Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 4 Oct 1998 03:18:26 -0400 (EDT) | From | Mathew G Monroe <> | Subject | Re: bitkeeper |
| |
Excerpts from internet.computing.linux-kernel: 4-Oct-98 Re: bitkeeper by "Edward S. Marshall"@log > > what is wrong with using development utils that are non free? > > Wrong question; you're asking for a philosophical point ("what is wrong") > here, and you'll generally get rhetoric for an answer to it. ;-) > > "Think globally, act locally" applies here. If we reword what you asked to > "what is the impact of using development utils that are non-free?", it's > easy to answer, and it has everything to do with (unfortunately) > marketing. > > Consider this statement from a closed-source advocate: "Even one of the > most popular open source projects around, Linux, can't get about the > business of developing their system without the assistance of > commecially-developed, closed-source software. What does that tell you > about the viability of open source software when you really need to get > the job done?"
Your stating the facts clearly. Yes bitkeeper (currently a vaporware product, so no one can state its actual state at release, but we will assume L Mcvoy won't change much from what he has said) does not fall within the definition of opensource. Number one, the only person actually using it is most likely Linus, not the Linux community. Number two, for Linux and alot of the Linux community it is effectively opensource (they are not restricted). By the same arguement that bitkeeper should not be used, no one should use Netscape either. Ignoring the source code part, large corperation have to pay for Netscape, but educational and other "small" users get to use it for free. Humm, sounds about the same as bitkeeper.....
Cut, Cut, Cut.... > open alternatives (CVS and PRCS/XDelta, for example, with suppliments such > as Jitterbug, Bonsai, and Tinderbox), "what is wrong with using them?" :-)
One reason, Linus has said he dosn't like them and doesn't want to use them. Actually he hasn't specifically turned down all of those, but he has generally rejects any similar suggestions in the past. Remeber, it doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone else on the list thinks except Linus. End of discussion, period.
> > If the license over affects us we can simply stop using it can't we? > > It's not like anything would require it to run. > > The problem being that the investment of effort into getting a system like > this going is non-trivial. The fact is: once the primary kernel developers > settle into something, changing will be very difficult to do, and will > make for effort that could be better spend on other things. >
True and also not true. Yes it does take alot of effort and Linus is most likely going to keep using it, if he likes whatever system he chooses. But remember jitterbug waht setup and remove quite quickly.
Cut, Cut, Cut... > Smart move. Hopefully I don't sound too much like the stereotypical raving > free-software loonie. ;-) >
You have some good arguements, but actually IMHO you do. BUt that is not important. Most important is that this is NOT our (people on this list) decision. We can talk until the cows come home, but it really doesn't make much difference. Producing new ideas or new products is all we can and SHOULD do, simple because it is Linus's choice, not our's. If you (everyone) notice, Linus doesn't reply to this thread (it would be intresting to know if he even reads it). There is a reason. If people actually want to make a difference then they should go out and do something, and stop posting on this or related threads.
Matt Monroe
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |