 17
In article <wilko.724689...@spoetnix.idca.tds.philips.nl>
wi...@russia.idca.tds.philips.nl (Wilko Bulte) writes:
>Yuck. All this makes me feel infected: I've seen AT&T and SCO source. Will
>this make me forever a no-go for GNU-ish software?
Nope. I've seen source distributions you've never even heard of :-), and
I still write redistributable software.
There are a couple of touchy areas -- notably the kernel -- where, if I
were writing such a thing for redistribution, I'd probably deliberately
use a very different basic approach than the one used in code I've seen.
If you end up producing something very similar to proprietary code, it's
best to be able to document the process by which you arrived at it without
making use of forbidden knowledge. That can get tricky; it's easier to
avoid the similarities in the first place.
--
"God willing... we shall return." | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!world!bzs
From: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process
In-Reply-To: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:57:58 GMT
Message-ID: <BZS.92Dec20003921@world.std.com>
Sender: b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
<1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
<1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
<1992Dec15.033540.483@cheops.qld.tne.oz.au>
<9212152245.31@rmkhome.UUCP>
<wilko.724689346@spoetnix.idca.tds.philips.nl>
<BzJ9Cn.8IB@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:39:21 GMT
Lines: 46
From: he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>Nope. I've seen source distributions you've never even heard of :-), and
>I still write redistributable software.
>
>There are a couple of touchy areas -- notably the kernel -- where, if I
>were writing such a thing for redistribution, I'd probably deliberately
>use a very different basic approach than the one used in code I've seen.
>If you end up producing something very similar to proprietary code, it's
>best to be able to document the process by which you arrived at it without
>making use of forbidden knowledge. That can get tricky; it's easier to
>avoid the similarities in the first place.
That's all very rational Henry, but it's not at all clear that we're
dealing with rationality here, there are lawyers involved!
The problem is whether some software product employer out there is
going to start asking prospective hires whether or not they have seen
internals, and if so avoid hiring that person "just to avoid trouble
down the road." You may not even hear the reason to argue the point,
"Thank you for your interest...".
Worse, I don't know that it's illegal for AT&T to make available to
employers a list of names of people who they believe have had more
than passing acquaintance with Unix kernel sources. Such a list could
be generated from various sources (like comp.unix.wizards archives.)
Insane? So was Joe McCarthy, and look at all the trouble that
mentality caused (P.S. Alger Hiss was just cleared by the KGB as never
having done any spying for the Soviet Union, he's now in his 80's and
his name is almost synonymous among a lot of people with "commie spy",
very sad, wonder if Richard Nixon, the prosecuting attorney, is going
to apologize or even acknowledge this?)
This is bad voodoo.
What's worse is that AT&T/USL just have nothing to say about it all,
so we are free to assume the worst, it's the only safe option at this
point. These guys want some sort of monopoly back, and that's that.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD