Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.apps:1665 comp.os.386bsd.development:3167 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5311 comp.unix.bsd:16111 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!news2.near.net!public.x.org!kaleb From: kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Cannons Away: Vote NO on newsgroup reformation. Date: 10 Feb 95 23:08:11 GMT Organization: X Consortium Inc. Lines: 72 Message-ID: <kaleb.792457691@exalt> References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <kaleb.792343226@exalt> <3hebt1$1r2@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792415474@fedora.x.org> <3hgnh4$ff7@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: exalt.x.org X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes: >In article <kaleb.792415474@fedora.x.org>, >Kaleb KEITHLEY <kaleb@fedora.x.org> wrote: >>[...] >>0.9 are all derivative works from the Berkeley UNIX Net/2 release, >>[...] >>FreeBSD 2.x and NetBSD 1.x are derivative works of of Berkeley UNIX 4.4, >There is no such thing as "Berkeley UNIX(tm) 4.4" or "Berkeley >UNIX(tm) Net/2". The names of the things you are trying to refer to >are "Berkeley Software Distribution". "Berkeley UNIX" is a >colloquialism. >In particular Net/2 can't be UNIX (with or without the TM) if for no >other reason that it's not even an operating system. >>let's have it. But in the mean time McKusick, Bach (under the AT&T >>bannerhead no less, when AT&T still owned the UNIX trademark) and a >>whole raft of other recognized authorities are on the record as saying >>that BSD is UNIX, so until one of them tells me otherwise, I discount >>your assertion that *BSD is not BSD UNIX. >It isn't for them to say, is it? Are you suggesting that it's for you to say? Off hand I'd say that "they" have a lot more credibility than anyone else who's had their say here. >It's was for USL to say, and USL has >given that priviledge to X/Open which says that it's UNIX(tm) if it >conforms to Spec 1170. BSD doesn't. End of argument. We've been through this before. Before there was USL, there was AT&T. AT&T licensed UNIX to the University of California, and Berkeley's release was and is called BSD UNIX. You can quibble over semantics and split hairs all you want, it's still a derivative of UNIX. As far as Spec 1170 goes, there are lots of versions of UNIX brand OS that don't conform to Spec 1170 and never will. That doesn't diminish their status as UNIX or a UNIX derivative. BSD was UNIX long before there was a Spec 1170, and Spec 1170 isn't going to take that away. This is a pretty simple legal concept. Go take some law classes if you don't understand. It's pretty simple really. comp.unix.bsd already exists. BSD is recognized, by all the people who really count anyway, as a variant or derivative of the UNIX operating system. 386BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD and BSD/OS are all derivatives in turn of a version of BSD. Just as clearly as you are descended from your mother's mother, these operating systems are derived from a version of UNIX. That's all the name of the newsgroup means. To say otherwise would be tantamount to denying that your grandmother is your grandmother. And, as has been explained before, the Usenet cabal *won't* allow redundant hierarchies. As long as comp.unix.bsd exists, they flat out won't have comp.os.bsd. Telling me *I'm* wrong isn't going to change that fact. If you want to take on moving .bsd out of comp.unix then be my guest. If you're suggesting that I should have done that, then think again. Next time around, you do it. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. All in all this argument is pretty damn stupid. This isn't the RFD, it's the CFV, and it's over in six days. If you wanted to discuss it, you should have been paying attention back in December when the RFD was posted to news.announce.newgroups, comp.os.386bsd.announce and the FreeBSD-hacker and NetBSD hacker lists. Vote however you want. If you want to pull a Jesse Monroy and waste your vote over some silly notion that Micro$oft owns Uunet, that's your perogative. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY