Slashdot Mirror
Linus Tries Out BitKeeper
Flammon writes: "Linus has been overloaded
with patches for a while and recently the issue started to become hot again. In an unprecedented move, Linus has started using BitKeeper, as reported by Linux Today. The benefits of BitKeeper are already showing from the large amount of detail provided in the latest unstable kernel pre-release." eirikref adds: "Read Linus' own statement and take a look at the BK web interface."
I believe Linus was pretty against CVS from day one. He didn't like it at all, and wasn't a terribly huge fan of BitKeeper either. It almost seems like he is using moreso because he has been prodded in all directions regarding this.
Methinks that it wouldn't be trivial to continue to pipe the results in a terse format as well.
For L-K and releases a terse format is appropriate, but I think that keeping the longer ones around somewhere can help some of us newbies understand what the heck is going on in there.
Wouldn't you think that, in the 10 or so years he's been maintaining the kernel, he already evaluated it? Just because there was never a press release doesn't mean he rejected CVS out of hand and has never tinkered with it in his spare time.
Why would somebody choose BitKeeper over Perforce? Perforce offers free licenses for Open Source software and is IMHO 1000% better and more powerful than CVS. Anybody wants to clarify what makes BitKeeper the tool of choice?
Can it really be a bad thing to have too much information about any changes?
There is no need to be confused.
If CVS works for you, and you have no complaints or issues, then don't switch.
If you find yourself 1)wanting features, 2)overwhelmed by inadequacies, or 3)working too hard to accomplish default behavior in other systems (ex scripting what is handled automagically in others), then investigate changing.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I use CVS all the time, but I know its limitations. Linus was right when he decided not to use CVS, it simply is not reliable enough. But don't blame CVS, it is a good and useful tool; but every tool has its safe zone of "recommended use", and Linux kernel is way beyond that. I say, any project above 50 KLOCs and with 100 revisions on average would be pushing the limits.
posting anonymously because slashdot editors have made it clear they don't tolerate dissent.
Well, at least he runs Linux...
(IANAL)
Well, Bitkeeper's license isn't GPL, nor do I think that it's been certified as an 'Open Source' license by Eric Raymond's definition. However, it's got some interesting features that are as interesting and powerful as the GPL, and that even work in the public interest.
You can get it for free (as in beer) and it says that it will revert to GPL if they go out of business (eg, their OpenLogging servers go down for more than 180 days)... which is an interesting clause that ensures that 'abandonware' becomes a public resource.
The one scary part is that you MUST submit metadata to their OpenLogging system, or pay money for a 'closed use' license. Now before you hurl, consider... all open source projects already have all their metadata (and all their source too!) out in the open!
Is this really so bad? People who don't want to share, have to pay... it sounds like it's punishing institutions that don't produce open source with Bitkeeper (individual use is exempt). Richard Stallman might be pleased!
Apart from that, the only other funny part of the license that I see, is you lose your license if you sue BitMover over intellectual property rights. I'm not sure what to make of that, I guess it's a way to cover their own butts. I'd be upset if Microsoft had it in their license, but here, it seems appropriate.
So while they aren't using the GPL or a BSD license or the Artistic license or any other common, popular OSS license, they ARE going out of their way to work with developers and users instead of exploiting them. That's a far cry from Microsoft or even 'linux-friendly' software companies like Oracle. They've found (even more) ways to write software and work with the public, without giving away the shop.
I'd say, on the whole, two thumbs up.
As soon as Linux started getting used by as many people as it is now, and started gaining momentum and more developers writing drivers, features, patches, etc -- Linux ceased having the luxury of it being just a hobby -- now he has dependants.
... however I'm hoping that will eventually change, and we might actually end up with a group of people 'blessed' enough to review patches and put them in (ie. the 'all-stars' you see in every changelog), and a much faster moving patch and update scheme.
...
I agree, he deserves respect, however the linux user and open source community cant afford to just wait until Linux gets around to reviewing everything and decides to put it in at his leasure anymore. The patches, new features, and demand is too great.
Its about time Linus got some kind of source control - however I DID note that the only one who has access to it is Linux himself, which doesnt exactly make it helpful
Heres hoping
The Free Software movement says, "Use the software that's the most free. If you still have a choice, use the best software."
The Open Source Software movement says, "Use the best software. That will often be Free / Open Source software."
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I am very thankful that Linus finally "saw the light" and started using a source code control system.
:)
I really like the new change logs, I have always hated the old change logs as being too uninformative. One of the really interesting things for me about a source code control system is that it preserves a lot more of the history of the source code than the tar balls do.
It is also really cool how it branches the source for every patch and checks in the code with the users name as the one who checked it in and the body of the email as the comment. If Linus can find a way to also check in his rejected comments on a patch then that will also be very useful. It would be interesting to capture a little bit of the why instead of just the how in the kernel development process.
To apply a patch you just have to merge the branch that contains the patch back into the main development branch, fix any conflicts, compile, fix it so it works right and then commit.
