From: husemann@camelot.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Dirk Husemann)
Subject: Re: [Re: Catch What They're Saying About Us...]
Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:51:11 GMT

grog@lemis.uucp (Greg Lehey) writes:

>In article <9209252210.AA10552@cognition.PA.DEC.COM> vixie@PA.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>Will someone -- ANYONE -- who believes that my previous message (subtitled
>>"an open letter to Lynne Jolitz") was an attack, please let me know
>this?

>Not I. I had intended to stay out of this mess, since my opinion does
>not diverge greatly from those expressed already. My concerns are
>something else:

Same for me, sigh.

[...]

>: In fact, there is a great probability that AT&T code is still present
>: in BSD386. Insiders claim that BSDI deliberately included AT&T code in
>: BSD386 in order to get to market more quickly. Bill Jolitz stresses
>: the fact that he was very careful not to copy anything while writing
>: his extensions. He is not sure if this also applies to the Net/2 tape.

>This article - signed by the Editor-in-Chief, Juergen Fey - is full of
>inaccuracies, in particular wrt timing. However, this particular claim
>is so far off the mark of anything that I have seen on the net
>(which UNIX Magazin explicitly quoted as a source) that I would really
>be interested in its source. Therefore questions to all of you who are
>still reading this thread:

>1. Do you believe that BSDI genuinely and deliberately included AT&T
>   code in BSD/386?

No, I don't. 

>2. Do you know anybody who believes it?

Not that I know of.

>Before anybody gets the wrong idea, I am myself in no doubt that this
>claim is incorrect. I also believe it reflects very badly on UNIX
>Magazin that they have published this claim: it's possible that BSDI
>could sue them for it unless they can prove the claim.

Under German law at least --- IMHO a case of libelous action.

What's this supposed to be anyhow? I think

	(a)	Bill & Lynne Jolitz have achieved something great, essentially
		bringing Unix-look-a-like power to the people.

		What they have done is certainly no small task, I admire them
		for what they have done and are still doing (and am puzzled
		how they did it) --- I don't think I'll ever be able to
		achieve something on a similar scale (let alone come up with
		as much determination as Bill & Lynne have done).

	(b)	The people behind BSDI are also doing a great job. Their 
		product clearly is targeted at the commercial market --- we
		have yet to see another company providing a customer support
		that equals BSDIs (speedy, interested in the customers,
		open to suggestions, ...) There are some companies providing
		stable OSs (though not that many) --- BSDI is certainly among
		them!

	(c)	Iff USL should win (good grief) they would essentially have
		claimed ownership to NET-2 as that code is in their greedy
		opinion a derivative of their stuff, thus, 386BSD would be
		subject to the same restrictions placed on the CSRG (the battle
		is not against BSDI alone, remember?) --- I think.

	(d)	Unless Bill & Lynne want to go commercial and/or BSDI would
		start giving away copies of BSD/386 for free there is no clash
		in the targeted ``market'' of neither 386BSD nor BSD/386.
		So --- why this flaming, hacking, bickering at each other
		(though I have yet to see BSDI doing to Bill & Lynne what 
		they are doing in the public to BSDI, in all honesty)? What's
		the sense of it? 386BSD can and does speak and stand for itself
		--- as does BSD/386.
		
Oh --- and ``yes'' I know of a couple of companies that are using BSD/386.

How about a peaceful coexistence?

	Dirk Husemann
---

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd