Is 2.xBSD `approved'?

Warren Toomey wkt at
Sat Jan 30 11:21:28 AEST 1999

In article by Michael Sokolov:
> Now if you are talking about 2.xBSD, as
> opposed to the real 2BSD, it is a different story altogether, and it isn't
> really Berkeley Software DIstribution, since it wasn't developed at Berkeley.
>2.xBSD is an unauthorized, unapproved, and unblessed side branch, and as far as
> I'm concerned, it doesn't exist.

I hate to say this, but 2.xBSD, where x was 8, 9 and 10, was developed with
the involvement of several people at the CSRG, e.g Keith Bostic, Mike Karels,
Kirk McKusick. I'm sure Steven Schultz could give me some more names.

Although 2.xBSD is definitely not the branch which got the most attention,
I wouldn't say it was unauthorised, unapproved nor unblessed.

Actually, given that the CSRG is now disbanded, it is fair to say that
both 2.11BSD and 4.3-Quasijarus are in exactly the same boat: side branches
of the main BSD development, maintained by individuals who were not members
of the original CSRG.

Now, let us return to the more important issue of helping each other out,
rather than getting at each other. All UNIXes are worthy topics, and do
not deserve ridicule.


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA20270
	for pups-liszt; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 02:39:33 +1100 (EST)

More information about the TUHS mailing list