Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree |
| |
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on > kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs.
That was not what your patch did.
> (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, how about _doing_ something about it?
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".
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.
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 helsinki.fi 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.
Linus
- 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/
| |