From: murrayc@hansford.com (Charles H. Murray)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.wizards,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: ENOUGH! Re: BSDI/USL Lawsuit -- More Bad News for Human Beings...
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 21:22:36 -0700
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Hansford Group - Contract Software Engineering and Consulting

In <1993Jan20.230616.25164@igor.tamri.com> jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes:
>After reading much of the topic it seems to be shaping up much
>as the Stalman vs. Industry debate. My views on such are
>neither short or to the point.

You were right about that...  I can't find one valid point.

>First, the group at UCB, Joltz, BSDI, and others all have acted
>out a plan to attempt to place the AT&T/USL UNIX product into the
>public domain. A conspiracy based in false "Robin Hood" ethics.

I'll bet you are a Republican.

>I doubt the Studios, Screen Actors Guild, or the courts would allow
>the Trekies to rewrite every line/scene of each movie/episode (while
>preserving the plot and fabric of each story) in an attempt to place
>the Startrek industry into the public domain so that freely copyable
>and editable movies could by enjoyed by the self proclaimed public.
>The fact is, that to do so is blatantly illegal ... no matter how
>much a bunch of highschool/college drama school wantabe actors might
>cry about freedom of expression while tring ... it's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

I got news for you pal, TV is free.  It's not a question of content,
but of access.

>From my view what UCB, Joltz, BSDI and others have done has neither
>advanced the art nor been in the UNIX industries best interest. With
>forethought and malace they incrementally attempted to place the UNIX
>operating system product into the public domain by re-writting it
>line by line while leaving the framework and the fabric of the system
>unchanged ... same global design, major algorithms, data structures,
>internal interfaces, etc ... to what end? Only to attempt to destroy
>AT&T/USL UNIX as a commercial product. At best the debate has
>cost more than a million wasted man-hours that could have been more
>productively used to advance the art with a new design. Their actions
>have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

To attempt to destroy AT&T/USL?!?  Do you think they give a rats ass how
AT&T/USL fairs?  What they did was take on a huge task, for the benefit
of thousands of people they will never know.  The group that will use
386BSD is mutually exclusive with the group that will purchase AT&T
flavors of Unix.

>They should have followed the example of other university research
>teams and done some REAL research to give us a guiding example of
>what OS's should look like in the next century instead of perpetuating
>the mistakes and frail framework of UNIX's 1960/70's design.

Explain to me how something frail and filled with mistakes could have
survived for three decades.  Sure it's got problems, what doesn't, but
Unix is effective.  I see it being pushed forward into the next century.

>The vast majority of programmers rely on the success of their
>employers for continued paychecks to pay for the basics plus
>toys we wish for a comfortable living.  While most of us truely
>enjoy our profession, I doubt most of us would continue if
>salaries topped out at $9k/year or we didn't have the dream of
>hitting the big one on some speculative development project/startup.

I wouldn't give you $9 based on what I've read in this post.

>The cry that Bell Labs release of UNIX killed OS research is not
>without merrit ... but to belly around the bar and cry in our beer
>over 386BSD is even more folly.

>Joltz has contended that his goal was to make 386BSD an operating
>system research tool/platform would have been most noble ... if it
>was atleast a 1990's design instead of a warmed over 1960's design.
>The truth is that if this was really his goal, there are dozens of
>better OS frameworks than the tired old UNIX design.

It is disgusting for someone to make light of two years of effort without
demonstating an equal level of achievement (i.e. I don't think you're
in the same league).  Besides you idiot, it's spelled Jolitz.

>There are many ways to build a POSIX compatable OS to advance the
>art ... 386BSD is not in my wildest dreams anything other than the
>bastard child of a tired old 1960's UNIX OS design.

I see a lot of complaining on your part, pal, but VERY little action.
You know the saying...  Put up, or Shut up.

>Bring on the MACH, SPRITE, PLAN9, and other truely inovative designs.
>Let the commercial guys milk the MSDOS & UNIX markets and pay our
>salaries as long as they can. In a few years MSDOS & UNIX are likely
>to be as interesting as IBM 370 OS/MVT, or 360 DOS, or 1620 executive,
>or DEC PDP11/RSTS or any of the other OS technolgies I sometime try
>to remember from my past that USED TO BE the main stream MUST KNOW.

>I LOVE UNIX and have been a wild supporter for 17 years ... but it
>has it limits, and just as MS-DOS, those limits are preventing
>us from moving forward to better technologies.

>It's time we get out of the herd mentality and view the USL vs BSDI
>lawsuit as it really is ... a botched attempt by BSDI & Joltz to
>plagiarize UNIX. Let's not make folk heros of them over their petty
>actions. Lets focus instead on the other teams that are bringing us
>our future.

Do you think that Bell Labs pack wrote Unix to generate revenue?  They
wrote it as a tool for themselves and others who might find it of value
(sound familiar), and AT&T corporate slurped it up.  AT&T is blasting
the very process that got Unix started in the first place.  Can you
say HYPOCRITICAL?!?

LONG LIVE RICHARD STALLMAN, LYNNE AND WILLIAM JOLITZ!!!

>John Bass
>Consultant
>DMS Design

Consultants can be such righteous assholes (takes one to know one) ...

-- 
Charles H. Murray
Software Engineering Consultant         "On assignment at IBM in
Breckenridge, Colorado USA               Research Triangle Park
murrayc@hansford.com                     North Carolina USA"
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk