Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 19:00:38 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, darrend@novell.com (Darren Davis), chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux 96 (my impressions) - Reply Message-ID: <199609040200.TAA03938@root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 1996 16:38:55 MDT." <199609032238.QAA27527@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> I have to take responsibility for the organization template copied >> from the "FreeBSD + patchkit" days. > >You're taking too much credit for something you had no part in. FreeBSD >came about because of the technical problems of the patchkit (which were >great and many), but the non-technical organization you had nothing to >do with, positive or negative. I think it would be more accurate to say that "386BSD Interim 0.1.5" came about because of technical problems with the patchkit. FreeBSD came about because Bill pulled his support for "Interim 0.1.5" - claiming that 2/3rds of the patches were bogus and he didn't want the "386BSD" name muddied. I don't tend to agree with Terry's analysis, either. If anything, OpenBSD suffers even more than other *BSD's in it's elitest attitude. Just start asking about all the great "security" fixes and you'll find that it's not as "Open" as the name implies. -DG David Greenman Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609040200.TAA03938>