On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 08:48:08AM -0800, Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group 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?
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
