On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 07:58:22PM -0800, Mike Cheponis wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Richard Rauch wrote:
> 
> |  * It *is* a BSD.
> 
> I'm curious: what percentage of the code is "bsd" these days?  What percentage
> is new?  Architecturally, what percentage is "bsd" these days?  What percentage
> is new?
> 
> 
> My belief is that unless you're old enough to know/remember that there was
> some code developed at Berkeley, you don't really care.

And how many atoms do you have in common with yourself of 20 years ago?
If "not very many" is the answer, does that mean that it's time to throw
away all of the old identification that you've been using for yourself
up until yesterday?

In the particular case of "BSD" relating to Berkeley (not really having to
do with the daemon anymore, IMHO), I will only observe that I've heard/read
several attempted expansions of BSD (the strangest being "Berkeley Standard
Distribution", I think).   Every  one of them gets "Berkeley", though.


Being a BSD isn't just about the work done from the late 70s (early 80s?) up
through part of the 90s (wasn't that when they finally shut down completely?).
It's in the license.  I hope that it's in some of the spirit.  It's in the
kinship with the younger BSDs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Dragonfly BSD, and even MacOS X
to some degree).

The daemon still represents "BSDishness" after a fashion, though it is
weakened by some of the other systems dropping the mascot.  All, of course,
IMHO.


> You want the thing to "just work".

There's some of that, too, of course.  (^&  "It just works" is one I should
have added to the list.


-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/