(sorry if this appears twice) "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Er, no. AFS was originally developed to serve the needs of Carnegie > Mellon University, which still has multiple cells. IBM helped fund > its development (much as DEC and others helped fund MIT's Project > Athena whose most famous offshoot is X11), then asserted license > rights over the result.
Huh. I thought it was a deal between Transarc (company started by early Andrew Project faculty) and the CMU OTL, and that Transarc was later bought by IBM to become "IBM Pittsburgh Labs". Did IBM have a stake in this from the beginning? Interesting... > That said, the design model is perhaps not what you're looking for > --- but demanding that unpaid volunteers reengineer it to fit your > particular requirements is not going to accomplish very much. I think you've misunderstood. I'm not demanding anybody actually do anything. I'm arguing that a certain use case is beneficial, and that it should be kept in mind as a compatability concern when future changes are made. I've seen a lot of things posted here that come perilously close to making "project cells" much more difficult to set up and use, and I want to try to make people aware of this. I would actually love to contribute as such a volunteer (as I have done for gcc and other projects), but my desire to do so has been totally nuked by the sorts of assumptions ingrained in those who decide which contributions get accepted and which don't. The gcc project has very good cultural mechanisms for working around and avoiding this sort of situation, and I now appreciate that quite a bit more. - a _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
