From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jan 13 6:39:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769911552C for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:39:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id GAA04682; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:39:22 -0800 Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca(142.32.110.29) via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda04680; Thu Jan 13 06:39:15 2000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) id GAA49551; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:39:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200001131439.GAA49551@passer.osg.gov.bc.ca> Received: from localhost.osg.gov.bc.ca(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "passer.osg.gov.bc.ca" via SMTP by localhost.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpdB49546; Thu Jan 13 06:39:09 2000 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-OS: FreeBSD 3.4-RELEASE X-Mailer: MH 6.8.4, Exmh 2.1.1 X-Sender: cschuber To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Next release should be called 5.0 (was:4.4 BSD forever?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:23:12 PST." <20000112212312.F17687@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:39:09 -0800 From: Cy Schubert Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20000112212312.F17687@dragon.nuxi.com>, "David O'Brien" writes: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:48:08AM -0800, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Gro > up wrote: > > > > UCB and AT&T had agreed that there were to be no new releases of BSD > > and that 4BSD was the final release. 4.1BSD - 4.4BSD were named such > > because they were "officially" only modifications to 4BSD and as such > > were not full releases. In fact they contained more new features than > > previous releases and were modifications to 4BSD in name only. > > This is a quote from McKusick on a previous post. It doesn't seem to > back up your statements. > > > As I understood it, 4BSD was to be the last release based on 32V > > and AT&T wouldn't license anything newer on agreeable terms, so > > Berkeley released 4.1. 4.1c (later renamed to 4.2) was released to > > fullfil their contractual obligation to DARPA. At least that's the > > scuttlebutt at the time, which likely suffered from at least some > > "telephone game" syndrome. > > AT&T kept wanting Berkeley to move forward to a newer license, but > we resisted because the newer licenses were considerably more > expensive. That had nothing to do with the naming. The 4.1 release > was called that because AT&T was concerned that there would be > confusion in the marketplace if there were System V and 5BSD, so > we agreed to call it 4.1 instead of 5.0. The 4.1c release was never > renamed 4.2. The 4.2 release followed 4.1c. The 4.1c release was > what would probably be called an alpha release of 4.2 today. > > > > It's all in Kirk's book the Design and Implementation of 4.4BSD. > > What page numbers? Rereading the first 17 pages where Kirk discusses BSD history, he doesn't even mention any licensing issues between UCB and AT&T until 4.4BSD. As a matter of fact page 9 discusses 4BSD as a project which had a number of releases. I obvously stand corrected. It's been a while since I read the book. If I've fogotten this much, I should read it again. > > -- > -- David (obrien@NUXI.com) You argue like Tom Leykis. Because of that you've earned my respect. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Sun/DEC Team, UNIX Group Internet: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca ITSD Province of BC "e**(i*pi)+1=0" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message