Slashdot Mirror
Interview With BitKeeper Author Larry McVoy
Jeremy Andrews writes "KernelTrap has spoken with Larry McVoy, BitMover founder and primary BitKeeper author. BitKeeper, a distributed source control system, has been adopted by Linux kernel creator Linus Torvalds and condemned by free software icon Richard Stallman.
In this interview, Larry looks back through the years, describing his exposure to computers and Linux. He also discusses the history of BitKeeper, from writing NSElite for Sun (which turned into their still used SCM, Teamware), to his desire to keep Linus from burning out, to the present day solution. The choice to not license BitKeeper under the GPL is also explained.
Larry discusses much beyond Bitkeeper as well, exploring some of his other interests. Find the full interview on KernelTrap."
For years, I've been skeptical of the Linux kernel development model, and specifically the its lack of source control. While it seemed to be "working", Linus has showed the strain several times on the kernel list. As far as I'm concerned, I'm glad he's found a tool that works for him - I totally agree with Linus' attitude of "use the tool that works for you, not its ideologically better, but otherwise inferior competition".
Hopefully this will at least alleviate some of the "Linus doesn't scale" criticisms, too.
Stallman can't get over the fact that Bitkeeper is NOT licensed under the GPL, and that Linus chooses to use it anyway. Presumably Linus just likes it better, and he's free to do as he sees fit. Freedom, that's an interesting word, because the mere notion of it means it must apply equally and unilaterally to everyone, or it doesn't exist. Stallman has repeatedly tried to exert pressure on people including McVoy to license things under *his* GPL, and complaining loudly when it doesn't happen. In other words Stallman is making an effort to limit their freedom with their own product.
Freedom applies to everyone, or it applies to no one.
You yanks really are a bunch of twats.
Shut up you pathetic stupid American.
So, in a free society, jails are not required?
[Linus] had to choose bitkeeper to save face.
Absolutely. CVS can easily handle the job - it works for GCC which is the same size as the Linux kernel and has just as many active contributers.
Richard Stallman is right on the money with his views on BitKeeper. Idiology is important and having BitKeeper mandatory for kernel development sends all the wrong signals to aspiring free software authors. If there was no free compiler named GCC there would be no Linux kernel. Period. End of discussion. (It also amuses me when Linus has temper tantrums in the GCC mailing list and is ignored)
Nevermind the fact that Larry McVoy is an annoying twit with his lips firmly fixed to Linus' anus.
In all seriousness I don't think all software should be GPL'd. When You are developing an OS or an Office suite. You will have A large cunsomers base so the cost of developing the software will be offset by the vendors. But If you are writing a small application that takes alot of time and money to develop and you see no other way of making money off of it then go ahead go commercial. I believe this more of of a freedom of choice issue than anything else. If the creator wants not to go GPL then fine it was his time and his money and his effort.
It's all Politics
Judging by the intelligence shown in both of these comments (most likely from the same person) you really do show off the intelligence difference between us stupid pathetic dumb yank twats and the most wonderful people in whatever country you happen to hail from. :)
Does everything kept under bitkeeper revert to a different licence?
If not, what is the problem? If it will make Linux better and doesn't impose on the open licencing I'm all for it.
as you have just done.
Software Wars
Linus' approach to BitKeeper (and to everything it seems) is a purely pragmatic one. He has said that if there is a GPL'ed SCM that is at least as good as BitKeeper then he will switch. Until that happens he refuses to let idealism stand in the way of progress.
I think the BitKeeper license is an interesting innovation. My only problem with it, is that if I am using it for free, I am _forced_ to upgrade when new versions become available. Even on an open source project I wouldn't want to be changing something as fundamental as my SCM very regularly. If it aint broke and all that.
john
*Groan*...yet more McVoy...
Quite enough of his views have been dumped in my mailbox from l-k every day for the last week. The man's a walking flamewar.
What RMS actually said was:
That's a very profound statement. It's easy to sneer at it, to dismiss it ad hominem. But he raises important points which deserve to be addressed in depth.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
RMS is an extremist. Always has been. In that role, he has fought for the complete freedom of software. IMHO, it's an admirable, idealistic view of the world. Having said that, there are times when his extremism causes him to fall right off the deep end, for refusing to make the smallest compromise for the good of the movement.
McVoy is hardly anti-free-software. The very fact that he gives away *anything* for free symbolizes that. (He doesn't have to give anything away.) He makes the simple requirement that the free users use the newest versions for bug reporting reasons. Not a bad idea IMO.
But RMS bristles at even the association with a software product that is ever sold for money. That extreme view causes great debate in the community (this discussion for one) and that's a *good* thing! However, RMS needs to be less beligerent about this one. The kernel needs a stable base in terms of source control. If Linus determines that the best solution is BitKeeper, then that's his decision. RMS has the right to his opinion, but not to insult the intelligence of all of us by tring to tell us that we're all compromising our values by allowing this.
In a similar vein, am I the only one who is sick of RMS whining about the naming of Linux? The accepted name is Linux not GNU/Linux. It's out of your hands, RMS. Live with it.
Ben
There was a need for a source code managment tool with some new features. Free ones exist, why not add to them? Then the entire world could benefit.
Free Software will change the world. Companies can still make money and programmers will still have jobs. There will be a market for customising software and adding features. There will be a market for providing training and support (and people will pay it because they didn't spend money of the software).
In fact there will probably be more jobs and more programmers hired because software as a whole will start moving forward at a much quicker pace.
When everyone realises this there will be no market for BitKeeper, to make this happen people must think about Freedom.
Ciaran O'Riordan
I would have to agree with the AC and burn karma in the process. Larry McVoy is an exciting and pleasurable indivudual if you never read or hear of him in your entire life. Now, the problem is, that I can't see RMS as much better... Oh well.
In what way is improving existing concepts "reinventing the wheel"? Should CVS never have been developed as RCS already existed?
The fundamental difference between BitKeeper and existing systems is its completely distributed approach. Go read the interview.
CVS has a lot of short-comings. Most people that use CVS are ready to admit that, I think. Maybe CVS works for gcc, but gcc has multiple persons with write access to the tree. The kernel bitkeeper repository has only one single person with write-access; Linus himself. Linus himself decides what goes in and what doesn't, by pulling from other developer's trees, or by applying normal patches.
Then again, CVS would probably be able to handle the kernel too. But Linus doesn't like CVS one single bit, and since he doesn't, the choice wasn't CVS vs BK, but rather no source-management system vs BK.
Oh, and Bitkeeper is in no way mandatory for kernel-development. Alan Cox and Alexander Viro, for instance, don't use BK, and have no trouble getting their contributions into the kernel. In fact, Viro commented that it got easier, since Linus got relieved of some work.
The fact that gcc was a prerequisite for the Linux-kernel doesn't change the fact that CVS is far inferior to BK. Oh, and it's not like BK is totally non-free. As long as you accept to have your changelogs logged to a server, you get the program for free. Furthermore, the source-code is available, and you are allowed to modify it, as long as it still passes the regression-tests and does nothing to circumvent the open-logging. To finnish off, the program will become GPL if BitMover ceases to exist (can't remember the exact terms, sorry...)
I'm not saying that I'm thrilled with having one important part of the kernel-development process non-free, but I agree when Larry McVoy says that people should spend their time coding a replacement instead of complaining.
From the interview:
Did he? I'm not 100% sure, but I thought RMS attitude was 'Free, or not at all'. I remember reading that all the computers at the EFF ran only free software.
This sounds more like what Linus said - something about using the best tool for the job, whatever the license.
You are defining it as "free from being hassled about the choices you make even though they may impact upon aothers freedoms in the future"
This is unheard of in the western world where lobbyists and pressure groups act as our eyes and ears, keeping tabs on the decisions that people make - especially when, being people, they are inclined to take the odd short-term view for expediancies sake.
One of bitkeeper's nice features is to keep track of a set of patches (You can apply or undo a group of patches)
If you want to know more about it Jeff Garzik posted a BK kernel hacking HOWTO
But none the less, it is still simply re-vamping an old technology, and I never said that re-inventing the wheel was a bad thing at all, as a matter of a fact, taken literally, if re-inventing the wheel had never occured, we would still be driving around on tree cross-sections, I think you may have misunderstood my comment, and I am to blame as I did not clarify that I do not beleve this to be a bad thing, I simply wanted to know if I had missed something or if bitkeeper was really just an advanced version checking system.
The funny thing is that I have to be a part time programmer to get any sort of baseline control out of CVS. Why? Because it is what it says it is.
_ _
CVS is versioning control not a tool for complete configuration management.
It is not difficult to keep baseline control over a project with tagging models and proper procedures. However, your cm better come to you with a proper background in scripting at the very least. I am a former sysadmin myself.
For CVS to go beyond its parameters and become a tool for real software control takes some scripting and working.
My goal in terms of giving back to the community is to come up with a standard set of tools for tagging and tracking source code files over a large project. Currently my tools are far to project specific to be of use to the general community. My thought was to expand upon a tool like cvsweb for ease of use.
I have no idea if bitkeeper is any better than CVS for total software control but I will be doing some research as soon as the interview is not slashdotted.
_______________________________________________
ACK
Yea baby! Now that could be a very handy feature, thank you very much for posting a reply that actually addressed my question, instead of just assulting my post and my intelligence or country of residence.
Oh, bullshit. "Re-inventing the wheel" has obvious pejorative connotations.
and an arrogant one at that. Only his arrogance would be to choose ButtKeeper over the freely available CVS.
Sometimes I wish Linux would be controlled by a core team much like FreeBSD. More things could get done in the same amount of time.
If put to a vote among a dozen competant core developers BitKeeper would never have made the cut.
RMS has never, ever, objected to any activity on the grounds that it is "tainted" by monetary objectives. (Though others nearby have - the Gnuart people, for example)
What RMS objects to about BitKeeper (and about acrobat reader, and latex column modes, and Netscape 4) is, as he says so many times it almost makes you want to beat your head into the wall, that BitKeeper is not "free as in freedom".
RMS has no problems with BitKeeper being sold - his problem is that the market for BitKeeper (and most other non-free software) is propped up by the restrictions placed on the buyer. In fact, RMS agrees with debian that software which contains a "don't sell this for more than the cost of the media" clause is not free. Part of the problem with BitKeeper is not that McVoy is selling it, but that I (or anyone else) can't.
If every person who received a copy of BitKeeper from McVoy were able to use it however they wanted, examine all the source, modify it as desired, and then copy and sell the result, then BitKeeper would be free software. (I'm sure someone could weasel in a non-free restriction somewhere into that statement, but basically that's it) Contrary to popular opinion, RMS does not insist that every piece of free software be licensed under the GPL.
Painting RMS as hostile to the pursuit of money, as though he were these guys is inaccurate. RMS is not actively hostile to the software market; he just doesn't view its continued existence as a sufficient reason for non-free software. If the commercial software market cannot survive without the restrictions on redistribution currently placed on buyers, then it cannot survive.
People who paint RMS as hostile to making money fail to see the difference between "I hate that" and "I care about something else more than I care about that". (Those who would paint free speech activists as being against national security often commit a very similar structural confusion.)
It all depends on the context. You can ask someone why would you want to reinvent the wheel without any negative connotations. Which, I believe, is true judging from the context of the original post. Just because it is usually used in a condescending way does not mean it always is.
The system is no longer GNU + Linux kernel. If it's about giving credit in proportional amounts, then X, perl, Berkeley, Apache, Netscape, and many other major contributors should also be recognized.
I do understand that some of these can be stripped away without impairing the OS, but some of them cannot.
While calling the whole ball of wax "Linux" may be overstating the importance of the kernel, calling it GNU/Linux understates the importances of all the other contributions.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
To quote the top poster, "Isn't it just a fancy system [...] ?" (emphasis mine). Now if that doesn't support the negative connotation...
Also, if you want to use an expression which is usually used in a negative way neutrally, that needs to be made clear.
BTW, I would be quite interested in seeing an example of a non-negative use of this expression.
He's an amusing historical figure and I do appreciate the work he did way back, but he could vanish off of the face of the earth right now and your software wouldn't know it.
-1, offtopic.
bitchslap the stupid yank.
The effectiveness of the source control system used to develop any non-trivial, multi-developer project is critical.
Creating a good one isn't trivial.
In my opinion, CVS and RCS are far from the best solutions available. CVS behaves like an automation layer on top of the single file version control of RCS, not a change management system for a whole project. It can do most things other systems can do, but you may have to waste effort working around its weaknesses.
