From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 18223 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2021 14:50:46 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 19 Jul 2021 14:50:46 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1C7F19CA4B; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:50:45 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7E09CA48; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:50:38 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="oOuXxb3v"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D7AC09CA48; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:50:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f169.google.com (mail-qk1-f169.google.com [209.85.222.169]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF5C79CA45 for ; Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:50:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f169.google.com with SMTP id 23so16928892qke.0 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:50:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b4FYjZFxyBNrQbsz3pL1mxWeuiUtCYg+D8Ah2h+m6jo=; b=oOuXxb3vt85iLTnKxBgdLl+yu8Z8ZefIrVD23ueROxjGV+x/4FO0PmvTTPkQnIuLnL JdSNPR6vU35FKUZVIWpg3QXvJOR/mi/ceE2GZe81cXDMDWo6j7Bl/9FQPe8CgchG6Ups MQ5OenuHFKKnrDRD/sglcyeooRLsBoBDcgBY8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b4FYjZFxyBNrQbsz3pL1mxWeuiUtCYg+D8Ah2h+m6jo=; b=oM6w7JpKkHDQwz8AUqoOAWMLlovEeWEBsAzSUTg064xJWYTAwFn214Dh4+uPAXSg9E TYM32WEACnaERFwhLluAoKJl6iaGxHpX6JYoEjcH4uNURntvbwN5DR9/HEVzD+WDNYfL y8hpzI1p+g2LzuPxmSUzlfRAeep66KM4Kh7x7kIpEcE/6O6E+tMcqXdH94aCbGl4a3Ae 19yjcocyehojM0O4VfKKuZ1PajDUgsZJnsskT4e5oRDyYz0ObUxdzIgrXRKBIiWCQ9AS jKh5P5/w126eD/EATIOjtE5BEjAYoYxQ9AaHYE3R3F0/QczmL5wA1OyqEJKQRGgGKTGp lEEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311RQkVD/JjHYNS2QUjOiZNcizomiVNYKBoFMYUu5IS7W1PndXO 5a5DuBmculi6uTFwb7CsquVzjmWLqASO2IK0hF7E/A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQ4vOz1s0FD7brwfN+9eVlIJIba8YkVT4SYjoifjhzfG3zrfEuc4b6F8UAlg1z/7hDGi8rpD9gLkkbQYSydA8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:109a:: with SMTP id g26mr24817989qkk.25.1626706234541; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 07:50:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <57DB6C33-5CE1-4A06-B646-0E5C6707F866@pobox.com> <739a4ab8-352a-060c-115f-e2f14dd7dfc7@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 10:50:07 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" Subject: Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released X-BeenThere: coff@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: COFF , Grant Taylor Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2625986143119217916==" Errors-To: coff-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "COFF" --===============2625986143119217916== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000439c1105c77b0f4c" --000000000000439c1105c77b0f4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > If anyone can show any examples of people actually *using* the term > "open source" in the sense of "sources are available" before the Open > Source Definition was promulgated, that would be great. But > otherwise, I think you're trying to retrofit a definition that was > never historically used. > Which is my point -- we never had a name for the behavior, but the behavior certainly existed for years before. Funny, I just got an email last night from Cerf, Sax and Haverty. Here it is cut and pasted: *"**Good paper! As I was reading it, I kept thinking that the same story could be told about TCP, which IMHO has succeeded for many of the same reasons.* *Another possible cause of multiple mechanisms -- the fact that an incompetent novice can make changes to open source. When I took on the task of writing TCP for 11/40 Unix, I had 1) seen Unix used once and thought the console interactions were pure gibberish; 2) had programmed in assembler on an 11/05 but never did anything in C; 3) had written applications (e.g., email) that used the ARPANET, but had never written any network system code; 4) had never heard of TCP; 5) had done some minor OS work in Multics, CTSS, and ITS, but knew nothing about Unix. Apparently, those qualifications made me perfect for the assignment.* *I suspect there's many similar situations where such people create code and it works its way into the system.* *BTW, the multiplicity characteristic is widespread. I have a handful of machines running Ubuntu, and I'm always amazed at how many different but apparently similar mechanisms exist to do the same thing. Struggling now with USB, trying to get a new mouse to work the way I want. Libinput, Evdev, xinput, .... where is Lions' current edition for Ubuntu.......**"* Which was (in context), a reaction to my observation about UNIX being successful because it was open source and people could use the idea, the code was published, al biet the license to use was not with our remuneration. This is coming from the networking and Tenex world. We had the same observation about the PDP-10 and ArpaNET community. Doug points out SHARE and DECUS. The fact is anyone that lived in that world will tell you that it really is not that different in behavior or intent. Yes, DECUS and SHARE had/have a lot of trash -- but you did not have to take it all -- just like today. Does anyone everything just from the Gnu project much less all the possible apt-get install for Linux? Ted -- yes, your generation put a >>name<< to the behavior, which is a wonderful thing and something you can be proud. But the behavior of openly sharing your work product with the community long predates, Linux, the wider Internet, *et al. * It is sad a minimum, if not downright disingenuous to say "open source" was created at that point. What changed was Moore's law allowed more people to participate because the cost of entry was dramatically lowered. Remember the cost of deploying UNIX (or Tenex or OS/360 etc..) was completely dominated by the HW cost. A few $K for an SW license was noise, in large sites a rounding error. The Internet changed how distribution took place. Netnews and the like changed how people learn about new things (you did not have to be part of the club). But in all cases, the same behavior was there and it was just a smaller group of people because the cost of the HW was the barrier to entry. Clem --000000000000439c1105c77b0f4c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:41= AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu= > wrote:
=
If anyone can show any examples of people actually *using* the term
"open source" in the sense of "sources are available" b= efore the Open
Source Definition was promulgated, that would be great.=C2=A0 But
otherwise, I think you're trying to retrofit a definition that was
never historically used.

Which is my poin= t -- we never had a name for the behavior, but the behavior=C2=A0certainly = existed for years before.=C2=A0 Funny, I just got an email last night from = Cerf, Sax and Haverty.

Here it is cut and pasted:=C2= =A0

"Good paper!= =C2=A0=C2=A0 As I was reading it, I kept thinking that the same story could= be told about TCP, which IMHO=C2=A0 has succeeded for many of the same rea= sons.

<= /i>
Another possible= cause of multiple mechanisms -- the fact that an incompetent novice can ma= ke changes to open source.=C2=A0=C2=A0 When I took on the task of writing T= CP for 11/40 Unix, I had 1) seen Unix used once and thought the console int= eractions were pure gibberish; 2) had programmed in assembler on an 11/05 b= ut never did anything in C; 3) had written applications (e.g., email) that = used the ARPANET, but had never written any network system code; 4) had nev= er heard of TCP; 5) had done some minor OS work in Multics, CTSS, and ITS, = but knew nothing about Unix. =C2=A0 Apparently, those qualifications made m= e perfect for the assignment.

I suspect there's many simil= ar situations where such people create code and it works its way into the s= ystem.

BTW, the multiplicity characteristic is = widespread.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I have a handful of machines running Ubuntu, and I&= #39;m always amazed at how many different but apparently similar mechanisms= exist to do the same thing.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Struggling now with USB, trying to= get a new mouse to work the way I want.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Libinput, Evdev, xinpu= t, .... where is Lions' current edition for Ubuntu......."
<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif= ">

Which was (in context), a reaction t= o my observation about UNIX being successful because it was open source and= people could use the idea, the code was published, al biet the license to = use was not with our=C2=A0remuneration.

= This is coming from the networking and Tenex world.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0We had the same observation about the PDP-10 and ArpaNET commu= nity.=C2=A0 Doug points out SHARE and DECUS.
The fact is anyo= ne that lived=C2=A0in that world will tell you that it really is not that d= ifferent in behavior or intent.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Yes, DECUS and SHARE had/have a= lot of trash -- but you did not have to take it all -- just like today.=C2= =A0 Does anyone everything just from the Gnu project much less all the poss= ible apt-get=C2=A0install for Linux?=C2=A0=C2=A0

Ted -- yes, your=C2=A0generation put a >>name<< = to the behavior, which is a wonderful thing and something you can be proud.= =C2=A0 But the behavior of openly sharing your work product with the commun= ity long predates, Linux, the wider Internet, et al.=C2=A0 It is sad= a minimum, if not downright disingenuous to say "open source" wa= s created at that point.

=
What changed was Moore's law allowed more people to participate = because the cost of entry was dramatically lowered.=C2=A0 Remember the cost= of deploying UNIX (or Tenex or OS/360 etc..) was completely dominated by t= he HW cost.=C2=A0 =C2=A0A few $K for an SW license was noise, in large site= s a rounding error.

= The Internet changed how distribution took place.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Netnews a= nd the like changed how people learn about new things (you did not have to = be part of the club).

= But in all cases, the same behavior was there and it was just a smaller= group of people because the cost of the HW was the barrier to entry.

Clem




 --000000000000439c1105c77b0f4c-- --===============2625986143119217916== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KQ09GRiBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QKQ09GRkBtaW5uaWUudHVocy5vcmcKaHR0cHM6Ly9taW5uaWUudHVocy5vcmcvY2dp LWJpbi9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2NvZmYK --===============2625986143119217916==--