Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!tardis!jms
From: j...@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Date: 11 Mar 92 07:01:59 GMT
Organization: BT Tymnet, San Jose, CA
Lines: 107
I'm just forwarding this. Note: SVNET is a user's group in Silicon Valley,
in Northern California. The meeting in Cupertino is Wednesday night.
-Joe
>From: Rahul Dhesi < d...@cirrus.com>
>Subject: 386BSD info; copies at SVNet
>Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 13:59:49 -0800
FYI: A version of 386BSD with source now appears to be available for free.
Rahul Dhesi < d...@cirrus.COM>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
===== begin forwarded message =====
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 92 09:57:24 -0800
From: dkio...@Cadence.COM (Daniel P. Kionka)
Message-Id: <9203091757.AA06912@cds985>
To: pcunix...@Cadence.COM
Subject: 386BSD info; copies at SVNet
Status: R
This mail is information about 386BSD, not the usual PC UNIX meeting
announcement. It explains how you can get the source or binaries of
Berkeley UNIX for the 80386. There will be more information at
Wednesday's SVNet meeting.
Dan Kionka
----------------------------CUT HERE ------------------------------
ANNOUNCING PUBLIC RELEASE of 386BSD,
(the FREE 386 Berkeley UNIX work-alike)!
(Notes from various sources, edited by David Harris, 3-7-92)
William F. Jolitz, the author of the 386 port of BSD UNIX (now free of
AT&T code) has begun releasing "386BSD" to the public. This is the result of
the work described in the DR. DOBB'S JOURNAL series on 386 BSD.
This version of 386 BSD is release 0.0, and is recommended for
skilled experimenters only. You want "kernel experience" for your
resume? This is your chance. While the source and binaries are
copyrighted by Bill Jolitz, he authorizes redistribution without required
charge (donations needed, but voluntary) for this and future releases.
This version is said to run on 386/486 SX/DX ISA (AT bus), with
traditional hard and floppy controller (IDE, ESDI, MFM types), and common
displays (MDA/CGA/VGA/Hercules). Ethernet controllers supported include
Western Digital 8003EB, 8003EBT, 8003S, WD8003SBT, 8013EBT and Novell
NE2000. Clones also appear to work quite well. Tape drive support is
available for QIC-02 controllers as well, allowing use of 3M cartridges of
QIC-60 through QIC-150 format.
As configured on the binary distribution, the system REQUIRES a floating
point coprocessor (387 or compatible), 2 MB of memory (will run on 1 MB
using paging). 4 MB of memory and a 200 MB hard disk is comfortable.
This early version is not reliable, and has trouble booting on some
systems. In testing the software on various 386 machines, John Sokol
found "about a 40% compatibility rate". There are known serious bugs,
and missing utilities. But this is the Berkeley UNIX that vast numbers of
students learned and used --- now available FREE. One would expect this
software to be widely used for education and as an introduction to UNIX.
Copies of the software are available from John Sokol at 415-364-8387
or e-mail to John at s...@reyes.stanford.edu .
***********************************************************************
* BUT for convenience John made this DISTRIBUTION PLAN:
*
* At the SVNet meeting of March 11, 7:30 at the Apple Auditorium at 10500
* Mariani (corner of De Anza), Cupertino, CA, a few copies of 386BSD will be
* distributed. If you want to be SURE to get a copy, bring a machine capable
* of doing a DOS copy to your high density disks. If needed, we will
* organize "trees" of people to copy for each other, if people can't make
* copies at the meeting due to limited time and few machines.
*
* People who want a copy of the 386BSD system should bring either:
* (A) for 3-1/4 1.44 Meg disks bring
* Source = 8 Disks
* Binaries = 6 Disks + 1 Boot disk = 7 Disks total
* For everything = 7 + 8 = 15 Disks Total !!!!
* or (B) for 5-1/2 1.2 Meg disks bring
* Sources = 10 Disks
* Binaries = 8 Disks + 1 Boot Disk = 9 Disks Total
* For Everything = 10 + 9 = 19 Disks Total !!!!!
*
* NOTE: The disks must be error free DOS formatted ahead of time! We
* don't want to wait while a computer formats floppies at the meeting.
***********************************************************************
There's about 23 Meg worth of stuff on all those floppys and there are
2 Sets of files, one for each medium.
The total release on tape was 44.7 Megs and Includes are just the Differences
from the Networking 2 release on the BSD386 Unix on the archive servers as
well as both sets of disk images....
If you want a copy via Internet contact John via e-mail at
s...@reyes.stanford.edu
===== end forwarded message =====
--
Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: j...@tardis.tymnet.com DIALCOM: J.SMITH
BTNA Tech Services TYMNET| CA license plate: "POPJ P," PDP-10, 36 bits forever
PO Box 49019, MS-C51 | Married to the LB, Quantum Leap's #1 net.fan
San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | humorous disclaimer: "My Amiga 3000 speaks for me."
Path: sparky!uunet!lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!mosque.huji.ac.il!ury
From: u...@mosque.huji.ac.il (Ury Segal)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 12 Mar 92 06:53:19 GMT
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Sender: n...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: mosque.huji.ac.il
Well.. Have U noticed WHO came out with the 386BSD ? That may send BSDI to
their grave ?
Jolitz.
He used to work there... And now he is Distributing HIS OWN CODE (He wrote
a lot of it). I guess GNU will like him :). I also think it is the right
thing to do! most of BSDI came from the free Net-2 tape, and charging
1000$ for it, well, I don't want to say such words in the USENET...
--
Ury Segal | _ ______ () _
u...@cs.huji.ac.il | ' ) / /\ //
Phone: 02-971187 | / / __ __ , / ) _ _, __. //
| (__/ / (_/ (_/_ /__/__</_(_)_(_/|_</_
The taste of life: | / /|
C, SPARC and rock'n'roll !!! | ' |/
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!uunet!kolstad
From: kols...@uunet.uu.net (Rob Kolstad)
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.142435.3947@uunet.uu.net>
Summary: BSDI reply to Ury's note
Sender: use...@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bsdi.com
Organization: UUNET Communications Services
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM> <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 14:24:35 GMT
Ury:
I read your note about charging US$1,000 as being something that you ``don't
want to say such words in the USENET...''
Just so that you understand our position, I figured I'd try to help you
know why $1,000 is a perfectly reasonable price and why it's actually
quite low.
To start with, we have seven people putting in more than 280 hours/week on
getting the release out. That's *every week*. We pay them for their
efforts. We'll certainly be hiring more; there's far more work than we
than this staff can comfortably complete.
They make device drivers, ensure the X window system works, fix
kernel bugs, fix utility bugs, create new utilities, ensure that the
release works on a number of machines, perform source release control
(including marking only the few files which are not redistributable), fix
the compiler, write more documentation, field and track customer problems,
create new installation procedures, test all phases of the development,
and, most time-consuming of all, deal with customers on the telephone and
through e-mail.
We have been billed more than US$40,000 just for the legal services we
have used to ensure that our code will is technically and legally free
from AT&T/USL trade secrets.
Now, no one is forcing anyone to pay US$1,000 for the BSDI code. If you
prefer to get the Swedish effort's software or Bill Jolitz's software,
then go for it! You are probably one of the relatively few people in the
world (contrasted with the set of users who simply want base operating
system technology upon which to build or execut their applications) who
can get tremendous utility from it.
We are trying to make BSD systems available to the masses. We are trying
to make sure that a certain vision in base operating system software makes
its way to the commercial market. If you think these are reasonable goals
(and that you would like to see a very large number of users using BSD
instead of just a few expert operating system hackers), then maybe you
should re-think your support (or lack thereof) of BSDI.
Without BSDI's efforts at quality and support, I do not think the BSD line
of kernel development has a prayer of succeeding (and remaining viable).
Thinking otherwise, I believe, ignores the notion that success of a kernel
requires support and development far beyond the realm of free ftp
transfers and availability of its code.
Best of luck in your endeavors for free software,
Rob
BSDI Program Manager
--
/\ Rob Kolstad Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
/\/ \ kols...@bsdi.com 7759 Delmonico Drive
/ / \ 719-593-9445 Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry
From: he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.172947.27442@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 17:29:47 GMT
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
<1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
In article <1992Mar12.0...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
u...@mosque.huji.ac.il (Ury Segal) writes:
>... most of BSDI came from the free Net-2 tape, and charging
>1000$ for it, well, I don't want to say such words in the USENET...
Gee, then why don't you just run Net-2?
The contents of the Net-2 tape are *not* a complete working system, much
less one with a full set of low-level hardware support for the 386 (an
obnoxious and uncooperative machine). BSDI put a lot of work into making
a working system out of it. Why are you so upset that they want to be
compensated for that?
The fact is, if you want a supported turnkey system, you're going to have
to pay money for it. Supporting a major widely-distributed system is a
*lot of work*. If you doubt this, try doing it some time. Speaking as
the "front man" for C News support -- if you report a C News problem or
ask for help with it, the response will probably be from me -- I would
be a lot happier about it if I got paid for it. It's more or less
tolerable because C News is a relatively modest package (a couple of
orders of magnitude smaller than a complete operating system) and the
people installing it mostly are moderately knowledgeable.
--
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Dick Dunn | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!csn!raven!rcd
From: r...@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Musing on BSDI's viability (was "386BSD announcement")
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.200527@eklektix.com>
Date: 12 Mar 92 20:05:27 GMT
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
<1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Lines: 66
u...@mosque.huji.ac.il (Ury Segal) writes:
>Well.. Have U noticed WHO came out with the 386BSD ? That may send BSDI to
>their grave ?
>
>Jolitz.
First, let's be fair to a lot of people: The BSD software which is the
base for both this recent announcement and the BSDI product (plus various
other products and free-OS efforts) is the work of *many* people over
*many* years. Jolitz's work is an important, but small, part of it all.
To your main point: Why should this effort "send BSDI to their grave"?
BSDI went into this whole affair knowing that the code from CSRG was
close to being an unencumbered system complete enough to run on its own.
The folks there are *not* stupid and they *have* been around the UNIX
community for quite a while.
In other words, they can figure out that they've got to produce something
sooner, better (in fact, qualitatively different) than a free effort or
they won't make it. If they didn't think they had a good chance at it,
they wouldn't have gone into it.
>He used to work there... And now he is Distributing HIS OWN CODE (He wrote
>a lot of it). I guess GNU will like him :)...
Well, probably not unless he's done a complete about-face on his attitude
toward copyleft! (Just to be clear, I agree with Jolitz's previously-
stated position on copyleft, which is the view CSRG has taken all along.)
>...most of BSDI came from the free Net-2 tape, and charging
>1000$ for it, well, I don't want to say such words in the USENET...
Go ahead and "say such words in the USENET". It's better than innuendo.
What's wrong with what BSDI is doing? Remember that CSRG has encouraged
commercial vendors to use their work, and major vendors have used it to
make a lot of money on systems for which you wouldn't have a prayer of
getting source code. Or what about mt Xinu charging $1000 for Mach-386?
(CMU arranged for mt Xinu to do that one.)
It's not as if BSDI grabbed Net 2, hacked out a few routines, set up shop
and started raking in money. They're putting in a LOT of work. Yes, for
now, most of their code base may be Net 2; they'll have to add a lot of
their own work as time goes on. I think it's better to get it out sooner.
They have made a lot of progress already.
One of the values of CSRG's efforts in the past, and something I hope BSDI
can continue and enhance, is coordination. In all the talk about "free 386
BSD" there's been very little thought to how this is going to give us a
cohesive whole (referring to the word "system" in "operating system").
It's all very well to "get the code out there" and let people start hacking
on it...but who's going to pull it together? A lot of us long for the UNIX
community back when almost everyone had source code, but we also remember
Bill Shannon's characterization of UNIX, 12 years ago, as "a collection of
starting points." IF BSDI works in concert with CSRG (which, right now, it
seems they will) there's a way to focus efforts and get some synergy.
Personally, I think the bottom line for BSDI's success *is* their bottom
line. If they just coasted on the Net 2 tape plus a little code, that
would be "wrong" somehow, but it wouldn't matter because they wouldn't
succeed. People will buy their product if they have something worth the
money. I think there's a certain gamble to it, but so far they seem to be
headed in the right direction and they've got a good chance at success.
So what's the point of taking potshots at them?
--
Dick Dunn r...@raven.eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado
...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!netcomsv!resonex!michael
From: mic...@resonex.com (Michael Bryan)
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <1992Mar12.092257.21167@resonex.com>
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
<1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 09:22:57 GMT
Lines: 44
In article <1992Mar12.0...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
u...@mosque.huji.ac.il (Ury Segal) writes:
>Most of BSDI came from the free Net-2 tape, and charging
>1000$ for it, well, I don't want to say such words in the USENET...
Well, I think *both* of these versions have their own important niche.
The recently announced 386BSD is good for those who want a free O/S,
and are willing and able to live without commercial support of the
system. BSDI's 386/BSD is good for those who want a commercial O/S,
and are willing to pay for responsive support and other items that
only a commercial venture can provide. That is not to imply that
free software is poor quality, but their are individuals and companies
which need to be able to call up a technical support staff at nearly
any time to resolve a problem, and a commercial venture with paid
employees is likely to be better at this.
Case in point, look at the current non-responsiveness from the e-mail
account listed in the 386BSD announcement. I don't think it's horrible
that nobody can get ahold of him, since I assume he has to make a
living on things other than 386BSD, and I'm sure that eventually the
code will get out as promised. However, that would be unacceptable
for some people, and for them BSDI's offering is a bargain at only $995.
It certainly blows SCO out of the water!
Is a price of nearly $1000 too much for what they've done? I personally
don't think so. They've taken an *incomplete* Net-2 distribution,
added the necessary portions to make it work in the 386/486 realm,
bundled in X11, tested the resulting software package under many
system configurations, and are providing reasonable support for the
product. In addition, they are providing nearly all of the source
necessary to rebuild the system from scratch, so those who like to
tinker can do so. I personally think it's a great price!
I also think the 386BSD system is a fantastic deal, as well. It will
undoubtedly grow into a product equally as stable and wonderful as
BSD/386, even though the latter currently has a headstart. It will
allow many people to get a complete UN*X system for free, and spur
development of many wonderful packages.
Why does it have to be one or the other? I think both systems are
good, and both will be around for quite some time.
--
Michael Bryan mic...@resonex.com
This offer law where prohibited by void.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!ferkel!jim
From: j...@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <jim.700437437@ferkel>
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
<1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
<1992Mar12.142435.3947@uunet.uu.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1992 21:57:17 GMT
Lines: 31
I still haven't heard anything from the Internet contact for 386BSD,
nor has anyone else I've talked to. However, I think I should have
the diffs tonight from someone who went to the SVNET meeting. These
are just the diffs, not the binaries, but it is a heck of a lot better
than nothing.
As for BSDI: I think we should stop complaining about them. They
are working hard to create a fully functional system. The 386BSD
release will probably work or a significant portion of machines,
but it is far from a polished finished product. I do not think that
BSDI will fail, and I hope fervently that they succeed. While a free
OS is great for the type of person who reads this group, most people
in the Unix (and clones) market would be completely lost as far as
getting the free BSD up and running. Many users aren't even capable
of ftp'ing a file, un-tarring it and typing 'make'. As well, if BSDI
is successful, that will benefit all of us who are BSD-proponents.
Not only this, but it could open up a lot of new jobs. As far as the
price goes, this is in the same ballpark as other Unix packages for
the PC-compatibles, but you get full source code, and BSD instead of
System V. So let's stop complaining about it. If someone asks you
for a reccommendation for a Unix-like system, if they are
knowledgable, point them to the free BSD. If they are not, point
them to BSDI.
Jim Lick
Work: University of California | Play: 6657 El Colegio #24
Santa Barbara | Isla Vista, CA 93117-4280
Dept. of Mechanical Engr. | (805) 968-0189 voice/msg
2311 Engr II Building | "Like beauty and sadness/It's hard
(805) 893-4113 | to love/With so much to hate/I'm
j...@ferkel.ucsb.edu | feeling worthless" -Life Talking
Path: sparky!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!nic.csu.net!
csun.edu!charlie.secs.csun.edu!mrs
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: 386BSD announcement (I offer the patch kit)
Message-ID: <1992Mar13.072714.12142@csun.edu>
From: m...@charlie.secs.csun.edu (Mike Stump)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 07:27:14 GMT
Sender: use...@csun.edu
References: <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
<1992Mar12.142435.3947@uunet.uu.net> <jim.700437437@ferkel>
Organization: California State University, Northridge
Lines: 24
In article <jim.700437437@ferkel> j...@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>I still haven't heard anything from the Internet contact for 386BSD,
>nor has anyone else I've talked to. However, I think I should have
>the diffs tonight from someone who went to the SVNET meeting. These
>are just the diffs, not the binaries, but it is a heck of a lot better
>than nothing.
I will offer to mail the diffs to the networking 2 release to anybody
that wants them. They are the SVNET diffs of Bill's. Caution, nobody
makes any warranties about them, but I believe an experienced person
should be able to make a complete free system with them.
Also, for a limited time, (until somebody deletes them) they can be
found on ftp.uu.net in /tmp/BSD386.shar.
If somebody offers me binaries, I will turn around and offer binaries.
Also, if anybody would like to co-ordinate bug fixes and what not, I
think everybody would gain.
--
If I can get mail to you via a legally registered fully qualified
domain name, you could be on Saturn for all I care.
-- quote by Bob Sutterfield <b...@MorningStar.Com>
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!umd5!cogsci!wjb
From: w...@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Summary: slight correction?
Message-ID: <13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 92 18:01:04 GMT
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
<1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
<1992Mar12.092257.21167@resonex.com>
Organization: Department of Cognitive Science, JHU
Lines: 42
In article <1992Mar12.0...@resonex.com>
mic...@resonex.com (Michael Bryan) writes:
>Well, I think *both* of these versions have their own important niche.
>The recently announced 386BSD is good for those who want a free O/S,
>and are willing and able to live without commercial support of the
>system. BSDI's 386/BSD is good for those who want a commercial O/S,
>and are willing to pay for responsive support and other items that
>only a commercial venture can provide.
I agree that this is a significant benefit of BSDI's product.
Personally, I wish that BSDI had taken an approach similar to that of Cyngus
Support. Charging for "service" while making the code freely
distributable. I can get a number of UNIX products with most of the
festures of BSDI for around $1000. The only thing that BSDI has is source
code. My impression of the marketplace is that there are people who just
want turn-key solutions for whom source code is irrelevant; and "hackers"
who want source code, but probably don't want to pay significant money for
service. Obviously BSDI sees the market differently. May the best business
plan win.
>Case in point, look at the current non-responsiveness from the e-mail
>account listed in the 386BSD announcement. ...
How soon we forget. When BSDI's 386/BSD product was first made
public, non-responsiveness is exactly what people got when they tried to
e-mail for more information. People complained over and over in
comp.unix.sysv386 about nobody answering their mail and wondering whether or
not it was a hoax. As it turns out, I believe the information was released
before BSDI actually wanted it to be and they weren't ready for the
tremendeous flood of mail that resulted. They are also running somewhat
behind the initial optimistic release schedules. (maybe 3-6 months?)
Although the 386BSD announcement seems to have been intentional,
they are also probably surprised by the response. You should also note that
a number of people have already announced putting parts of it up for
anonymous ftp and I expect by next week the whole thing will be available.
This is an obvious advantage that 386BSD has for "hackers". Anybody who
gets a copy can give it away to anybody else. The people working on 386BSD
directly really shouldn't have to worry about distributing it. If enough
people want it, it will be made available...
