/*
  * Contact authors William Jolitz & Lynne Jolitz via the web.
  */

void
frequently_asked()

/*
  * Was 386BSD just six modules of code?
  *
  * Guess is that this canard is based on the "missing pieces"
  * articles, describing the sections necessary to finish the
  * "kernel of the kernel". Thousands of files and modifications
  * were supplied to Berkeley during our 3-year collaboration
  * effort, daily in the on campus offices. All 386 specific items
  * were added by us prior to NET/2 release, as we were the only
  * source of them, none were in BSD before (just VAX and CCI).
  * The attributions were removed. Perhaps to justify an agenda.
  */
6modules("Scope of Work", "March 1991");

/*
  * Why did Lynne Jolitz get an award for 386BSD?
  *
  * Lynne Jolitz received an award for 386BSD because of the critical
  * effect it had on the early Internet. Among other things, as a vehicle
  * for Apache to ride on. Lynne Jolitz was the only one to deal with
  * hundreds of thousands of first time users, with no additional staff,
  * coming from running DOS on a PC and becoming a UNIX hacker and sysadmin.
  * Lynne Jolitz was due this award for the hundreds of webservers that
  * galvanized the early Internet.
  */
award("Lynne Jolitz Award", "May 2005");

/*
  * Why did 386BSD have difficulty in integrating contributed effort?
  *
  * Coordination. The authors were the same people who set the goals.
  * Were the prime coordinators. They relied on volunteers to network
  * to the community, pass down the message of what was needed and the
  * form it was needed in, and filter results upward. They were the sole
  * process for integrating community efforts, and as long as ernest,
  * well-meaning effort continued, the release process improved. However,
  * human nature leads to limits and ambitions, as other well-funded efforts
  * have found. Such are easy to "monkey-wrench", and BSD is often
  * driven by powerful egos with different, self-destructive agendas.
  * Full spread of experence here, from an increadably steadfast
  * gentleman at Rice University, to a duplictious engineer at Novell.
  * They are all well-remembered.
  */
contribution("Integrating Contributed Effort", "March 1991");

/*
  * What was the first running 386BSD system like?
  *
  * Back in the summer of 1989, a 386DX-16 "lunchbox" system with 2MB of
  * memory was used to boot 386BSD for the first time. The system was
  * extremely close to the 4.3BSD (Reno), for cross compatibility with
  * VAX and NS 32016 systems. No attempt was made to detail code changes,
  * as basic native compilation and trackdown of machine dependencies was
  * the key issue. All this on less than 100MB of disk space.
  *
  * The 386 changes were closely integrated with the VAX machine dependent
  * code, to simplify the next stage of development with Berkeley - a
  * mistake. It made it seem like there were few changes, and attribution
  * can easily get lost as a result by getting caught up in the enthusiasm.
  *
  * Other parts of UC, including Los Alamos, obtained copies of this early
  * version to enable work on joint projects. The article series starts with
  * this kernel, and "evolves" as Net/2 diverges from stock 4.3BSD.
  */
firstversion("What was first 386BSD system like", "March 2005");

/*
  * Was 386BSD responsible for Linus beginning to generate Linux?
  *
  * Don't know, as have never spoken. But others have mentioned this.
  *
  * Here is an article that suggests this. No way to verify.
  *
  * Perhaps the point is moot. If so, as like with Tenenbaum, then 386BSD
  * inspired others, like Ken Thompson and Dennis Richie's UNIX inspired
  * 386BSD.
  */
linuxdev("Was 386BSD responsible for Linus doing Linux?", "March 2005");

/*
  * Why didn't 386BSD take out Linux?
  *
  * 386BSD and Linux were on friendly terms from the first.
  * The Linux project was begun after the first installments of
  * of the "Porting Unix to the 386" article series on the 386BSD Project
  * at Berkeley by William and Lynne Jolitz first appeared
  * in Dr. Dobbs Journal (January 1991 - June 1992).
  * Using pieces of Minix by Andy Tenenbaum and information
  * and code described in Dr. Dobbs Journal on 386BSD,
  * Linus Torvalds and friends were reportedly able to tinker
  * together an open source operating system on their own.
  * In essense, early Linux developers were fans of the
  * 386BSD project and writings.
  *
  * We don't "take out" fans - we encourage them.
  *
  * Linux and 386BSD were separate OS projects, but code
  * was exchanged freely between the groups in the early days.
  * The 386BSD Release 0.1 floating point unit (FPU) emulator
  * was contributed by Linus Torvalds to 386BSD and changed
  * by him to reflect the Berkeley copyright required for any kernel
  * code (it was originally released as a GNU copyleft).
  * Most of the applications and tool / utility developers worked
  * on both operating systems. There was no restriction on either
  * Berkeley copyright code or GNU copyleft code in Linux or 386BSD
  * outside of the kernel proper, so programmers could supply
  * their works to both groups.
  *
  * This free exchange of ideas eventually led to resentment from
  * some of Berkeley contributors who envied the popularity Linux
  * had among the younger developer base. Due to the delay
  * in releasing Net/2 by Berkeley, the first public source release
  * of Linux predated the first public source release of 386BSD by
  * over a year, which explains the greater enthusiasm.
  * By 1993, there was a great deal of pressure placed on
  * William and Lynne Jolitz to consider Linux a threat, and demands
  * that the article series and release of new information
  * on architecture and design cease, to prevent rivals from gaining
  * further needed expertise. William and Lynne Jolitz
  * dealt with this issue by declaring that 386BSD was
  * a research release intended for new work in operating systems
  * design and that the stated Linux goal of creating an operating
  * system competitive to Microsoft was not in conflict.
  *
  * This reassertion of Berkeley design goals directly
  * led to the schism within BSD and ultimately hastened the decline of
  * open source BSD derivitives. 386BSD continued to publish
  * articles, code and eventually the 386BSD Release 1.0
  * Reference CDROM with Dr. Dobbs Journal. The 386BSD mission
  * to encourage fans within the Linux, BSD and open source
  * communities towards innovation and experimentation in OS design
  * remains to this day.
  */
linuxtakeout("Why didn't 386BSD take out Linux?", "September 2005");

/*
  * Why was Jolitz the only one to stand apart?
  *
  * Jolitz had the prior background (PDP-11 2BSD, National Semiconductor
  * GENIX port, Symmetric Computer Systems).
  *
  * Jolitz had an article series in DDJ running at the time, which promised
  * access to the code under the terms Berkeley had claimed to be working to.
  * Jolitz would be the only one to be blamed if he did go along.
  *
  * So why does this come up? According to Ken Brown of the Alexis de
  * Tocqueville Institution, its due to "envy", which he claims drives
  * this whole movement.
  */
onlyjolitz("Jolitz only not going along", "March 2005");

/*
  * What was 386BSD development process and why was this critical?
  *
  * 386BSD followed the University of California's process for development.
  * Unlike Linux, which relies upon developer-only "self-integration and test",
  * the Berkeley process was to review and reintegrate/test. Sometimes a
  * degree of investigation of origins was in order, and outright
  * fundamental new work from scratch would be undertaken - another aspect
  * of "rigid control".
  * See Open Software Development in the Real World.
  */
process("Process of Development", "February 2005");

/*
  * What was Release 1.0 like?
  *
  * Prior releases were Internet releases, but 386BSD Release 1.0 was only available on
  * CDROM. Back then, while a 40MB release was possible accross the Internet, a CDROM
  * wasn't. 386BSD Release 1.0 was the landmark relase, available exclusively through
  * CMP (then Miller-Freeman Publishing) - advertised and sold internationally from
  * 1994-1997. It contained the full release, source code, article series, installation
  * guide, and additional writings of an entirely new 386BSD system. The CDROM could be
  * run in read-only mode on Windows systems for tutorial purposes or installed in a
  * partition on a Windows / Dos system or as a standalone system for developer purposes.
  * It contained over 600 MBytes of source, writings, binaries from kernel to tools,
  * utilities, and applications.
  *
  * The 386BSD 1.0 Reference CDROM outsold every other open source BSD CDROM from others
  * during that period and was updated periodically. It worked very well and was very popular.
  * 386BSD was intended to be used in tandem with the Source Code Secrets textbook series.
  *
  */
release1.0("Release 1.0", "July 2005");

