Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!
spcvxb!mauritz_c
From: maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 1 Jun 93 09:16:23 EDT
Organization: SPC Community Access System
Lines: 14

I am just wondering...is this the proper venue for questions
regarding BSDI/386?

If so, I am planning on purchasing BSDI/386 soon and I am
wondering if there is support for Digiboard products.
Specifically, I want to use a Digiboard 8-port "smart"
card for the modem pool on my 486 box.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Chris

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!bnrgate!
bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!sun4nl!tuegate.tue.nl!svin09.info.win.tue.nl!wzv.win.tue.nl!
gvr.win.tue.nl!guido
From: gu...@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Date: 3 Jun 1993 17:58:45 GMT
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl>
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvr.win.tue.nl

maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:

>I am just wondering...is this the proper venue for questions
>regarding BSDI/386?

No, for 386BSD (and NetBSD). But you are close enough ;-)

>If so, I am planning on purchasing BSDI/386 soon and I am
>wondering if there is support for Digiboard products.
>Specifically, I want to use a Digiboard 8-port "smart"
>card for the modem pool on my 486 box.

I don't know about bsdi's comdriver but 386bsd stock comdriver
can be replaced by one having multiport extentions. The author
thinks it to be a hack and doesnt like to support it but
it did a good job for me in the past.

But I'm sure that the guys at bsdi can help you with this, though
I dont know there address. Try postmas...@bsdi.com

>Any information would be greatly appreciated.

>Regards,

>Chris

-Guido
-- 
Guido van Rooij                 |  Internet: gu...@gvr.win.tue.nl
Bisschopsmolen 16               |  Phone:    ++31.40.461433
5612 DS Eindhoven               |  ((12+144+20)+3*sqrt(4))/7 
The Netherlands                 |    +(5*11)=9^2+0

Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uknet!bnr.co.uk!bnrgate!nott!torn!
howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!ogicse!psgrain!percy!nerd
From: n...@percy.rain.com (Michael Galassi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <C82Aw4.16s@percy.rain.com>
Date: 3 Jun 93 20:14:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: percy.C82Aw4.16s
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl>
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 30

gu...@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij) writes:

>maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:

>>If so, I am planning on purchasing BSDI/386 soon and I am
>>wondering if there is support for Digiboard products.
>>Specifically, I want to use a Digiboard 8-port "smart"
>>card for the modem pool on my 486 box.

The "smart" cards (pc/Xe, pc/Xi) will be supported in the next release
of BSDI.

>I don't know about bsdi's comdriver but 386bsd stock comdriver
>can be replaced by one having multiport extentions. The author
>thinks it to be a hack and doesnt like to support it but
>it did a good job for me in the past.

The "smart" cards are a diferent story from the pc4 & pc8 from digiboard
which are already supported under 1.0.

>But I'm sure that the guys at bsdi can help you with this, though
>I dont know there address. Try postmas...@bsdi.com.

They probably can, they are always very helpfull.

DISCLAMER:  I don't work for or represent BSDI, I'm just a very happy
customer of theirs.  I do have good reason to beleive there is a current
effort to get this driver out in the next release.

-michael

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!rutgers!
spcvxb!mauritz_c
From: maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 93 13:48:29 GMT
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl> 
<C82Aw4.16s@percy.rain.com>
Organization: SPC Community Access System
Lines: 43

In article <C82Aw4....@percy.rain.com>, n...@percy.rain.com (Michael Galassi) writes:
> gu...@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij) writes:
> 
>>maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
> 
>>>If so, I am planning on purchasing BSDI/386 soon and I am
>>>wondering if there is support for Digiboard products.
>>>Specifically, I want to use a Digiboard 8-port "smart"
>>>card for the modem pool on my 486 box.
> 
> The "smart" cards (pc/Xe, pc/Xi) will be supported in the next release
> of BSDI.
> 
>>I don't know about bsdi's comdriver but 386bsd stock comdriver
>>can be replaced by one having multiport extentions. The author
>>thinks it to be a hack and doesnt like to support it but
>>it did a good job for me in the past.
> 
> The "smart" cards are a diferent story from the pc4 & pc8 from digiboard
> which are already supported under 1.0.
> 
>>But I'm sure that the guys at bsdi can help you with this, though
>>I dont know there address. Try postmas...@bsdi.com.
> 
> They probably can, they are always very helpfull.
> 
> DISCLAMER:  I don't work for or represent BSDI, I'm just a very happy
> customer of theirs.  I do have good reason to beleive there is a current
> effort to get this driver out in the next release.

Well, I spoke to Rob Kolstad at BSDI yesterday.  He told me that
Digiboard has finally lightened up a bit and that they may be
getting the necessary widgets to write appropriate drivers soon.
Apparently, the person who was handling the whole thing was out
of the office so Rob didn't have complete details.

I find it somewhat irritating that companies like Digiboard
and Diamond can't seem to decide if they're in the hardware
or the software business. :-/

Cheers,

Chris

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
noc.near.net!uunet!psgrain!percy!nerd
From: n...@percy.rain.com (Michael Galassi)
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl> 
<C82Aw4.16s@percy.rain.com> <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 20:01:26 GMT
Message-ID: <C87uAF.96A@percy.rain.com>
Lines: 17

maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:

>I find it somewhat irritating that companies like Digiboard
>and Diamond can't seem to decide if they're in the hardware
>or the software business. :-/

Being under non-disclosure and having the developers kit from Digi
I can see why they do this.  Knowing the interface they use could
save competitors much work.  FYI, Digi is in both business's, their
product without the driver that loads into the board for execution
by the 80188 would be worth little or nothing and this is the part
they are trying to protect.

I've no affiliation with DigiBoard or BSDI other than a very satisfied
customer of both companies.

-michael

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!rutgers!spcvxb!mauritz_c
From: maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun7.100932.6179@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 93 14:09:32 GMT
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl> 
<C82Aw4.16s@percy.rain.com> <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<C87uAF.96A@percy.rain.com>
Organization: SPC Community Access System
Lines: 40

In article <C87uAF....@percy.rain.com>, n...@percy.rain.com (Michael Galassi) writes:
> maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
> 
>>I find it somewhat irritating that companies like Digiboard
>>and Diamond can't seem to decide if they're in the hardware
>>or the software business. :-/
> 
> Being under non-disclosure and having the developers kit from Digi
> I can see why they do this.  Knowing the interface they use could
> save competitors much work.  FYI, Digi is in both business's, their
> product without the driver that loads into the board for execution
> by the 80188 would be worth little or nothing and this is the part
> they are trying to protect.
> 
> I've no affiliation with DigiBoard or BSDI other than a very satisfied
> customer of both companies.

Well, the bottom line(s):

1.  I need a multiport card.  I will buy one in less than a week.

2.  I have heard good things about Digiboard, but I can't use one
    without a proper driver.

3.  I am puzzled that Digiboard wouldn't pay someone to write a
    driver and sell it in binary form if they are so concerned about
    people discovering their "trade secrets."

This isn't really intended as a flame, but I'm just scratching my
head trying to figure out what is going on.  You'd figure that if
Dboard could sell 100 drivers, they could probably pay for the man
hours required to write it.

It would be truly unfortunate, if I had to either (a) get another
smart board because of this or (b) buy a dumb board and load down
my cpu with serial I/O.

Regards,

Christopher Mauritz

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!
psgrain!percy!nerd
From: n...@percy.rain.com (Michael Galassi)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <C89q11.5uE@percy.rain.com>
Date: 7 Jun 93 20:24:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: percy.C89q11.5uE
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl> 
<C82Aw4.16s@percy.rain.com> <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<C87uAF.96A@percy.rain.com> <1993Jun7.100932.6179@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Organization: /etc/organization
Lines: 24

maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:

>Well, the bottom line(s):

>1.  I need a multiport card.  I will buy one in less than a week.

>2.  I have heard good things about Digiboard, but I can't use one
>    without a proper driver.

>3.  I am puzzled that Digiboard wouldn't pay someone to write a
>    driver and sell it in binary form if they are so concerned about
>    people discovering their "trade secrets."

BSDI & DigiBoard both have excelent development staff but both live under
time constraints, as soon as it is ready, trust me, they will release it.

>It would be truly unfortunate, if I had to either (a) get another
>smart board because of this or (b) buy a dumb board and load down
>my cpu with serial I/O.

Give my experience with Digi, yes, it would be unfortunate.  In the
mean time, solution (b) could be practical for the short term.

-michael

Path: gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de!kuku
From: k...@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Christoph Kukulies)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Date: 9 Jun 1993 08:09:02 GMT
Organization: I.Physikalisches Institut RWTH-Aachen
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1v45qu$im@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl> 
<C82Aw4.16s@percy.rain.com> <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Reply-To: k...@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


From my understanding this comp.os.386bsd.x is not the place to discuss
BSDI products. Please continue your thread in comp.unix.bsd.

--

--Chris
Christoph P. U. Kukulies
k...@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de
*** Error code 1
 
Stop.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
decwrl!olivea!uunet!spcvxb!mauritz_c
From: maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun11.080552.6234@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 93 08:05:52 EDT
References: <1993Jun1.091623.6127@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1ule4l$rq5@wzv.win.tue.nl> 
<C82Aw4.16s@percy.rain.com> <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1v45qu$im@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
Organization: SPC Community Access System
Lines: 10

In article <1v45qu...@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>, 
k...@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Christoph Kukulies) writes:
> 
> From my understanding this comp.os.386bsd.x is not the place to discuss
> BSDI products. Please continue your thread in comp.unix.bsd.

What's the difference?  I think the two OS's are enough alike to
merit a little "cross pollenization".  What are you so touchy about?

Chris

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news.byu.edu!
cwis.isu.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun11.181807.8884@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: n...@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
References: <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1v45qu$im@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> <1993Jun11.080552.6234@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:18:07 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <1993Jun11.080552.6...@spcvxb.spc.edu> maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>In article <1v45qu...@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>, 
k...@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Christoph Kukulies) writes:
>> 
>> From my understanding this comp.os.386bsd.x is not the place to discuss
>> BSDI products. Please continue your thread in comp.unix.bsd.
>
>What's the difference?  I think the two OS's are enough alike to
>merit a little "cross pollenization".  What are you so touchy about?

Just an observation, but: I don't mind questions from BSDI users here, as
long as:

1)	They identify that they are talking about BSDI so that the
	answer "update to the newest patchkit and apply patch XXXXXX"
	is obviously inapplicable.

2)	People don't get confused that 386BSD and BSDI are synonymous.

3)	The pollenization doesn't include offspring which have the
	name 386BSD but the ownership BSDI.

4)	The pollenization goes both ways, and the 386BSD community
	also benefits.

5)	Question posting does not become BSDI's primary means of
	technical support (I despise the idea of someone covertly
	reaping financial benefits from the good faith of others
	without sharing the benefit.  If this and other 386BSD
	forums do the work of supporting BSDI's product, they should
	be paid technical support fees/salaries).

In general, nobody does (1).  It seems that the BSDI users are the biggest
offenders on (2).  We've been protected from (3) so far.  BSDI has been
mostly fair about (4), although they have gotten major benefits (like the
ISOFS and console drivers) and 386BSD has reaped only minor ones.  As long
as we keep (1)-(4) in mind, (5) will fall into place.

We should not forget that BSDI is in business to make money, and that their
primary goal as a business is to do that above all else... a business dies
if it is not profitable.  To a great extent, their goals are incompatable
with those of the 386BSD community.  As a generalization, real research,
that which is directed towards gaining knowledge rather than profit, does
not (indeed, cannot) occur in a normal business environment.

The 386BSD community, which is in its majority a research community, should
not be a path of least resistance for BSDI technical support.  If this
seems touchy, then so be it.


					Terry Lambert
					te...@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
agate!ames!decwrl!pa.dec.com!e2big.mko.dec.com!decvax.dec.com!jtkohl
From: jtk...@zk3.dec.com (John Kohl)
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
In-Reply-To: terry@cs.weber.edu's message of Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:18:07 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jun12.022844.7448@e2big.mko.dec.com>
Sender: use...@e2big.mko.dec.com (Mr. USENET)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
References: <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu>
	<1v45qu$im@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
	<1993Jun11.080552.6234@spcvxb.spc.edu>
	<1993Jun11.181807.8884@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1993 02:28:44 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <1993Jun11.181807.8...@fcom.cc.utah.edu> te...@cs.weber.edu 
(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:


> 4)	The pollenization goes both ways, and the 386BSD community
> 	also benefits.

> BSDI has been
> mostly fair about (4), although they have gotten major benefits (like the
> ISOFS and console drivers)

actually, BSDI comes with its own BSDI-written ISO 9660 and Rock Ridge
file system code.
--
John Kohl <jtk...@zk3.dec.com> or <jtk...@mit.edu>
working for but not representing:	Digital Equipment Corporation
Member of the League for Programming Freedom---get details: l...@uunet.uu.net
(The above opinions are MINE.  Don't put my words in somebody else's mouth!)

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!wupost!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!
csn!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun12.040132.18268@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: n...@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
References: <1993Jun11.080552.6234@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1993Jun11.181807.8884@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1993Jun12.022844.7448@e2big.mko.dec.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 93 04:01:32 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <1993Jun12.022844.7...@e2big.mko.dec.com> jtk...@zk3.dec.com 
(John Kohl) writes:
>In article <1993Jun11.181807.8...@fcom.cc.utah.edu> te...@cs.weber.edu 
>(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>
>
>> 4)	The pollenization goes both ways, and the 386BSD community
>> 	also benefits.
>
>> BSDI has been
>> mostly fair about (4), although they have gotten major benefits (like the
>> ISOFS and console drivers)
>
>actually, BSDI comes with its own BSDI-written ISO 9660 and Rock Ridge
>file system code.

Fine.  The point is not precisely *what* code BSDI has used to its benefit
-- its that BSDI has used *any* code to its benefit (it has).  I believe
the previous statement to be irrefutable.

I prefer *not* to become aware of BSDI internals on two grounds:

1)	The lawsuit isn't over.
2)	It is not possible to claim my code as a derivitive work.

I *do* believe that they have derived greater benefit from 386BSD than
386BSD has derived from BDSI.  I *know* than some patches originated
with BSDI (or at least users who would not have gotten involved were
it not for BSDI), so I am *not* claiming NO benefit, I am claiming
LESSER benefit.


					Terry Lambert
					te...@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!spcvxb!mauritz_c
From: maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun12.092715.6266@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 93 09:27:15 EDT
References: <1993Jun11.080552.6234@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1993Jun11.181807.8884@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1993Jun12.022844.7448@e2big.mko.dec.com> 
<1993Jun12.040132.18268@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: SPC Community Access System
Lines: 43

In article <1993Jun12.040132.18...@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, te...@cs.weber.edu 
(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> In article <1993Jun12.022844.7...@e2big.mko.dec.com> jtk...@zk3.dec.com 
>(John Kohl) writes:
>>In article <1993Jun11.181807.8...@fcom.cc.utah.edu> te...@cs.weber.edu 
>>(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>>
>>
>>> 4)	The pollenization goes both ways, and the 386BSD community
>>> 	also benefits.
>>
>>> BSDI has been
>>> mostly fair about (4), although they have gotten major benefits (like the
>>> ISOFS and console drivers)
>>
>>actually, BSDI comes with its own BSDI-written ISO 9660 and Rock Ridge
>>file system code.
> 
> Fine.  The point is not precisely *what* code BSDI has used to its benefit
> -- its that BSDI has used *any* code to its benefit (it has).  I believe
> the previous statement to be irrefutable.
> 
> I prefer *not* to become aware of BSDI internals on two grounds:
> 
> 1)	The lawsuit isn't over.
> 2)	It is not possible to claim my code as a derivitive work.
> 
> I *do* believe that they have derived greater benefit from 386BSD than
> 386BSD has derived from BDSI.  I *know* than some patches originated
> with BSDI (or at least users who would not have gotten involved were
> it not for BSDI), so I am *not* claiming NO benefit, I am claiming
> LESSER benefit.

IBM is in business to make money too, but nobody seems to care
if I ask OS/2 questions on the net, rather than pay Big Blue's
support fees.  I didn't realize that some of you guys were so
touchy about this issue.  What is so evil about trying to make
a profit from one's labor?

Anyway, it was not my intention to start a flame war.  I'll
keep the questions in comp.unix.bsd.

Peace,

Chris

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
eddie.mit.edu!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!cwis.isu.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!
cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun15.020335.19545@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: n...@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
References: <1993Jun12.022844.7448@e2big.mko.dec.com> 
<1993Jun12.040132.18268@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1993Jun12.092715.6266@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 02:03:35 GMT
Lines: 31

I was responding to someone who wondered why the original complaint against
posts to comp.os.386bsd.misc on BSDI issues were complained about... with
that in mind:


In article <1993Jun12.092715.6...@spcvxb.spc.edu> maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>IBM is in business to make money too, but nobody seems to care
>if I ask OS/2 questions on the net, rather than pay Big Blue's
>support fees.  I didn't realize that some of you guys were so
>touchy about this issue.  What is so evil about trying to make
>a profit from one's labor?

No problem at all, as long as the respondents to BSDI questioners realize
they are saving BSDI the cost of a support call/message on their own mailing
list by responding.  I'm not saying asking questions is evil... I just want
it perfectly clear who is benefitting.

PS: Try asking OS/2 questions in comp.os.386bsd.misc or comp.unix.bsd as
an experiment, and let me know if you get flamed.  If BSDI wants their
own heirarchy, the rules for newsgroup creation are clear.

PPS: The newsgroup alt.os.bsdi exists; perhaps its low traffic is a result
of improper procedure being followed in its creation?



					Terry Lambert
					te...@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
cs.utexas.edu!uunet!spcvxb!mauritz_c
From: maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Message-ID: <1993Jun15.110517.6302@spcvxb.spc.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 93 11:05:17 EDT
References: <1993Jun12.022844.7448@e2big.mko.dec.com> 
<1993Jun12.040132.18268@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1993Jun12.092715.6266@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1993Jun15.020335.19545@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: SPC Community Access System
Lines: 45

In article <1993Jun15.020335.19...@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, te...@cs.weber.edu 
(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> I was responding to someone who wondered why the original complaint against
> posts to comp.os.386bsd.misc on BSDI issues were complained about... with
> that in mind:
> 
> 
> In article <1993Jun12.092715.6...@spcvxb.spc.edu> maurit...@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
>>IBM is in business to make money too, but nobody seems to care
>>if I ask OS/2 questions on the net, rather than pay Big Blue's
>>support fees.  I didn't realize that some of you guys were so
>>touchy about this issue.  What is so evil about trying to make
>>a profit from one's labor?
> 
> No problem at all, as long as the respondents to BSDI questioners realize
> they are saving BSDI the cost of a support call/message on their own mailing
> list by responding.  I'm not saying asking questions is evil... I just want
> it perfectly clear who is benefitting.

Who is benefitting?  I am!  A lot of helpful people read this newsgroup.
All political arguments aside, in my short experience with the Jolitz
vs BSDI debate, it seems that the OS's are similar enough that it isn't
in terribly bad taste to ask quesitons about them both here.  If you
think that is bad, fine....put me in your kill file.  
 
> PS: Try asking OS/2 questions in comp.os.386bsd.misc or comp.unix.bsd as
> an experiment, and let me know if you get flamed.  If BSDI wants their
> own heirarchy, the rules for newsgroup creation are clear.

The OS/2 question in the 386bsd group isn't a terribly good example.
There is very little in common between the two systems.  However,
BSDI/386 and 386/BSD are quite similar, and helpful tips for users
of one system could very well be of interest to all.  Do you really
begrudge me a little knowledge THAT much???
 
> PPS: The newsgroup alt.os.bsdi exists; perhaps its low traffic is a result
> of improper procedure being followed in its creation?

I know it exists, but I don't use it because nobody reads it.  Besides, I
am not even a user of EITHER system now.  I was just asking some general 
questions when somebody (was it you?) jumped down my throat.

No hard feelings,

Chris

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!psgrain!percy!nerd
From: n...@percy.rain.com (Michael Galassi)
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
References: <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1v45qu$im@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de> <1993Jun11.080552.6234@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1993Jun11.181807.8884@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: /etc/organization
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 16:40:32 GMT
Message-ID: <C8ryBL.Jyn@percy.rain.com>
Lines: 72

***************************************************************************
I do NOT work for BSDI, I don't represent them, these are my thoughts only
and BSDI probably does not want them.  You can ask them for their thoughts
***************************************************************************

[Terry, I apologize for not including all your text, I've tried not
 to quote out of context, call me on it if I have. -m]

te...@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

>1)	They identify that they are talking about BSDI so that the
>	answer "update to the newest patchkit and apply patch XXXXXX"
>	is obviously inapplicable.

I don't think there was much doubt left as to which OS I was refering
to.

>2)	People don't get confused that 386BSD and BSDI are synonymous.

Both sides will respond here with a loud god forbid.

>4)	The pollenization goes both ways, and the 386BSD community
>	also benefits.

I think Donn's posting of the BSDI/CSRG's init code (to alt.sources)
along with other postings in the past from BSDI and its users should
set this fear aside.

>5)	Question posting does not become BSDI's primary means of
>	technical support (I despise the idea of someone covertly
>	reaping financial benefits from the good faith of others
>	without sharing the benefit.  If this and other 386BSD
>	forums do the work of supporting BSDI's product, they should
>	be paid technical support fees/salaries).

BSDI has an active mailing list, several email addresses, and 800 #s
they use as the primary support mechanisms.  USENET is a available
to anyone who wishes to use it, including those of us who run BSDI.
I should point out that BSD/386 is similar enough to 386BSD that
many questions asked and answered in the BSD/386 context will also
be beneficial to the 386BSD people.

>In general, nobody does (1).

I did, others have too.

> It seems that the BSDI users are the biggest offenders on (2).

I don't think so, BSDI is quite specific in the naming of their OS, and
there is only one, unlike the Netbsd, 386bsd, and whatever other efforts
are under way these days in the JOLIX derived world.

> BSDI has been mostly fair about (4), although they have gotten major
> benefits (like the ISOFS and console drivers) and 386BSD has reaped
> only minor ones.

Looking at the iso9660 and console drivers in the current BSD/386
distribution I see a lot of code that is of their own creation.

> as we keep (1)-(4) in mind, (5) will fall into place.

We need to remember that the net is not owned by anyone, and no special
privileges are due to any group of people based on their OS choice.

>The 386BSD community, which is in its majority a research community, should
>not be a path of least resistance for BSDI technical support.

My impresion from the posts I've seen is that the Terry Lamberts, David
Greenmans, and Bruce Evans' etc... are the minority, not the majority.
Maybe not...

-michael

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!
wjolitz
From: wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Digiboards and BSDI/386
Date: 23 Jun 1993 20:09:45 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Undergrad Assoc., UC Berkeley
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <20ada9$5k5@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <1993Jun4.094829.6159@spcvxb.spc.edu> 
<1993Jun11.080552.6234@spcvxb.spc.edu> <1993Jun11.181807.8884@fcom.cc.utah.edu> 
<C8ryBL.Jyn@percy.rain.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


Back in 1989 when I originally created 386BSD (see "386BSD: A Modest
Proposal", which Keith Bostic was good enough to circulate widely on
the net at the time), the goals I had for it was simply to offer an
alternative platform for Berkeley *VAX* UNIX, to keep it from dying
out.

I think this goal has been achieved.

At the end of 1990, I contributed the work to the university in the
belief that it would have a profound effect at promoting use of the
wealth of ideas in BSD, in which I've had a stake since the 70's.

It seems to have been noticed.

In January 1991, DDJ started publishing the first article of a 17-part
feature series, describing the particulars of this work, so that others
may start to participate in 386BSD.

It would seem that they have.

After this work was completed, and during the publishing of my series,
Mike Karels and UUNET's Rick Adams asked me to help them make the work
available in a unencumbered forum for wide use by research,
educational, and commercial purposes. BSDi was formed to be a clearing
house for services, similar to Cygnus (or so I thought).

NET/2 is released, BSDi is operational with a "product" by summer.

What followed is a comedy of errors scenario which are almost
slapstick, to wit:

Rick gets the "gold bug", and the Three Stooges follow along. BSDi
pursues an insane direction of becoming USL, down to the "teamster"
tactics that it still occasionally employs. UC splits into two groups
-- CSRG and UC.  CSRG echos BSDi to the letter, but denies involvement.
UC adopts the ostrich position, with an index finger pointing towards
CSRG.

I walk, and return to my original work. USL, after being well provoked,
launches a noodle-brained attack, intending to psychologically encumber
NET/2 while baring corporate fangs at the BSDi "yapping" little dog and
the mindless, sleeping giant UC (fumbling along with it's hands in
other pockets, and perplexed by the Naked Guy, who isn't wearing any).

BSDi/CSRG, sensing potential competition, clumsily attempt to clean my
clock, leaving me "forever" in their debt, using inappropriate tactics
to further this end.  Yes, they already thought they were as powerful
as USL, and could do what ever they wanted.  UC, sensing that the wave
is about to crash, attempts to batten down the hatches, and preserve
the status quo, come what may. After all, the taxpayers will pay for
any legal inconvenience.

Release 0.0 is thus inspired, as a way to deliver on my obligations to
about 100 people. UC was given the option to release instead via
controlled means, but decline because of the budding conflict of
interest problem that continues to this day. They also didn't see any
value in the work -- so much for academics and their brilliant powers
of reason. That's why they're sitting in tenured jobs instead of
running businesses.

Other key people go completely ballistic, for very different reasons.
It's hard to justify a kilobuck for something you can get for nothing.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, sufficient encouragement and assistance
allow us to put out a beta release, 0.1.  Original mission is complete,
albeit with a few holes.

The "greed" battle for control, or "cold" war begins. 386bsd florishes,
as real people finally get a chance to participate with BSD, something
they have waited for ten years for.

Our favorite judge sees through the silliness that USL insists is its
case, yet is not so taken in to let UC/CSRG/BSDi entirely off the hook.
Bit of the "pox on both your houses" is present, as he correctly
assesses the nature of both plantiff and defendant. Note that
USL/Novell still has the opportunity to launch significant actions,
which the judge is also aware of.  Obviously, the man is a keen student of
human nature.

BSDi incorrectly chooses to interpret this as a "win". It starts to
"organize" a nascent 386bsd industry, with all the polish of a
protection racket (e.g.  "you'd better play along, or we'll deal you
out"). Netbsd comes into existance about the time we politely decline
the invitation. Other commercial efforts spring into being, smelling
opportunity. The "cold" war moves into more obtuse and covert
directions, justified over the weird passion to be "The One, True,
BSD", regardless of personal liability or ethics. They are encouraged
by the cynical Three Stooges, already tarred and visible in the fray.

The user community interprets (correctly) that they are no longer
targetted, however indirectly, and breaths a collective sigh of relief.
They are completely bewildered by the lack of unity in the 386BSD
world, and target numerous "villains" for this. The boundaries of
commercial/free worlds are intentionally blurred for obvious, ruthless
ends, since the ethical success of 386bsd is more certain than the
legal successes possible. Subsuming and confusing becomes the
strategy.

BSDi correctly decides to start releasing code (init -- done two years
ago) as better versions (Christoph Robitscko's) appear publicly, as an
attempt to appear magnanomous without really doing anything.  Through
"good guy, bad guy", they can work both sides of the field. I have a
feeling they will need to release quite a bit of code soon.

Yet, the key weakness in all this gamesmanship has been the lack of
genuine cooperation, leading the nimble minds here to correctly be very
circumspect in collaborations, and extremely careful of "new work", as
it is a battleground for the control of "The One, True, BSD".

Meanwhile, UNIX continues to retreat in front of the looming Microsoft
cloud, polishing their gold braid and boasting of conquering worlds
while losing market share.

It is just good enough to make a TV movie or maybe even a book (hint).

However, the real answer continues to sit out in plain view, if one is
not so entranced in deceptions that they cannot look beyond their
nose.  Such work will continue only if it really *is* genuine, and
abandons the almost 30-year old mechanisms that are obvious weaknesses
present in 4.4BSD.  Otherwise, the "litigate if you dare" attitude will
become permanently attached to those various "BSD's", and eventually
will curse them as the average user finds the continued ambiguity
distasteful.

I am certain that we have not heard of the last legal actions here. The
pity is that it was all avoidable, except for the deliberate, conscious
choices by individuals who knew better. 386BSD is on a course away from
the pending maelstrom, and will not be used to prop up other
cynical and pointless ambitions. However, the right road will cost us
in the short-term as we build a firm foundation for the long-term.

Then again, the whole problem all along has been taking the greedy
short-term view, hasn't it.

Bill.

			      USENET Archives


The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or 
research.


Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/