lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers
Date
You are basically missing the whole point of the petition.  I didn't sign it
because I hadn't read my opensource mail in awhile, but if I had the chance
to I would sign it now. As a forced user of proprietary software, I can
understand the individual needs of people for certain packages (Pro Tools
and other audio programs in my case). However, when a whole movement based
on the idea of creating non-proprietary software decides to utilize
proprietary software in order to better create free software, I feel that
there is some hypocrisy going on. Rather then griping about the
shortcomings of CVS or various other solutions, wouldn't it be better to
create a non-proprietary solution to the problem? Are we forgetting why
Linux is around and where it came from? In general, I don't agree with
Colin Walters on too many things, but on this subject, I am in total
agreement. Also, it's amazing to see what kinds of levels people will sink
to when a real issue is brought forth. The whole osu nazi thing, touching.
Maybe if my family wasn't gassed to death by the Nazis I'd find it a bit
funnier to compare us to them, but alas, I have midterms tomorrow and I
guess my humor isn't up to what everyone else's is.

I would really examine the path you are choosing and the message you let out
by FORCING people to utilize bitkeeper. I've already lost most of my faith
in opensource, and in general, the whole bitkeeper issue is starting to
squash any faith I have left.

Michael Bernstein
bernstein.46@osu.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Fedyk" <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
To: "Colin Walters" <walters@debian.org>
Cc: "Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@vger.timpanogas.org>;
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; <opensource@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of
BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers


> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:40:59PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 17:41, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > > It's none of your
> > > f_cking business what we use to develop software. I use a hardware
> > > American Arium logic analyzer and a proprietary Linux kernel
> > > debugger. Should people be boycotted when they use hardware
> > > analyzers to debug hardware and software with Linux.
> >
> > You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
> > *use* of proprietary software at all. In fact, we explicitly mentioned
> > that everyone is free to make that choice individually. What the
> > petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
> > software by the kernel maintainers.
> >
>
> Use is another way of advocacy. When you start using something, you get
> used to it, and when you talk to others, you end up advocating it because
> it's what you're used to, and probably other options aren't as good (to
you).
>
> IIRC, bitkeeper, is open source. It just doesn't have a free license. I
> could be wrong(I haven't checked). If I am, someone will say so...
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Opensource mailing list
> Opensource@mail.cis.ohio-state.edu
> http://mail.cis.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.308 / U:0.624 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site