19 Jun
2000
19 Jun
'00
2:25 p.m.
Markus Leypold <leypold(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
Why can't we just stay on big family ? Of course
FreeBSD has it's
archives elsewhere, but still no reason to divide instead of unite ?
According to Warren's Charter, PUPS and TUHS are both specifically for UNIX.
His Charter defines UNIX as follows:
"Unix is defined as the set of operating systems who can trace their source
code ancestry back to the 1st to 7th Editions of research UNIX from Bell Labs."
Any system that fits this definition automatically falls under the original
UNIX copyright and may not be distributed outside the circle of UNIX source
licensees. Therefore, if you think that FreeBSD fits this definition and
belongs in this group, you must stop publicly distributing it. Otherwise, it
does not belong in the archive or on these lists.
--
Michael Sokolov Harhan Engineering Laboratory
Public Service Agent International Free Computing Task Force
International Engineering and Science Task Force
615 N GOOD LATIMER EXPY STE #4
DALLAS TX 75204-5852 USA
Phone: +1-214-824-7693 (Harhan Eng Lab office)
E-mail: msokolov(a)ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA TCP/SMTP) (UUCP coming soon)
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05755
for pups-liszt; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:30:18 +1000 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au)
From Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> Tue
Jun 20 00:27:09 2000
Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com
(timaxp.trailing-edge.com [63.73.218.130])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA05751
for <PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU>AU>; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:30:09 +1000 (EST)
(envelope-from SHOPPA(a)timaxp.trailing-edge.com)
Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU;
Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:27:09 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:27:09 -0400
From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.OZ.AU
Message-Id: <000619102709.262000b0(a)trailing-edge.com>
Subject: Re: [Newbie alert!] Disk usage of various Unices
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
I recently obtained a beast which appears to be a PDP
11/53+, and I want
to run some Unix on it (Wahey!). I've got a small problem though: It
only has one(!) RD32A disk (42MB). I know that this probably won't be
enough to hold a complete distribution, but which release can I install
bare-bones on that disk?
You can put the root partition of 2.11BSD on there quite nicely, it'll
live in 8 Mbytes. Trimming down /usr to 42 Mbytes will depend on what
exactly you need from it, though. Certainly you can set up a system
with compilers, etc., even though you won't be able to have all the
sources online at the same time.
I might be able to slip in another MFM disk (but I
don't have something
bigger than 21 MB at hand), provided I can low-level format it.
You want to read Terry Kennedy's document on adding third-party disks
to DEC RQDX3 controllers. You can find it at
ftp://ftp.spc.edu/third-party-disks.txt
Information about formatting, jumper settings, etc., is all there.
Tim.
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05794
for pups-liszt; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:35:36 +1000 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au)
From Andrew Sporner
<andy.sporner(a)networkengines.com> Tue Jun 20 00:30:39 2000
Received: from
neimail.networkengines.com (wks7.networkengines.com [64.55.6.7] (may be forged))
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05790
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>au>; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:35:33 +1000 (EST)
(envelope-from andy.sporner(a)networkengines.com)
Received: by neimail.networkengines.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <NCDB61WD>; Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:30:45 -0400
Message-ID: <8D18C4F9CBA1D311900F00A0C990C97F67C8CD(a)neimail.networkengines.com>
From: Andrew Sporner <andy.sporner(a)networkengines.com>
To: "'db(a)aptant.com'" <db(a)aptant.com>om>,
pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: RE: save everything and divisiveness
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:30:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
+ my $0.02 makes $1.00
From my perspective I have watched this argument on
this
list about purism and otherwise.
From a practical sense, historical trueness makes sense
when we are considering changes to something. That is
to evaluate whether it was better before or after; with
the ultimate goal of coming up with a truly usefull sytem.
Otherwise O/S researchers would never be able to make
advancements because they would be repeating each others
mistakes. But to take a lesson from history makes having
such an archive of old source important.
To get hung up on a particular release makes sense I guess
if you are a collector, such as one who collects vases
because that is an art form. A vase from the Ming chinesse
period is worth more if it has not been modified (for instance
some later owner decides that there are not enough flowers
on the vase--so he adds some). However with Systems software
this is not the case because it is not a tangible item such
as a processor such as a PDP-11 or PDP-8. I know many people
that still run PDP-8's (I have one myself), but universally
ever user of the '8 is trying to make the software on it
run better and more efficiently.
So I would not be one to castigate some pioneers of systems
software whoses names happened not to be K&R. I am sure that
the both Kernigan and Richie both are marveled at what Unix
has become. In fact I believe one of them went on to write
Plan-9 which is really off-the-wall compared to their earlier
work.
Good software is inherrently in a steady process of evolution.
The only piece of software I have ever seen that never evolved
was the classic "Hello World" program that everybody learns to
write on their first lesson in programming.
OK, That's it...
Andy Sporner
My $0.02:
I once wondered whether the techniques of literary textual
criticism could be used in order to determine whether a Linux,
FreeBSD, groff -- whatever! -- is in any way derived from an
earlier work. Textual criticism considers a work by examining
several or all of the extant textual variations in an attempt
to determine what the author originally wrote; it has been
used to reconstruct the "original" texts of the ancient as
well as some modern writers, such as James Joyce. It
yields a tree of texts, in which the root is the "original,"
and the sibling children of any node are the descendants of a
common, perhaps hypothetical, text. I don't know much
else about it, except that its results may depend on alot
of knowledge and informed speculation. The textual critics
work bottom-up to arrive at an original text; I am thinking
of a top-down process, working from an original text, to show that a
work lower in a tree is derived from the original. If such a
technique were valid at all, its validity would only be improved
with the availablity of many, many "texts." The techniques might be
more useful where, for example, there were several V7 tapes
that people
thought were original, but which, on inspection, turned out
to be different.
In this situation, textual criticism might be used to
reconstruct a "true," V7
release tape, and, in this situation, would be a bottom-up
application of the techniques.
In any event, I think that it is important to preserve alot of
tapes, and to keep them separate with as much information as
possible about their pedigree. If someone ever did use such
a technique -- or any other technique -- to reconstruct a
"true" release,
it is important that they document their work and not throw away the
tapes that contributed to the "true" tape, because even more
tapes may appear in the future which could lead to
the reconstruction of an even truer tape.
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA05825
for pups-liszt; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:41:54 +1000 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au)
19 Jun
19 Jun
8:06 p.m.
New subject: PUPS/TUHS UNIX scope.....
According to Warren's Charter, PUPS and TUHS are
both specifically for UNIX.
His Charter defines UNIX as follows:
"Unix is defined as the set of operating systems who can trace their source
code ancestry back to the 1st to 7th Editions of research UNIX from Bell Labs."
Any system that fits this definition automatically falls under the original
UNIX copyright and may not be distributed outside the circle of UNIX source
licensees. Therefore, if you think that FreeBSD fits this definition and
belongs in this group, you must stop publicly distributing it. Otherwise, it
does not belong in the archive or on these lists.
One might easily consider Warren's Charter definition, following the wording
closely, to mean that it includes successor derivatives of V1-V7. That
might particularly include the BSD's, be they original CSRG code or
derived code, which can be traced back through CSRG, to V1-V7.
All of the x86ish derivations can be traced back to Jolitz's port which
had its beginnings around 4.3 or 4.3-Tahoe, if I am remembering the source
tree structure in one of my source trees.
Thus, technically, a direct lineal descent case of 386BSD, NetBSD, and
FreeBSD, up through the point of unencumbering, could be made as subject
to Warren's Charter definition, and subject to our archiving scope.
Bob
8713
days inactive
8713
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG -
rdkeys＠unity.ncsu.edu