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,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4054 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2022 22:27:16 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (2600:3c01:e000:146::1) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 3 Jun 2022 22:27:16 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92B7421C7; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 08:27:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vk1-xa35.google.com (mail-vk1-xa35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a35]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFB1C40CC9 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2022 08:27:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vk1-xa35.google.com with SMTP id x11so3980144vkn.11 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 15:27:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8z9NWrcKDNlYvND9dOQHvwnr/W0Sxr9FUG/8gK4QiIc=; b=vgX82TnyzLRLLJAL/q92IkFv94pk3CFZRUCkd8DjVg9dxNklCLqiCZ4IeZzWaG9NTS YY07l9u1WMsUdf/nq8G7l3nQG/fipCAeGOCEuJ4Nc9Sy8fZOSZpYRNjsjI1nADDDyaTm cWEwdFOW+yB/+DyarXEW78qg0FzDB/6iGPSU1F8pkyjE3Rc6DWrUXQvXJMNG6B7+t4r/ aJJTIIRyiwCDhhR2bAexc14aHj5cYVgfOtHlEOZ7bZ2sYPoxKZk9mnRCnBBiM6Ll47Uo LdNYIgoNn6bBoGZf1u9zMZqf02WxOq58H9vzyVTouzK6OQ7hV9Mj4JITDks5/ZxQ7d9S yLOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8z9NWrcKDNlYvND9dOQHvwnr/W0Sxr9FUG/8gK4QiIc=; b=SyTRpb8lCAaa4aU+b20TU7R+NQwV8WjFi5wH0+8liBT6FqY3A52NezHV4RAVxJQrfS Kylhrnox5b0ImOrjQwbymATwb7DM+AR7AOdec/VZziTPd4ZHtYY4cYOP+fNP5JP/lAMW 2w43gzcRCzpe30i2IAT4006Grc61eMhVtPR9KPGNLceH7h2OsLWnqH2vDmd07WWm16UZ 8wm5dMRFod+wtTwpxARHXekZWJJZTHzbTp6H1ZPAkqEgssolzQzua7pBCnO9dMNDBsD2 p3MQZkb6QNWviLMzjzML2Csi7N7wX3SsPxlsuC0EXhMmIbRPJesgfYYUGTrkOh9iJUXU 0dnw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532MwlGVzJtz1UrnDipl6DAv6LX3Koac3e9octHj9pkhhjZFztHl DbgXdOOMID4Xa8ygnXMAvKVQW5zOxqTOJJJZOBWyoJdSBnA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUg4B4T2MR2MtLsdCInQrjoflS39Xmgm++zLaVQkgcYL0AvBWrbem7RVNCzcrMcFq3fzKTYZpZ76GQGdA9o+I= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:4646:0:b0:35c:f391:4c24 with SMTP id t67-20020a1f4646000000b0035cf3914c24mr5199168vka.34.1654295225746; Fri, 03 Jun 2022 15:27:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220603202330.f4spdxyn34uiyy5v@illithid> <20220603213215.GO10240@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20220603213215.GO10240@mcvoy.com> From: Warner Losh Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 16:26:54 -0600 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048dd6a05e0929fb5" Message-ID-Hash: QFYPWH6KKP45DYVCIJPAKEULUQKBEDWG X-Message-ID-Hash: QFYPWH6KKP45DYVCIJPAKEULUQKBEDWG X-MailFrom: wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Fwd: [simh] Announcing the Open SIMH project List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --00000000000048dd6a05e0929fb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:32 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 at 11:20:58PM +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via TUHS > wrote: > > Clem Cole writes: > > > > > Some of us on this list remember the original BDSi fight, the 386BSD > > > to FreeBSD, then NetBSD and OpenBSD (I was friends with both sides of > > > many of these wars). > > > > Irrelevant to the topic, I know, but I'd just like to point out, since > > you call these things "wars", that NetBSD grew out of 386bsd in a quiet, > > friendly fashion, and then FreeBSD out of NetBSD just as quietly. (BSDi > > growing out of 386bsd was a completely separate affair that I know very > > little about, and the OpenBSD fork from NetBSD was mostly just a > > personal animosity thing, Theo de Raadt having made enemies in both the > > NetBSD and FreeBSD camps -- but it has left no bad blood behind it.) > > > > In other words, no wars that I know of. > > Umm, were you there? I was a BSD guy before I turned to Linux and I > turned to Linux because of those wars. There is no good reason to have > {386,Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}bsd other than, as Linus stated, "Nobody > could decide who would drive the big red fire truck so now they each > have their own toy fire truck that they drive around". > > BSD would have won if there was a Linus for BSD. There was not so you > got all this replicated effort, the BSD community effectively divided > and conquered themselves. > > It was, and is, a train wreck. It's the poster child for how not to > manage a project. > > I did BitKeeper for Linus because he refused to use any crappy source > management solution and people like Dave Miller were threatening to > fork just so they had some solution. I did that because a forked Linux > would turn into the same mess of {386,Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}bsd which > is obviously not remotely close to ideal. Far from it. > 386BSD died because its founder couldn't deal with collaboration. He tried to be dictator and that failed because he didn't accept other people's collaboration out of worries he couldn't sell 386BSD. NetBSD and FreeBSD took up the charge for a free and open system. I'll agree it was unfortunate that there was a split since NetBSD focused on portability and FreeBSD focused on fastest possible i386/i486 code. I'd suggest, though, that the USL lawsuit cast a huge pall on things and introduced enough uncertainty to further derail things. Had it not been for that additional blow, things would have turned out differently. OpenBSD and Dragonfly BSD didn't split until years later and also represented differences of opinion on where to take the focus of the system (OpenBSD thought the NetBSD folks didn't take security seriously enough and the DFBSD folks thought the efforts to make a parallel kernel in FreeBSD were off track and should be done completely differently). > I lived through all of that, I was an active kernel developer at Sun, > SGI and elsewhere. I would have loved to have seen the SunOS VM system > ported to 4.x BSD and that been the default answer for a kernel. Instead > we got Linux, which has it's positive points for sure, but it also has > decided to let every feature imaginable into the kernel. > We wound up with MACH in BSD because when Sun tried to donate their VM code to Berkeley, the corporate lawyers said no. It was giving away too much shareholder value, and would result in a huge write-off which would, one would presume, negatively affect the stock price. Had this donation actually transpired, 386BSD would have had a bigger advantage from the get go... Oh well Warner --00000000000048dd6a05e0929fb5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 3:32 PM Larry = McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2022 = at 11:20:58PM +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via TUHS wrote:
> Clem Cole <clemc= @ccc.com> writes:
>
> > Some of us on this list remember the original BDSi fight, the 386= BSD
> > to FreeBSD, then NetBSD and OpenBSD (I was friends with both side= s of
> > many of these wars).
>
> Irrelevant to the topic, I know, but I'd just like to point out, s= ince
> you call these things "wars", that NetBSD grew out of 386bsd= in a quiet,
> friendly fashion, and then FreeBSD out of NetBSD just as quietly.=C2= =A0 (BSDi
> growing out of 386bsd was a completely separate affair that I know ver= y
> little about, and the OpenBSD fork from NetBSD was mostly just a
> personal animosity thing, Theo de Raadt having made enemies in both th= e
> NetBSD and FreeBSD camps -- but it has left no bad blood behind it.) >
> In other words, no wars that I know of.

Umm, were you there?=C2=A0 I was a BSD guy before I turned to Linux and I turned to Linux because of those wars.=C2=A0 There is no good reason to hav= e
{386,Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}bsd other than, as Linus stated, "Nobody<= br> could decide who would drive the big red fire truck so now they each
have their own toy fire truck that they drive around".

BSD would have won if there was a Linus for BSD.=C2=A0 There was not so you=
got all this replicated effort, the BSD community effectively divided
and conquered themselves.

It was, and is, a train wreck.=C2=A0 It's the poster child for how not = to
manage a project.

I did BitKeeper for Linus because he refused to use any crappy source
management solution and people like Dave Miller were threatening to
fork just so they had some solution.=C2=A0 I did that because a forked Linu= x
would turn into the same mess of {386,Free,Net,Open,DragonFly}bsd which
is obviously not remotely close to ideal.=C2=A0 Far from it.

386BSD died because its founder couldn't deal wit= h collaboration. He tried to
be dictator and that failed because = he didn't accept other people's collaboration
out of worr= ies he couldn't sell 386BSD. NetBSD and FreeBSD took up the charge
for a free and open system. I'll agree it was unfortunate that th= ere was a split
since NetBSD focused on portability and FreeBSD f= ocused on fastest possible
i386/i486 code. I'd suggest, thoug= h, that the USL lawsuit cast a huge pall on
things and introduced= enough uncertainty to further derail things. Had it not
been for= that additional blow, things would have turned out differently.
=
OpenBSD and Dragonfly BSD didn't split until years later= and also
represented differences of opinion on where to take the= focus of the
system (OpenBSD thought the NetBSD folks didn't= take security seriously
enough and the DFBSD folks thought the e= fforts to make a parallel kernel
in FreeBSD were off track and sh= ould be done completely differently).
=C2=A0
I lived through all of that, I was an active kernel developer at Sun,
SGI and elsewhere.=C2=A0 I would have loved to have seen the SunOS VM syste= m
ported to 4.x BSD and that been the default answer for a kernel.=C2=A0 Inst= ead
we got Linux, which has it's positive points for sure, but it also has<= br> decided to let every feature imaginable into the kernel.

We wound up with MACH in BSD because when Sun tried to do= nate their
VM code to Berkeley, the corporate lawyers said no. It= was giving away too
much shareholder value, and would result in = a huge write-off which would,
one would presume, negatively affec= t the stock price. Had this donation
actually transpired, 386BSD = would have had a bigger advantage=C2=A0from the
get go... Oh well=

Warner
--00000000000048dd6a05e0929fb5--