From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Jun 14 19:48:37 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA23507 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:48:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from lariat.lariat.org (ppp1000.lariat.org@[206.100.185.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA23481 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:48:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: (from brett@localhost) by lariat.lariat.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06154; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 20:48:12 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199806150248.UAA06154@lariat.lariat.org> X-Sender: brett@mail.lariat.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 20:48:11 -0600 To: don morrison , chat@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Draft of Nader letter In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19980614182616.0080c6c0@dmorrisn.deskmail.washing ton.edu> References: <199806150000.SAA04235@lariat.lariat.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The description of FreeBSD said it was in the "public domain" (which is simply wrong) and described it as "non-copylefted" (true, but showing a bias toward Linux and the GPL). It also equated the "project" with the OS. --Brett At 06:26 PM 6/14/98 -0700, don morrison wrote: > >Maybe they changed the page since your post? (Some of your statements below >are incorrect. e.g. They _did_ mention the BeOS.) I read the article, the >whole thing and all the links to it, in fact, and I didn't find much of a >linux bias. Bias is typically used as a negative term. There was >definately some _enthusiasm_ for linux there and the free software movement >in general, both of which deserved it, I think. As for FreeBSD coverage, >I think Mr. Nader was considerably generous in including FreeBSD as much as >he did in his letter considering he (most likely) only recently became >aware of FreeBSD and hasn't had enough time to research it and come to the >obvious conclusion that everything deserves a FreeBSD bias ;). Nowhere in >his letter did he discuss superiority of one free OS over another, so I >don't think it's fair to say there was a "linux bias". Coverage != bias. >Besides, the FreeBSD coverage was fine! Take the FreeBSD user base. Take >the Linux user base. If you look at those, and then look at how many times >"FreeBSD" and "Linux" are mentioned in the letter, you'll see that FreeBSD >is _grossly_ over-represented. This letter is about _consumers_; keep that >in mind. > > >>James Love, assistant to Ralph Nader, has published a draft of a letter to >>be sent to the Justice Department regarding alternatives to Microsoft OSes. >>The letter shows a heavy bias toward Linux and makes some incorrect >>statements about FreeBSD. We should send feedback urging them to be less >>Linux-centric, mention the other *BSDs, correct the information on FreeBSD, >>and include commercial OSes (such as BSDI, QNX, BeOS, etc.) as well as just >>the free ones as alternatives to Microsoft's products. The draft can be >>found at >> >>http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ms/jkjun151998.html > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message