lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: bitkeeper
Date
In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.96.981004001316.16345A-100000@labyrinth.logic.net>,
Edward S. Marshall <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> 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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans