5 ms·

The first open source Unix based OS wasn't Linux.

37 points by chris11 18y ago

chris11 18y ago
This is a pretty good example of why software should be released early and often. They managed to destroy all their momentum with an 18 month long development cycle.
- dkarl 18y ago
  You have to wonder what their primary goal was. Perhaps they pursued their primary goal (a modern Unix with elegant internals) very intelligently and diligently and hoped that their secondary goals (users, developers, and influence) would materialize as a result. Or perhaps their primary goal was to win acceptance for their idea that Unix internals are crufty and deserve rethinking -- and perhaps they achieved that goal. If winning users and developers was their primary goal and not just a secondary hope, then they got spanked and sent home, but I don't get that impression from the interview.
cturner 18y ago
"When you haven't been involved, you don't know that Bill Joy threw something in late one night, or Dennis Ritchie wrote something up as an expedient. " What are some examples of such things?
- gamache 18y ago
  Heh, you expect to get details like that from a Salon journalist?
rbanffy 18y ago
As much as the BSD developers should blame themselves, AT&T and Linus, I think most of BSD's lack of mindshare stems from the BSD license itself. The BSD license encourages (or, at the very least, does not prohibit) companies from taking away stuff from the codebase, enhance it and run, never to look back until they need another software infusion. This does not make it easy for companies like Intel, IBM, Red Hat ot SGI to commit resources to the project, knowing that any other company can take what they developed and close it up. "Show me yours and I will show you mine". GPL-like licenses prohibit such behaviour and are, perhaps, the reason why there is so much more GPL-ed software around than BSD-ed. That's why the same companies I mentioned before can feel comfortable that while others may use their Linux contributions, they will also be able to use everybody else's code forever. For me, using GPL for community-developed software is a no-brainer. It's not debatable it created a vibrant ecosystem around Linux. The viability of BSD-ish licenses to create such ecosystems is, however, quite debatable. The Apache Foundation has several projects under such licenses that receive regular investment from big industry players. Although I doubt there will ever be a clear-cut conclusion, it's fun to watch and participate on the debate.
- bad_user 18y ago
  I don't think so. As much as free-software advocates like to pat themselves on the back, there are many projects out there that succeeded gaining popularity without a restrictive license like the GPL, and I also think that the GPL is so popular purely by fashion and because its restrictions are irrelevant for web-based applications. A project's success can only be attributed to the people working on it, and to sheer luck. Of course, it is kind of an incentive for companies to contribute back and for the community to have some legal protection, that's why I understand the need for LGPL or MPL. But GPL itself should not be considered open-source ... all the software you or I wrote is and will always be a derivate of public domain, and the usage of a library should not dictate the distribution rights of the final product, but only the distribution rights of the library in question. It's kind of ironic that proprietary platforms like dotNET are more open in this regard. Also, I don't think Apple did more harm to open-source than Red Hat did. At least they don't pretend to be some kind of saviors of humanity.
  - dimitar 18y ago
    And what is the harm Red Hat did? Because I don't see any.
    - bad_user 18y ago
      The problem with Red Hat is that they sell a brand, not a product, and while many Red Hat employees are allowed to work on open-source stuff, there's no competition, no room for second place, no market. Unless you have a community of enthusiasts, like Debian of course, which is also technically superior in some ways, but those people don't see any direct earnings for their contribution.
      - mcxx 18y ago
        Sorry, I have no clue what are you talking about. Can you elaborate? What /is/ the problem with RH? You know that RH employees actually work on OSS, right? They're a major contributor to the open-source world, they have a community of enthusiasts (Fedora) and everything goes to upstream.

37 points by chris11 18y ago

This is a pretty good example of why software should be released early and often. They managed to destroy all their momentum with an 18 month long development cycle.

dkarl 18y ago
You have to wonder what their primary goal was. Perhaps they pursued their primary goal (a modern Unix with elegant internals) very intelligently and diligently and hoped that their secondary goals (users, developers, and influence) would materialize as a result. Or perhaps their primary goal was to win acceptance for their idea that Unix internals are crufty and deserve rethinking -- and perhaps they achieved that goal. If winning users and developers was their primary goal and not just a secondary hope, then they got spanked and sent home, but I don't get that impression from the interview.

cturner 18y ago

"When you haven't been involved, you don't know that Bill Joy threw something in late one night, or Dennis Ritchie wrote something up as an expedient. " What are some examples of such things?

gamache 18y ago
Heh, you expect to get details like that from a Salon journalist?

rbanffy 18y ago

As much as the BSD developers should blame themselves, AT&T and Linus, I think most of BSD's lack of mindshare stems from the BSD license itself. The BSD license encourages (or, at the very least, does not prohibit) companies from taking away stuff from the codebase, enhance it and run, never to look back until they need another software infusion. This does not make it easy for companies like Intel, IBM, Red Hat ot SGI to commit resources to the project, knowing that any other company can take what they developed and close it up. "Show me yours and I will show you mine". GPL-like licenses prohibit such behaviour and are, perhaps, the reason why there is so much more GPL-ed software around than BSD-ed. That's why the same companies I mentioned before can feel comfortable that while others may use their Linux contributions, they will also be able to use everybody else's code forever. For me, using GPL for community-developed software is a no-brainer. It's not debatable it created a vibrant ecosystem around Linux. The viability of BSD-ish licenses to create such ecosystems is, however, quite debatable. The Apache Foundation has several projects under such licenses that receive regular investment from big industry players. Although I doubt there will ever be a clear-cut conclusion, it's fun to watch and participate on the debate.

bad_user 18y ago
I don't think so. As much as free-software advocates like to pat themselves on the back, there are many projects out there that succeeded gaining popularity without a restrictive license like the GPL, and I also think that the GPL is so popular purely by fashion and because its restrictions are irrelevant for web-based applications. A project's success can only be attributed to the people working on it, and to sheer luck. Of course, it is kind of an incentive for companies to contribute back and for the community to have some legal protection, that's why I understand the need for LGPL or MPL. But GPL itself should not be considered open-source ... all the software you or I wrote is and will always be a derivate of public domain, and the usage of a library should not dictate the distribution rights of the final product, but only the distribution rights of the library in question. It's kind of ironic that proprietary platforms like dotNET are more open in this regard. Also, I don't think Apple did more harm to open-source than Red Hat did. At least they don't pretend to be some kind of saviors of humanity.
- dimitar 18y ago
  And what is the harm Red Hat did? Because I don't see any.
  - bad_user 18y ago
    The problem with Red Hat is that they sell a brand, not a product, and while many Red Hat employees are allowed to work on open-source stuff, there's no competition, no room for second place, no market. Unless you have a community of enthusiasts, like Debian of course, which is also technically superior in some ways, but those people don't see any direct earnings for their contribution.
    - mcxx 18y ago
      Sorry, I have no clue what are you talking about. Can you elaborate? What /is/ the problem with RH? You know that RH employees actually work on OSS, right? They're a major contributor to the open-source world, they have a community of enthusiasts (Fedora) and everything goes to upstream.