Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th Apr 2003 15:48 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews Today we feature an in-depth interview with three members of FreeBSD's Core (Wes Peters, Greg Lehey and M. Warner Losh) and also a major FreeBSD developer (Scott Long). It is a long read, but we touch a number of hot issues, from the Java port to corporate backing, the Linux competition, the 5.x branch and how it stacks up against the other Unices, UFS2, the possible XFree86 fork, SCO and its Unix IP situation, even re-unification of the BSDs. If you are into (any) Unix, this interview is a must read.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Coupla comments, queries
by Wesley Parish on Tue 29th Apr 2003 00:27 UTC

Firstly, I almost became a *BSD user - 386BSD was getting popular at about the time I bought my 486 in 1991, and I wanted an OS that could use that power - since DOS couldn't.

However, Linux had also started drawing attention, and it came on fewer disks, so it was a little cheaper. I got SLS 1.0, running Linux 0.99plsomething or other.

Then some time later I got a 1995 BSDisc cdrom with FreeBSD and NetBSD, and also got some cdroms with Slackware 2.8, with Linux 1.2.8 on them. I had an ATAPI cdrom at that stage, so since neither BSD could read the cdrom (not SCSI), and Slackware could, I went with Slackware.

It does seem that Linux has played to a lower denominator than the BSds. That's my observation.

I would like to think that some sort of arrangement could be made to dual-license the device drivers, so that Linux could make use of the *BSD's, and the *BSDs could make use of the Linux ones - even the playing field a little.

Then, also in the interview discussing SCO's lamentable (and thoroughly baseless and stupid) case, it is mentioned that SCO has BSD-licensed Research Unix. As far as I can make out, that only applies up to Seventh Edition - it would be interesting if they also BSD-licensed up to Tenth Edition, but I have no idea who owns that.

Does anyone know?