[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: bitkeeper
    In article <>,
    Edward S. Marshall <> wrote:

    >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?"

    Derisive laughter is the worthy only response to that sort of
    nonsense. If it was Richard Stallman who was using object-code-only
    software, then it would be a good political point, but a lot of
    people using Linux are much more pragmatic than that. Yeah, Linus
    uses PowerPoint too, but Linux still has 10 million seats despite
    his use of some object-code-only software.

    >To more directly answer your question: if you're not really interested in
    >whether the open source movement moves forward, then there's certainly
    >nothing wrong with using closed development tools. But when there -are-
    >open alternatives (CVS and PRCS/XDelta, for example, with suppliments such
    >as Jitterbug, Bonsai, and Tinderbox), "what is wrong with using them?" :-)

    If someone doesn't want to use a given tool, don't force them to use
    it out of any feeling of philosophical purity.

    david parsons \bi/ And, as Larry sez, if you don't like his license
    \/ you _can_ write your own.

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.021 / U:0.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site