Re: What *should* the B in BSD stand for?

We can't redefine the B!  Bishop George would roll over in his grave!

Marvelous that the Theory of Immaterialism should have echos in the 
immaterial world of software.  Remember:  "esse est percipi"




On Sun, 13 Feb 2011, Alex Libman wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 07:59:18 -0700, "W. Steven Schneider" <[email protected]> said:
>
>
>> 4. Changing what B designates doesn't affect how people think about
>>    the OS.
>
> Changing what that B stands for, even as an informal nickname / joke,
> does affect how people think about the OS.  A lot of people shun open
> source software because they're under the impression that "all open
> source people are commies".  I have friends who admit that AIX, SCO,
> Interix, etc are inferior, but they stick by them for those cultural /
> ideological reasons.  I'm working hard to change that perception,
> particularly in regard to the more market-friendly permissively-licensed
> ("Copyfree") operating systems, among which OpenBSD is a champ.  But
> references to Berkeley are a major setback - not just because of the
> reputation that particular school had in the 60s, but also as a reminder
> that "free software is written at tax-victim expense".
>
>
>> 3. Changing what B designates doesn't affect the quality of the OS,
>>    for good or ill.
>
> Changing the name obviously doesn't affect the quality of the OS, but
> changing the way people think about the project does.  For every person
> that went to Berkley there are thousands that didn't, and a lot of
> people don't like it.  If OpenBSD becomes the favorite UNIX for
> capitalists, libertarians, conservatives, Ayn Rand fans, etc -- as it
> should be for licensing reasons -- a lot more support and donations
> would flow its way, which would definitely have a positive effect on
> quality in the long run.
>
>
>> 2. Berkley, as pointed out by Andre, is historically significant.
>
> The most fundamental aspects of UNIX were defined at AT&T starting in
> 1969.  Some of the specifications actually dated back to an earlier
> project also involving MIT and GE, but it was AT&T / Bell Labs that
> brought advents like C, sh, awk, sed, and the whole shebang (pun
> intended) of core UNIX.  Yes, the Berkeley people have done a lot of
> important work, but a lot of it was just importing things done at other
> universities and elsewhere.
>
> All major OS'es and many other projects have some amount of code that
> came through Berkeley in the 80s - does that mean all of them should be
> called BSD?!  Even the original SunOS started with a BSD base, and they
> can even claim a more direct line of descent because of Bill Joy.
>
> It's been 17 years since the lawsuit was settled.  Download the original
> 4.4BSD code and see how little of it remains unchanged in OpenBSD, and
> what a small fraction of the current OS it makes up.  Also, according to
> policy.html, BSD is no longer the preferred license for OpenBSD, ISC is.
> OpenBSD is it's own operating system with its own distinct attitude,
> priorities, and goals.  It should focus on the future, not the past!
>
>
>> 1. I'm sure the developers have more important things to worry about
>>    than what B in BSD should stand for.
>
> A project's attitude and cultural identity are very important.  Every
> OpenBSD release includes original music and artwork, for example, and I
> think that's just awesome!  Developers like to get together and drink
> beer and socialize.  OpenBSD's eternal and redundant promotion of
> Berkeley is a very important thing to consider.  Don't you think it's
> about time for that nomenclatural umbilical cord to be cut?