Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:49:19 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree (fwd) |
| |
----- Forwarded message from Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> -----
To: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>, Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>, Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree References: <E16ybpZ-0000V4-00@starship> <20020420191940.D856@suse.de> Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020420191940.D856@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health.
Hi!
> > Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what > > existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain > > is proprietary? > > Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux. > Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with > their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as > it
Standford checker was proprietary?
> was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?
That's another case; doing development on proprietary CPU is okay, so doing development on emulator (== CPU equivalent) should be okay, too. Pavel -- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa
----- End forwarded message -----
-- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa - 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/
| |