[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:0.020 / U:5.300 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site