From: Paul Graham (pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-12 11:13:16 PST ury@mosque.huji.ac.il (Ury Segal) writes: [about the bill jolitz release of 38bsd code vs bsdi efforts] |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... although rob and henry have both pointed out some of the problems involved i will also venture an opinion. i suppose it should be noted that i know or know of (at various levels of familiarity) many of the principals. this may have some effect on my opinions. 1) if jolitz has clean software that he can afford to give away then good. 2) if someone wants to buy some specific bits of software and support and bsdi helps them then good. i'd like to think that such transactions are ok with everyone else as long as the principal parties are happy. sometimes developing/supporting something takes time and the people that can do this well choose to try and make a living at it. i don't begrudge them this and i hope you wouldn't either. a specific example: i could try and bring gcc2.x into the sun/sunos5 environment. who knows, i might suceed. or i can get a support contract from cygnus which will help make it possible for some folks to undertake the porting effort on my behalf. the fact that my dollars will be assisting the fsf efforts and will be helping the larger community of sun users is simply a bonus. i applaud both bsdi and jolitz for supporting the proliferation of useful software. i wish them both well, for their success is also a community success. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise. Message 12 in thread From: Michael Bryan (michael@resonex.com) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-12 13:51:36 PST In article <1992Mar12.065319.18134@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> ury@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 michael@resonex.com This offer law where prohibited by void. Message 13 in thread From: Bill Bogstad (wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-13 10:39:49 PST In article <1992Mar12.092257.21167@resonex.com> michael@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 Message 14 in thread From: Alan B Clegg (abc@banjo.concert.net) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-13 12:57:46 PST In article <13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> wjb@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 -- abc@concert.netAlan Clegg - Network Programmer KD4JML (just my luck!)MCNC -- Center for Communications Message 15 in thread From: Lee M J McLoughlin (lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-13 19:41:30 PST >In article <1992Mar13.204804.9739@rock.concert.net> abc@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.McLoughlin@doc.ic.ac.uk Message 16 in thread From: Chris Demetriou (cgd@agate.berkeley.edu) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-13 23:42:57 PST In article lmjm@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...) Message 17 in thread From: James P. Goltz (frost@helix.nih.gov) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-13 14:26:10 PST In article <13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes: 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. If you can really get a port of Berkeley Unix for the 386 with many GNU tools, the X Window System, TCP/IP, NFS, and C and C++ compilers for $1000, *please* tell me where! Last time I checked, something like SCO Unix (closer to SysV than BSD) with a development system, an X port, and networking (sans GNU tools and C++) went well over $1500, even shopping around. And as anyone who's tried to guess at internals while writing tools to be compatible with Flavor Q of Unix, there's no such thing as "only" source code. -- --------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Spoken: James P. Goltz | "I figure I've only got about 10 Internet: frost@helix.nih.gov | minutes a day I've got to be really Bitnet: OHF@NIHCU | alert." -J.M. in an assasination game Message 18 in thread From: Bill Bogstad (wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-13 20:40:14 PST In article frost@helix.nih.gov (James P. Goltz) writes: >In article <13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes: > > I can get a number of UNIX products with most of the features of BSDI for > around $1000. The only thing that BSDI has is source code. >If you can really get a port of Berkeley Unix for the 386 with many >GNU tools, the X Window System, TCP/IP, NFS, and C and C++ compilers >for $1000, *please* tell me where! Last time I checked, something >like SCO Unix (closer to SysV than BSD) with a development system, an >X port, and networking (sans GNU tools and C++) went well over $1500, >even shopping around. 1. I didn't say Berkeley UNIX. Berkeley has done some wonderful things for UNIX, but the bulk of the UNIX marketplace doesn't (directly) care about many of the things that they work on. In any case, SVR4 has many/most of the features of 4.3 BSD. A significant part of the work done on 4.4 BSD was to make it POSIX compatible (aka System V ID). For better or worse it appears like POSIX and X Windows are going to be the UNIX environment of the 90s. Binary compatible ABIs are important here as well. 2. a. From "The Programmers Shop" (a large mail order software company) ESIX/V 2-USER OS includes STREAMS, TCP/IP, RFS, NFS, X11R4, on-line man pages. $669 (doesn't include compilers) ESIX/V unlimited user OS (same as 2-user except unlimited) $1,049 ESIX/V Dev. Sys 2.user (same as 2-user with C and X development system) $1,229 b. Mt. Xinu has had special deals on their MACH system for the 386 several times in the past for $995. Once the competition heats up I expect this to be their normal price. They pretty much include everything you asked for plus they are based on the latest Unix craze "MACH". c. I've received mailing from a couple of small vendors with even better prices on generic ports of SVR4. >And as anyone who's tried to guess at internals while writing tools to >be compatible with Flavor Q of Unix, there's no such thing as "only" >source code. Having been a developer/programmer, I can well understand your interest in source code. However, most people care about applications not how hard they were to write. (Witness the success of MS-DOG.) Most applications right now are/have been written for System V 386 ABI compatible systems. Therefore that is what most endusers buy, therefore that is what developers who want to continue eating will support first. If BSDI adds ABI support or commercial UNIX software suppliers announce ports to BSDI then users will consider purchasing BSDI. Before that point BSDI, is out of the question for many (most?) purchasers of 386 UNIX systems. Bill Bogstad BTW, just because BSDI won't destroy the competition doesn't mean that they won't be successful. There definitely is a niche for what they are selling. Only time will tell how big it is. Message 19 in thread From: Michael G Reamy -- Support (mreamy@rock.concert.net) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-14 01:02:51 PST > 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. > >like SCO Unix (closer to SysV than BSD) with a development system, an >X port, and networking (sans GNU tools and C++) went well over $1500, I use and support SCO at work. A complete multiuser setup with X11, etc. will run you $4000. SCO has just bumped the prices again so it is probably now closer to $4500. BSDI is a much better deal. -- Thanks, Michael G. Reamy (mreamy@rock.concert.net) The light at the end of the tunnel may be an oncoming dragon. Message 20 in thread From: Bruce Becker (bdb@becker.UUCP) Subject: Re: 386BSD announcement Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd View this article only Date: 1992-03-22 20:44:47 PST In article frost@helix.nih.gov (James P. Goltz) writes: |In article <13.03.92.130104.210@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu> wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes: | | 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. | |If you can really get a port of Berkeley Unix for the 386 with many |GNU tools, the X Window System, TCP/IP, NFS, and C and C++ compilers |for $1000, *please* tell me where! Last time I checked, something |like SCO Unix (closer to SysV than BSD) with a development system, an |X port, and networking (sans GNU tools and C++) went well over $1500, |even shopping around. | |And as anyone who's tried to guess at internals while writing tools to |be compatible with Flavor Q of Unix, there's no such thing as "only" |source code. System V rel. 4 for the Amiga is available from Commodore for around $1000... -- ,u, Bruce BeckerToronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.gts.orgUucp: ...!lsuc!becker!bdb `\o\-e /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/<@>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ _< /_ "I did it to impress Jodie Foster" - S. Hussein