19 May
2015
19 May
'15
11:30 p.m.
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo <tih(a)hamartun.priv.no>
wrote:
And, while it's a subject: the split was on very
friendly terms. :)
Yes, they had different goals. Jordan wanted to create a 386/PC friendly
install - be a low/no cost answer to MSFT when the target was Intel HW that
could be bought anywhere - i.e. HW purchased from "computer shopper".
[The port to other HW like Alpha would not come until much later]
NetBSD wanted to take the CRSG token make a solid system for research that
ran everywhere - i.e. lots of different target HW - 68K many different
vendors, Vax, Power, sparc, much less x86. In fact, they would take back
from FreeBSD a lot of the 386 work eventually.
The NetBSD/OpenBSD fork would happen much later in time and that was based
on personalities and group management [that one was sad, but knowing both
group of people, understandable].
BTW: Linux would eventually take much of the install work that FreeBSD
originally developed - particularly in set up/install provisioning. At
the time, the Linux installs were pretty weak.
I know in my own case, many of us were worried that the AT&T/BSDi/UCB case
was going to make a "freely available" UNIX unable to happen. Little did
we know that if AT&T had won, Linux (and all of the "clones") would have
been in violation of the AT&T IP - the trade secrets - and they would have
had to be removed from the market also. I've often wondered what would
have really happened if that had occurred.
Instead, of course, a lot of hackers (myself included) quickly downloaded
Linux and started hacking and moving linux from toy to something real.
That said, I run the MacOS Unix flavor on my desk (and my wife, and each
child), FreeBSD & OpenBSD on my servers at home, but progam Linux for my
job these days.
Clem