Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.uwa.edu.au!classic.iinet.com.au!news.uoknor.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!uunet!news.widomaker.com!escape.widomaker.com!not-for-mail From: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: The FreeBSD Project, Inc. (For Profit or Not?) Date: 16 May 1995 02:01:21 -0400 Organization: Escape from Widomaker Lines: 98 Message-ID: <3p9f3h$1nc@escape.widomaker.com> References: <9504240621341239@infoplus.uu.holonet.net> <3nqvvh$62q@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de> <3nuc1h$o80@columbia.acc.brad.ac.uk> <3o8or2$fqj@helena.mt.net> <3ob04j$lsc@agate.berkeley.edu> <3p1300$35b@news.randomc.com> <3p2k7h$j4r@escape.widomaker.com> <3p3dr8$o3i@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: escape.widomaker.com Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> writes: >shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) wrote: >] It would be bad if a company marketed FreeBSD and then folded, keeping >] the rights to the enhancements done since the company started. Caldera >] is releasing their improvements to Linux so this won't happen. Only the >] Novell network support, desktop interface, and some other add-ons are >] proprietary to Caldera. >Caldera is keeping proprietary every thing it can; don't mistake this. Oh sure... but so far I don't see anything really changing... they are just adding things Linux didn't already have. They are also adding work to the kernel and giving that away. >I don't know how they did the IXI desktop or the NetWare client support; >that kind of pulling a rabbit out of Novell's Univel cum Linuvel cum >Corsair cum Calders was, IMO, unlikely in the extreme. I hold no illusions about them of course, they are in it for money after all. But, there is no reason the deal cannot be profitable for Linux users and Caldera. >The reason Caldera is releasing improvements to Linux is because of the >GPL in some cases, and because there are radical Stahlmanites close to >the steering wheel in others (Hi Jim!). It's even remotely possible that they are doing some of it because it's the right thing to do. I mean, it DOES happen sometimes... :-) >I think a CSRG style not-for-profit company (like, oh, say, the MIT X >consortium, NetBSD, XFree86, etc.) is a step in the right direction; >heck, even Bank Of America is using X systems in their offices: the >non-profit nature of the X Consortium hasn't hurt the viability of X. Good point... I hear so many people say that Linux and BSD can't make it because they are not for-profit despite obvious contradictions. [ good points about defacto standards ] It's so obvious to me that these are the best ones and that almost any standard a company has tried to shove down the industry's throat end up failing. Make your stuff available and document it. If it does good then great... if it doesn't then try again or adopt an existing standard. >Apples' >shrinking market share for your evidence. Actually, Apple's market share has increased pretty dramatically from what I've been reading. Their shipping rates are skyrocketing right now. I think what is happening maybe is that they have a smaller percentage of a greatly increasing market. >What they've added is licensing and porting themselves, which is a far >cry from enticing commercial vendors to port to their system; Nevertheless, that is the plan. They've already enticed some support too. >necessary precursor to POSIX certification; everyone in the free UNIX >work-alike community claims "POSIX compliant", but no one has the paper >to prove it). And it's so maddening since the source code proves it every day. >It will also yield a legal entity capable of making press releases that >ar printable, rather than having to go the "informed sources", >"freelance writer", "letter to the editor", or "random mention" routes >to get the word out. For the business world, this is probably a big issue. They've got to be able to point at a company or they don't consider it to be serious. Like some people say, a company might not buy BSD but Bill Gates could sell them cow manure for $200 a pound. >A legal entity can enter into non-disclosure agreements with the vendors >who won't disclose what is essentially "boot code", and can make >available binary drivers as loadable modules based on those agreements >(like 128 port serial board drivers). This is true, although the energy might be better spent getting companies to quit being so paranoid. Those who have finally relented an released driver code for Linux haven't exactly died as a result. But, because some of them won't play, this might help a lot. >I think a non-profit organization is the next logical step for >FreeBSD, for BSD in general, and probably, if the truth be told, >for Linux as well. There seems to be huge resistance to this in the Linux community but that seems to be changing. -- csh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- shendrix@escape.widomaker.com | Linux 1.2.1 / BSD 2.0 http://www.widomaker.com/~shendrix | <<<< UNDER CONSTRUCTION >>>