[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers
On 5 Mar 2002, 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.
> 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.

I strongly object to the fact that you're trying to stop
me from advocating the best piece of source control
software that I know.

I use bitkeeper because it saves me lots of time and makes
my life easier. If you don't like it, you can use something
else instead and do all the work by hand, but I prefer to
have bitkeeper do the version tracking for me.

I don't know of any product that comes close to bitkeeper,
or even of anything remotely approaching the functionality
of bitkeeper, for me there is no real alternative.

Now, are you about censoring my free speech in the name of
"protecting freedom and free software" or are you going to
write free version control software with the functionality
of bitkeeper so there is a free alternative ?


"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

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 13:24    [W:0.254 / U:4.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site