[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Daniel Phillips <> writes:

> All of what you said, 100% agreed, and insightful, in particular:
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I can see the potential for this to break down. However we should
> > not be crying wolf until this actually does break down.
> Do we want it to break down first? I don't want that.

The price of freedom is continual vigilance.

So when confronted by changes in practice that we aren't sure about
the appropriate procedure is to ask (publicly?). If this is keeping
developers from participating. Or if it is placing a significant
barrier in the way of developers. If we start the conversation
without condemnation of change, we won't be crying wolf. Only asking
is that a wolf?

Addressing the filter is doing X fun. For me working with near-free
tools is not fun, because I must always be aware of the difference. I
am never quite certain where I stand with the tool vendor. The tool
is not free obviously because money making opportunities are more
important than my ability to use and modify the tool.

At the same time constant vigilance even of free software is required.
A non-free tool that does a sufficiently good job that I don't feel
like fixing it, is usable. It simply becomes a minor background
irritant that I can ignore.

Linus working more efficiently so he can accept more patches is
obviously more fun :)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.238 / U:5.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site