And Linus will never lose another patch again, they will be saved for all time in the source tree under a seperate branch.
Once Linux lets his inner sanctum of kernel developers all start merging approved patches into his main branch then we will see the kernel development really speed up.
Thanks!
-- Never make a general statement.
Maybe they did it to force you to decide if you want to be part of the Free Software/Open Source community or not. It's annoying to me as well when I can't have my cake and eat it too, but I don't complain about the people that make cakes :)
It's just like the GPL - the license is a means to form and defend the community for the good of the community. If you don't like it, that's OK too, but don't say that those community-maintaining features are the problem. They're a feature, not a bug.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Just because BitKeeper isn't "Open Source(tm)" or "Free/Libre via GPL(tm)", doesn't mean it isn't free software. You can still get the source and develop free software with it.
How does Linus using BitKeeper make kernel development harder for those who don't have it (can't afford, won't use non-free software, whatever)?
Linus and the maintainers will still accept patches in email, so nothing's changed except Linus now has a tool that is likely to help him keep up the extremely high productivity.
And, using non-free software to manage the development of free software doesn't make the free software any less free. It's not like it could only be compiled by a non-free compiler.
Maybe this means that those who write free software will next write a tool even better than BitKeeper and the world will be once more a little better place.
I have yet to see a major new device class, file system class, or other subsystem that didn't require patching. That's a problem with the Linux kernel--it simply lacks the hooks and mechanisms for doing this. And it will only get addressed if the kernel developers start making a commitment to shipping drivers and other modules separately from the main kernel, with their own version numbers and source trees. As long as people can patch easily, they are never going to add the hooks to the kernel that will let new functionality get added without patching.
> It's somewhat sad that Linux,
Why? I find it interesting.
There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong with charging for software. If you do nothing but write software for work, you have a reasonable expectation to make a living off it. The world doesn't run off charity man, nothing is free.
To me, the "pearl of Free Software" being version controlled by a commercial product is a grand statement.. that free software and commercial software can coexist peacefully.
Software "should" only be free as in speech anyways. If it's simultaneously free beer that's just icing on the cake.
The argument that some people will use is
to say "See? Free software isn't viable on it own. The only reason it's any good at all is that is relies on commercial software"
Or the more subtle "Sure, Linux was okay before. But it only got good once they started using commercial software to develop it"
It could help reinforce the stereotype of free software as "hobby" projects - "Oh sure, you can use free software tools to develop some simple CGI script or napster clone, but if you want to make a serious software project, you need to use commercial tools"
(Not that I believe this, but that is what might be argued)
I'll let that self-referential statement stand on its own merits!
Look, if I spend all of my time coming up with "ideas", I have to use them as my source of income; if I can't, I have to find some other source of income, which means I'm not spending any time coming up with those ideas anymore.
Logical. No argument with that. So you can be compensated for the time that you spend doing that through an income that is tied to your production of freely re-distributable ideas. That's the academic model. You work on producing ideas and get a secure, stable life with good benefits.
Or, you could be employed by a company like RedHat. They make money from support/service and use a portion of that to give jobs to talented hackers.
Or, working as a professional software development you can give away some of your time because it increases your standing in the community, raises your profile and in turn attracts employers who wish to pay you for proprietary, non-Free work.
In other words, for decent software to be developed at anything other than a glacial pace, people have to be able to devote time to it, and they have to be compensated for that time in a way that allows them to eat, live under a roof, etc.
In other words, there are several ways in which Free Software is already being developed and in which the developers quite rightly get the food, housing, etc. that you so rightly assert they have the right to be rewarded with. So what's the argument? I would suspect that it is that you are tilting against some fantasy windmill of communist free software.
No flame intended on my side. I just think that you don't get it and that you're arguing against some pre-conceived imaginary position.
I also used to think like this. The sum extent of my source control was cp -r currrent vX.x. Source control was for wimps.
I'm of a rather different view today. I now utterly insist on using it, even in tiny little things that I think are one-offs at the time (quite often it turns out they aren't).
I think I can understand Linus' dislike. It sounds like you're less free, and as if the whole coding thing is suddenly less enjoyable. However, having gone through exactly the same feelings I can say that in my case it certainly isn't true that things are less enjoyable. In fact, in some ways it's easier as I can go wandering off in my own direction for a while, before hitting a dead end and backtracking safe in the knowledge that I have a defined state to fall back on should I need to.
Personally, I'd recommend taking the plunge. Some systems are better than others, but any system use injects a bit more organisation and confidence into the process of coding.
Cheers,
Ian
Will there be public read-only access to Linus' branch so people can keep up with the latest?
You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
Tell that to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, XFree86,
all of which are orders of magnitude larger than the linux kernel. All of them have been using CVS for the past 8-10 years (depending on how you count things). Sure, cvs has its limitations, but the Linux kernel with its small number of developers with write access isn't pushing the limits. FreeBSD has over 250 people committing to its tree right now, for example.
I hate this attitude! Life is too short to evaluate everything that's announced on Freshmeat. Why can't you honestly share your experience?