On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Peter Seebach wrote:

> >  They do not mention in the press release that other BSD systems exist.
> >Later they say "BSDI intends to form a united front for the BSD operating
> >systems."  So apparently BSD means BSDI and FreeBSD now.
> 
> Well, everything I've seen has indicated that the intent of marketing "BSD"
> is to push the idea of BSD as opposed to Linux, and that is *not* intended
> to be specifically about FreeBSD or BSD/OS.

  The press release was clearly designed to push the idea of FreeBSD (and
for a little extra, some "value added" features from BSDI) instead of
Linux, not *BSD.  It didn't even hint that other BSDs existed, and the
language would very likely be interpreted as "the two BSDs have merged" by
someone who does not know that other BSD systems exist.  I can see why
BSDI would want to promote this image, but I do not think that it is in
the best interest of NetBSD and I certainly hope that BSDI will not be any
type of a "front" for NetBSD. 

>  However, I can understand your concerns.  Would you mind if I forwarded
> some of this to some of the BSDI folks?

  Not at all.  Obviously, I only speak for myself as a NetBSD user. 

>  I tend to agree that it's important to recognize that not all the
> "BSD" systems are under one roof.  (Note that in other media, like the
> slashdot interview, I believe they pointed out the specific intent that
> collaboration with the other BSD projects happen.)

  I hope they do.  But from the press release and the interview, I
seriously doubt it.  Before Bob Bruce mentioned anything about
collaboration, he said: 

   At first much of the BSDI codebase will remain proprietary. It will
   only be freed as it is integrated with FreeBSD. There are some parts of
   the codebase that cannot be freed because the code was written under a
   contract that does not permit disclosure.

This doesn't sound like cooperation.  Jordan Hubbard added that userland
would be merged much faster, but still no mention of working with anyone
else or even it being available separately.

  I can see why they made this decision from a business point of view, but
it certainly appears they they have decided to ignore NetBSD and OpenBSD
while claiming to unify the BSD operating systems against Linux.

  It seems to me that TNF can decide either to ignore the politics
completely or to gently remind BSDI and potential users and developers
that there is another BSD system out there that has many advantages.  This
is something that the board needs to decide.  I can see the benefit of
both strategies;  I just hope that it is carefully considered. 


Matthew Orgass
darkstar@pgh.net