[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:56, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on
> >, on your site, or on where it belongs.
> That was not what your patch did.

Oh, please show me how and I will do it gladly. I just don't know how to
make diff+patch do that.

> > (And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me. However, it
> > is not me I'm worried about. It is the other kernel developers who are
> > silently seething at this situation. Yes they are, use your ears.)
> I would suggest that if you are silently seething about the fact that a
> commercial product can do something better than a free one,

You got that right.

> how about _doing_ something about it?

However, first I personally do not want to start that project. Firstly, I
do personally like Larry and do not want to be part of a horde bent on
tearing down his business. There are after all, plenty of genuinely nasty
things out there to attack, attacking Larry as *way* down my list. More
importantly, my time is better spent improving Linux.

> Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.
> I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
> had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
> because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".

That's the point. It is not fun to see the whole thing start tearing itself
apart. Fun is being on the winning side. Fun is not dealing with a lot of
stressed out people with agendas.

> Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions on it for
> kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool exists, and since I'm
> personally not very interested in writing one, _and_ since I don't have
> any hangups about using the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.

I use it too. I do not think it belongs in the tree, especially not with its
own directory. My point, pure and simple.

> As to why the docs are in the kernel sources rather than on any web-sites:
> it's simply because I don't even _have_ a web page of my own (I've long
> since forgotten the password to my old account ;), and I have
> absolutely no interest in web page design. So when I got tired of
> explaining how to use BK, I asked Jeff to just send me a patch so that I
> could point people to the only thing I _do_ care about, ie the kernel
> sources.

But did you think it might be controversial?

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 13:22    [W:0.162 / U:5.736 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site