Bill Bogstad
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rock!banjo.concert.net!abc
From: a...@banjo.concert.net (Alan B Clegg)
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <1992Mar13.204804.9739@rock.concert.net>
Sender: ne...@rock.concert.net
Organization: Concert Network -- Internet Operations Group
References: <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
<1992Mar12.092257.21167@resonex.com> <13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:48:04 GMT
In article <13.03.92....@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
w...@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
> How soon we forget. When BSDI's 386/BSD product was first made
>public, non-responsiveness is exactly what people got when they tried to
>e-mail for more information. People complained over and over in
>comp.unix.sysv386 about nobody answering their mail and wondering whether or
>not it was a hoax. As it turns out, I believe the information was released
>before BSDI actually wanted it to be and they weren't ready for the
>tremendeous flood of mail that resulted. They are also running somewhat
>behind the initial optimistic release schedules. (maybe 3-6 months?)
Well, I got mail from John Sokol in which he says:
]Hello,
] Sorry I have not been able to respond sooner.
]
] The Announcment of 386BSD was not intended for World wide posting.
] So I have been overwelmed with responses.
]
] The BSD 386 UNIX should be availible via FTP in
] about a week at many sites. It will abso be availible on many of the
] Larger BBS's aorund the country.
] I will mail you when it becomes available electronically.
] Also Watch usenet news group "comp.unix.bsd" for more info.
Anyway, I now have the entire setup on BANJO.CONCERT.NET in ~ftp/pub/386BSD.
That is a mirror of agate.berkeley.edu. Pick the better site.
-abc
--
a...@concert.net Alan Clegg - Network Programmer
KD4JML (just my luck!) MCNC -- Center for Communications
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!slxsys!warwick!mrccrc!icdoc!lmjm
From: lm...@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee M J McLoughlin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Message-ID: <LMJM.92Mar14014743@raquel.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Mar 92 01:47:43 GMT
References: <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
<1992Mar12.092257.21167@resonex.com>
<13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
<1992Mar13.204804.9739@rock.concert.net>
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London. U.K.
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: raquel.doc.ic.ac.uk
In-Reply-To: abc@banjo.concert.net's message of Fri, 13 Mar 1992 20:48:04 GMT
>In article <1992Mar13....@rock.concert.net>
a...@banjo.concert.net (Alan B Clegg) writes:
>
> Anyway, I now have the entire setup on BANJO.CONCERT.NET in ~ftp/pub/386BSD.
> That is a mirror of agate.berkeley.edu. Pick the better site.
You can now also look in:
src.doc.ic.ac.uk:unix/386bsd-public
BTW: we found a PC and tried out the boot floppy disk. It really is
Unix! The hard disk was in use for other things so all I tried were
the few standalone commands. Anyhow, made my day!
--
--
Lee McLoughlin. Phone: 071 589 5111 X 5085
Dept of Computing, Imperial College, Fax: 071 581 8024
180 Queens Gate, London, SW7 2BZ, UK. Email: L.McLo...@doc.ic.ac.uk
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!agate!agate!usenet
From: c...@agate.berkeley.edu (Chris Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement
Date: 13 Mar 1992 23:25:57 -0800
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <ps9q5INNm0n@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu>
<1992Mar13.204804.9739@rock.concert.net>
<LMJM.92Mar14014743@raquel.doc.ic.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: agate.berkeley.edu
In article <LMJM.92Ma...@raquel.doc.ic.ac.uk>
lm...@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee M J McLoughlin) writes:
>BTW: we found a PC and tried out the boot floppy disk. It really is
>Unix! The hard disk was in use for other things so all I tried were
>the few standalone commands. Anyhow, made my day!
PLEASE, PLEASE, be SURE to read the WARNING!
If it didn't work on your PC, it would have dumped core on that hard
disk, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS THERE, a good amount of data could be
lost, if not the entire contents of the drive...
That would be had...
cgd
PS: if you're mirroring agate, *SEND ME MAIL!* because i'll send you
mail when we put up the next version. There's a good possibility
that for a few hours, ftp of the new version will only be allowed
by mirror sites... (This is to keep the world from killing agate,
and to keep the versions flowing to other sites...)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!blitz!pace
From: pa...@blitz.com (Pace Willisson)
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement (I offer the patch kit)
Message-ID: <PACE.92Mar14082918@blitz.com>
In-reply-to: mrs@charlie.secs.csun.edu's message of Fri, 13 Mar 1992 07:27:14 GMT
Sender: pa...@blitz.com (Pace Willisson)
Organization: Blitz Product Development Corporation
References: <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
<1992Mar12.142435.3947@uunet.uu.net> <jim.700437437@ferkel>
<1992Mar13.072714.12142@csun.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 13:29:22 GMT
In article <1992Mar13.0...@csun.edu>
m...@charlie.secs.csun.edu (Mike Stump) writes:
>Also, if anybody would like to co-ordinate bug fixes and what not, I
>think everybody would gain.
I'm afraid I can't volunteer to co-ordinate, but I can provide a first fix:
This typo in locore.s is present in the net/2 distribution, as well as
386bsd release0.0. The wrong register is used when setting the
FP_NEEDSRESTORE flag. In the original tape, this would cause processes
to lose their coprocessor state. In 386bsd, a change in npxdna() got
around that symptom, but still allowed this random bit to get set
somewhere past the end of the current proc structure.
*** locore.s- Sat Mar 14 06:30:49 1992
--- locore.s Sat Mar 14 06:31:46 1992
***************
*** 1047,1053 ****
/* if fp could be used, a dna trap will do a restore */
testb $ FP_WASUSED,%al
je 1f
! orb $ FP_NEEDSRESTORE,PCB_FLAGS(%ecx)
1:
#endif
--- 1047,1053 ----
/* if fp could be used, a dna trap will do a restore */
testb $ FP_WASUSED,%al
je 1f
! orb $ FP_NEEDSRESTORE,PCB_FLAGS(%edx)
1:
#endif
I found this while doing an independent bootstrap of the net2 sources
over the last month.
I have an number of additions to the kernel that are not remotely
ready for general distribution, so I don't really want to announce
them in the current feeding-frenzy environment; however, I would like
to coordinate with others who are doing serious work so we can avoid
wasteful duplication.
Pace Willisson
pa...@blitz.com uunet!blitz!pace
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!agate!agate!usenet
From: c...@agate.berkeley.edu (Chris Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement (I offer the patch kit)
Date: 14 Mar 1992 17:38:14 -0800
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <pu9q6INN4gm@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <jim.700437437@ferkel> <1992Mar13.072714.12142@csun.edu>
<PACE.92Mar14082918@blitz.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: agate.berkeley.edu
In article <PACE.92Ma...@blitz.com> pa...@blitz.com (Pace Willisson) writes:
>In article <1992Mar13.0...@csun.edu>
>m...@charlie.secs.csun.edu (Mike Stump) writes:
>>Also, if anybody would like to co-ordinate bug fixes and what not, I
>>think everybody would gain.
>
>I'm afraid I can't volunteer to co-ordinate, but I can provide a first fix:
>
> [ --- patch deleted to save bandwidth --- ]
>
>I found this while doing an independent bootstrap of the net2 sources
>over the last month.
>
I'm not going to attempt to coordinate patches, but i *will*
put them up for anon-ftp.
The will be on agate (and eventually elsewhere, as things
get mirrored), in pub/386BSD/patches/<rel-version>/<patch-num>
so that last one would be:
pub/386BSD/patches/0.0/1
c...@agate.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!news.hawaii.edu!uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!julian
From: jul...@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Julian Cowley)
Subject: Re: Musing on BSDI's viability (was "386BSD announcement")
Message-ID: <1992Mar15.060737.21482@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Sender: ro...@news.Hawaii.Edu (News Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Organization: University of Hawaii at Manoa
References: <2763@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
<1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Mar12.200527@eklektix.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 06:07:37 GMT
In article <1992Mar1...@eklektix.com> r...@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>u...@mosque.huji.ac.il (Ury Segal) writes:
>>...most of BSDI came from the free Net-2 tape, and charging
>>1000$ for it, well, I don't want to say such words in the USENET...
>
>Go ahead and "say such words in the USENET". It's better than innuendo.
>What's wrong with what BSDI is doing? Remember that CSRG has encouraged
>commercial vendors to use their work, and major vendors have used it to
>make a lot of money on systems for which you wouldn't have a prayer of
>getting source code. Or what about mt Xinu charging $1000 for Mach-386?
>(CMU arranged for mt Xinu to do that one.)
I can understand why the original poster was upset about BSDI's
decision to create a commercial BSD system. Most students,
myself included, cannot afford the $995 or more needed to buy a
Unix. If they could, then Unix would be more popular in the PC
world than it is now.
On the other hand, customers who have no desire to study operating
systems will need support, and BSDI was wise to be the first to
provide it. BSD Unix in an attractive box with printed manuals
(I'm assuming), source code, and full support is incredible at $995.
The problem is that BSDI's decision to not give away their changes
further divides the Unix market and makes Unix less desirable as an
alternative to DOS and OS/2. Why couldn't they have done something
similar to what Cygnus does and just provide support for one freely
available BSD Unix?
It should be interesting to see how Cygnus and BSDI compare in the
long run, given that they are both working with software that is
freely distributable (or nearly so, in BSDI's case) yet one allows
copying of its changes and the other doesn't.
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!network.ucsd.edu!
dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!pegasus!richard
From: ric...@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Musing on BSDI's viability (was "386BSD announcement")
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.005227.6109@pegasus.com>
Date: 17 Mar 92 00:52:27 GMT
References: <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
<1992Mar12.200527@eklektix.com> <1992Mar15.060737.21482@news.Hawaii.Edu>
Organization: Pegasus, Honolulu
Lines: 15
>
>It should be interesting to see how Cygnus and BSDI compare in the
>long run, given that they are both working with software that is
>freely distributable (or nearly so, in BSDI's case) yet one allows
>copying of its changes and the other doesn't.
One question that arises is:
How restrictive is BSDI's license? If I contribute to the public
386BSD and the guys down the hall buy into BSDI's proprietary BSD/386
are we going to attract the rath of their lawyers?
--
Richard Foulk ric...@pegasus.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!usenet.coe.montana.edu!osyjm
From: os...@coe.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen)
Subject: Re: Musing on BSDI's viability (was "386BSD announcement")
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.033604.18352@coe.montana.edu>
Organization: Montana State University, College of Engineering, Bozeman MT, 59717
References: <1992Mar12.200527@eklektix.com>
<1992Mar15.060737.21482@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1992Mar17.005227.6109@pegasus.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 03:36:04 GMT
Lines: 11
In article <1992Mar17....@pegasus.com> ric...@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
>>
>One question that arises is:
>
>How restrictive is BSDI's license? If I contribute to the public
Quite restrictive... I just got a copy in the mail, and I'm less than enthused.
--
Jaye Mathisen, COE Systems Manager (406) 994-4780
410 Roberts Hall,Dept. of Computer Science
Montana State University,Bozeman MT 59717 osyjm@{cs,coe}.montana.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry
From: he...@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Musing on BSDI's viability (was "386BSD announcement")
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.235537.2992@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 23:55:37 GMT
References: <1992Mar12.200527@eklektix.com>
<1992Mar15.060737.21482@news.Hawaii.Edu> <1992Mar17.005227.6109@pegasus.com>
<1992Mar17.033604.18352@coe.montana.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
In article <1992Mar17.0...@coe.montana.edu>
os...@coe.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) writes:
>>How restrictive is BSDI's license? ...
>
>Quite restrictive... I just got a copy in the mail, and I'm less than enthused.
Can you elaborate on what you're unenthused about in it?
--
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
-Dick Dunn | he...@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry