Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA2148 ; Fri, 26 Feb 93 13:00:06 EST Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!ogicse!emory!gatech!news.ans.net!cmcl2!panix!tls From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: 386BSD Posix Compliance Message-ID: <C2z38u.3BA@panix.com> Date: 24 Feb 93 21:48:30 GMT Article-I.D.: panix.C2z38u.3BA References: <1me016$4j8@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Lines: 31 In article <1me016$4j8@agate.berkeley.edu> wjolitz@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) writes: >Just to reassure people, 386BSD will remain POSIX compliant. >Extensions to the system are "experimental" and will be justified >over time. > >However, 386BSD development remains focussed on novel research and >development issues. Compatibility with commercial systems >is not a primary goal. Commercial companies which wish to >slip-stream 386BSD development work instead of competing >in the commercial market and spending their own dollars With all due respect, I think you're misunderstanding the issue! There are a lot of us who _DON 'T_ have the money or need for a commercial system (thus being 386BSD's target audience as I understand it) who would like to be able to slip-stream the work done by others who _do_ use the commercial systems like BSDI and Mach386 with which 386BSD is currently compatible. Changing interfaces in a way incompatible with those commercial systems (and other noncommercial ones, like 4.4 and HURD) hurts _us_, part of your user base, as much as it might hurt the commercial vendors. I know you work very hard and am sure you put a lot of thought into it before deciding to do this, but I really do wish you'd reconsider. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM "Better be careful there. John might decide to start taking legal action against people who refuse to buy stuff from him." --Kevin McBride