From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <283f5df10604022238t1553f0bdq89a0039b98211064@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 01:38:18 -0400 From: "LiteStar numnums" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] new compilers In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2563_7100109.1144042698253" References: <283f5df10604021316l31fd4ea4k38df941ff7094e6f@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2cc92c86-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 ------=_Part_2563_7100109.1144042698253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I think the suit had alot to do with it. There was no question as to the origins or legality of linux. It was free, open & mutable. 386BSD was all of these things, but the stigma of a lawsuit, regardless of merit, can make people question where they will want to invest their time. Even though linux was not a the same level as 386BSD when it was released, it was without any questions as to whether or not your code & work will continue to be fruitful (it's nice to make sentances run). I believe that linux was at the right place at the right time; before 'hacking' became some nebulous & mediocre buzz word. Simply ripe for the picking. On 4/3/06, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > > The whole AT&T vs. BSD lawsuit fiasco scared alot of people away from > BSD. > > Professionals, maybe, but backyard hackers had little reason to care. > I looked at Linux and at 386BSD (and QNX and BSDi) and 386BSD came up > tops. Linux had no graphics (nor had the BSDs) and KA9Q as networking > (so did the Unix PC, a little earlier, that's what I cut my teeth on), > so there was some other factor there that I did not see, then or now. > Crazily, it may have been the GNU licence, but I'm not convinced. > > I'll need to ask my Linux guru (CCed). > > ++L > > -- Nietzsche's first step is to accept what he knows. Atheism for him goes without saying and is "contructive and radical". Nietzsche's supreme vocation, so he says, is to provoke a kind of crisis and a final decision about the problem of atheism. The world continues on its course at random and there i= s nothing final about it. Thus God is useless, since He wants nothing in particular. If he wanted something -- and here we recognize the traditional forumlation of the problem of evil -- He would have to assume responsiblity for "a sum total of pain and inconsistency which would debase the entire value of being born." -- Albert Camus, L'Homme r=E9volt=E9 ------=_Part_2563_7100109.1144042698253 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I think the suit had alot to do with it. There was no question as to the or= igins
or legality of linux. It was free, open & mutable. 386BSD was = all of these things,
but the stigma of a lawsuit, regardless of merit, c= an make people question where
they will want to invest their time. Even though linux was not a the sa= me level
as 386BSD when it was released, it was without any questions as= to whether or
not your code & work will continue to be fruitful (it= 's nice to make sentances run).=20
I believe that linux was at the right place at the right time; before '= hacking' became
some nebulous & mediocre buzz word. Simply ripe for = the picking.

On 4/3/06, lucio@proxima.alt.za <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> The whole AT&T vs. BSD lawsuit fiasco scared alot of people away f= rom BSD.

Professionals, maybe, but backyard hackers had little reaso= n to care.
I looked at Linux and at 386BSD (and QNX and BSDi) and 386BSD= came up
tops.  Linux had no graphics (nor had the BSDs) and KA9Q as n= etworking
(so did the Unix PC, a little earlier, that's what I cut my te= eth on),
so there was some other factor there that I did not see, then o= r now.
Crazily, it may have been the GNU licence, but I'm not convinced.
I'll need to ask my Linux guru (CCed).

++L




--
Nietzsche's first step is to accept wha= t he knows. Atheism for him goes without saying and is "contructive an= d
radical". Nietzsche's supreme vocation, so he says, is to provoke = a kind of crisis and a final decision about the
problem of atheism. The = world continues on its course at random and there is nothing final about it= . Thus God=20
is useless, since He wants nothing in particular. If he wanted somethin= g -- and here we recognize the traditional
forumlation of the problem of= evil -- He would have to assume responsiblity for "a sum total of pai= n and inconsistency
which would debase the entire value of being born."
-- Albert = Camus, L'Homme r=E9volt=E9 ------=_Part_2563_7100109.1144042698253--