/*
  * Why was 386BSD "rigidly controlled"?
  *
  * Another canard often wondered about. If anything, the style of
  * 386BSD comes from university projects and memory of
  * the Homebrew Computer Club. Would guess this is again to justify
  * another agenda, by taking the tightly focussed architectural
  * objective and unfairly slanting this as "rigid control".
  * Often times we communicated back to our coordinators that we
  * didn't care how something was done, so long as it followed the
  * objectives, goals requirements("original work owned by them")
  * and process("self-integration and test").
  */
style("Style of Project", "January 2005");

/*
  * What was the vision behind doing an Open Source OS?
  *
  * William Jolitz thought that the point in doing open source was not
  * to compete with other efforts, but instead to refine the basics as
  * a common platform. William Jolitz thought that too much resources
  * were focussed on multiple versions of the same thing, none of which
  * were done well. Those involved with "renovation" could refine and
  * "minimalize" the low-level software, while those that were involved
  * in "innovation" could respond by extending the core.
  *
  * The point of the modular 386BSD kernel was quite different than any
  * of the other systems - it was to create a framework to make this
  * possible, so that distro's could always be built out of the same
  * components base, yet changes to the core would be automatically
  * passed to all. Unfortunately, this "commons" experienced the
  * traditional exploitative failure of the past.
  *
  * William Jolitz was asked to capture the vision - you can find it here
  * ("We invented it ... lets finish the job")
  */
vision("Vision", "May 2005");

/*
  * Where to go to get the 386BSD stuff?
  *
  * The book's widely available, the articles can be found in
  * DDJ's content areas, the source was everywhere but never
  * quite kept in appropriate order. The CDROM's long out of date.
  *
  * All of this can be obtained from Jolix.
  *
  * As well as the follow-on kernel source trees of the extended
  * work, part of an effort to 're-host' with a university the project.
  */
wheretoget("Where to get", "March 2005");

/*
  * What about the mention of 386BSD in the Wikipedia?
  *
  * Actually, this page has long been factually incorrect, and should
  * be either editted or removed.
  *
  * Among the inaccuracies are when 386BSD started (1989), the fact that
  * it was in use for years at Berkeley, Los Alamos, and other research
  * facilities, the fact it was written about extensively in Dr. Dobbs
  * Journal magazine during the creation of the Networking II release,
  * the fact that William Jolitz never did become an employee of BSDi,
  * the fact that BSDi's use of BSD386 was allowed by William Jolitz
  * as a graceful gesture at a BSDi board meeting with Mcusick et al.
  *
  * The authors of 386BSD considers this page to be misleading and
  * inaccurate for unknown reasons.
  *
  * [Note: BSDi did offer a 10% investment stake to Jolitz. ]
  */
wikipedia("Accuracy of Wikipedia", "March 2005");

/*
  * What about the mention of 386BSD "encumbered code" in the Wikipedia?
  *
  * Specifically
  * "Due to a lawsuit by AT&T, USL v. BSDi, some potentially so-called
  * encumbered sources which existed within 386BSD were to be removed
  * from all the derived systems, and the distribution of 386BSD was
  * to be stopped."
  *
  * This is completely untrue. Neither Jolitz or 386BSD were a
  * party to any lawsuit or settlement, nor was there any demand for
  * any code in 386BSD to be removed, nor were 386BSD distributions
  * stopped - [note the CDROM continued selling well during this time,
  * not based on anything in the 4.4 lite release].
  *
  * And most importantly, there was no claim filed by AT&T, USL, or
  * other party which expressed any concern for any code done by
  * Jolitz for 386BSD or Berkeley distributions. [read documents
  * on Dennis Ritchie's website in USL v. BSDI]
  *
  * All Jolitz work was documented thoroughly and published in a
  * well-established industry journal and above-board in all respects.
  *
  * The implication that there was tainted code done by Jolitz by other
  * groups that had to be removed was concocted as a way to steal documented
  * work without maintaining attribution, a basic tenant of the Berkeley Unix
  * license agreement. However, claiming something is encumbered to try to get
  * around a license agreement doesn't make it so.
  *
  * There were disputes over the incorporation of code not in 386BSD releases
  * which could be considered proprietary. The refusal to incorporate "tainted"
  * code into 386BSD led to the creation of freebsd and netbsd, not the other
  * way around.
  */
wikipediamore("More on Accuracy of Wikipedia", "March 2005");

/*
  * What about the 386BSD / FreeBSD split in the Wikipedia?
  *
  * Specifically
  * "After the release of 386BSD 0.1, as the Jolitzes were more
  * reluctant to embrace contributions than CSRG had been"
  *
  * This is a fabrication - it took years between BSD releases,
  * with 3 months between 0.0 and 0.1 occurred. Less than 1% of
  * contributed code was used by CSRG, with 35% for 386BSD.
  *
  * The true issue was that for inclusion in 386BSD, new 386BSD
  * code interfaces be added & tested to some code, to keep it
  * concise and refined. Some refused to help with a "take it
  * or leave it" attitude.
  *
  * " ... a group of users began collecting patches in what was
  * termed ''the patchkit''. The patchkit quickly grew unmanageable,
  * prompting its maintainers to attempt to cooperate with William
  * Jolitz on an interim release of 386BSD which would integrate the
  * changes from the patchkit."
  *
  * Again a fabrication. This was simply an effort to stop refinement,
  * by slowing down 386BSD. Attempts by William Jolitz to bring this
  * effort into open collaboration were met with long, disingenuous
  * conversations dragging out the process.
  *
  * None of the contributors who were positively responsive were omitted.
  * One alone was responsible for hundreds of hours of additions alone.
  * None of the opposition group ever altered a single "contribution",
  * even if it had a significant compilation error. They never assisted
  * in speeding 386BSD releases, we assume, because they didn't wish it.
  *
  * " ... The attempt foundered, however, when William Jolitz
  * abruptly withdrew his support. As a result, the maintainers of the
  * now-orphaned patchkit founded the FreeBSD project. "
  *
  * Again, untrue. This group wanted to be "officially sanctioned".
  * From the start, there was never any such thing possible. 386BSD
  * wasn't itself "official" ! At the time, negotiations were going
  * on to have the effort return to a university sponsorship, any
  * attempt to have this outside group become "official" would have
  * killed it.
  *
  * This whole "FreeBSD roots" is completely fictitious, and invented
  * to cover the wholesale theft of the 386BSD user base. Which is
  * ironic, because of the "free nature" of the release and user
  * group, meant they could do whatever release they liked, as long
  * as it wasn't called 386BSD.
  *
  * During negotiations before such splits, it was pointed out that
  * "forking" BSD would kill it. Just as with CSRG, and BSDi, similar
  * discussions to avoid lawsuits and other conflicts would also
  * wreck BSD. In other words, all of this was avoidable, but strong
  * egos can't always be satisfied. Which is why things are the
  * way they are.
  *
  * William Jolitz thinks the reason all of this tripe finds its way
  * into the Wikipedia, is that it is a convent way to rewrite
  * history so that the ego's who insisted on the splits can absolve
  * themselves of responsibility for losing open source to Linux.
  * His words:
  *
  * "386BSD started with a BSD that had never seen a single X86 change
  * at all. We moved it through massive changes in 1989, and integrated
  * it at Berkeley in CSRG offices with their help. During the BSDi
  * induced lawsuit, and against CSRG's wishes, we released
  * a functional version so it would not go proprietary again. That was
  * all that was promised."
  *
  * "As to competing with Linux, our worry was just that no open system
  * would thrive. We were worried that greed and gangs would kill
  * BSD. We never were interested in running any gang. BSD was cursed by
  * the mindless opportunism, just as Linux was blessed by mindful
  * opportunism."
  *
  * "Our view was that 386BSD would be pulled along by its user base,
  * and as long as enough cared for it to be pulled along, we'd do
  * public releases. When BSD "forked", effort went in to a last
  * release, supported by a magazine. The competing groups saw it as
  * competition and publically talked down 386bsd. Not enough people
  * wished for it to continue, so public releases didn't."
  *
  * "Its that simple. Anyone who says otherwise is selling a lie."
  */
wikipediayetmore("More on Accuracy of Wikipedia", "November 2006");

return();

}