I've not used BitKeeper but I have used Perforce, another commercial product which can be used for free on Free software projects, and found the benefits to the development process significant. Making simple things trivial and hard things quite easy helps developers to do the right thing without getting in their way.
Minimising the cost of using the source control system to its fullest effect leads to many improvements throughout the software development process. I'd argue it leads to better, more maintainable code.
As a Linux user and free software advocate I'm glad that Linus is using BitKeeper, rather than CVS. I'd love to see a better free software source control system, but until we've built one I'd rather not sacrifice quality and efficiency in other important projects.
"Every good boy deserves fudge"
GPG: 66F0 CD0A 9EC6 367F C3B4 7EB0 C76D CFBE 86CF 21E4
How does this programmer buy food to eat?
This is the flaw in the Free-Software model that McVoy is getting at. If you are a programmer who releases quality work which is distributed for free, how the hell do you survive?
The fact that the GPL does not prevent trying to sell software does not change the reality of distribution of such software in the Internet age.
I don't want to hear solutions based on using the software; the model here is someone who wants to be a programmer, not to remain an architect.
I believe in Free Software; I just can't see how I could ever be involved beyond it being a hobby funded by my real job.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
In reference to BitKeeper, RMS says:
;-)
The GPL requires "complete corresponding source code," and a sequence of integers is not the source code.
Feh. A real programmer sees machine code as perfectly readable source code.
Larry, are you as charming in person as you are on the linux kernel mailing list with people who do not shares your opinions?
At the very least I have the guts to post under a real account with karma, you post your flamebait under anonymous coward. Hmm, tells ya something does'nt it?
Emacs can do everything so why not CVS.
RMS is a good programmer so if he doesn't like bitkeeper maybe he should write something better.
The free use license mandates that all change log entries be shared with a Bitkeeper logging server. The license further stipulates that users do not disable this feature.
Check out www.openlogging.org, where log entries for many projects can be found.
comparing software development to insurance is brilliant, it maps very well into the real world. Yes a major project is too big for a single small company to do, but spread the cost around, and it works.
This is a model that will work for open software.
anything interesting happening on June 8th or September 8th.
If he did then some of the big projects would just switch and the negative publicity would hurt.
...
Its a free market, this free software lark - if people want to they can take cvs and build a free bit keeper competitor
4. NON-CONFORMING USE
4.1. Single user packages
For single user BitKeeper Packages, Open Logging is optional.
If there was something better out there under the GPL, Linus would have chosen to use it. Remember, there is a REASON why it was chosen, and that is to improve productivity. Should the development suffer because of the SCM? I have to say I don't think it should.
Of course, he also said that if the company went under, BitKeeper would probably be GPL'd. Gotta think that RMS is hoping for that. :-)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
he does nothing of the sort .. several core developers do not use bitkeeper and their patches all get in without problem.
In reference to the FSF, RMS says:
We have no non-free systems or applications on them now, and our principles say we must keep it that way.
So is this to say that their motherboard BIOS and all supporting microcontroller code, EPROMs, firmware and controller code in their video cards, ethernet cards, etc. all comes with source code?! Impressive. Where do they shop?
Good. I like a role model who has the sense to use the best tool for the job, and who doesn't waste his time with inferior tools.
I wonder why he keeps saying that ClearCase is a centralized system. With
ClearCase MultiSite source code repositories can easily be replicated and kept in sync between different sites.
Together with other divisions on different continents, we've been working on large software projects using MultiSite for several years now.
From the article:(I got to log into his 8 way Xeon box, wheeee! Fast machine!).
Makes you wonder. Would he rather go to an amusement park, or compile the kernel on a fast machine.
Have you read my journal today?
Larry's company sells proprietary software. Nothing wrong with that, although I question the wisdom of putting a startup in an area that demands $160K salaries. Also, speaking for myself, I'd take a pay cut to work on free software. (I think I could get by on $100K.)
The complaint over the license has less to do with Larry than with Linus. Linus isn't fanatical about free software. He'd like the world to believe that Linux is successful because he's such a great manager, never mind the GPL.
Mozilla and Evolution are good enough. I won't abandon them just because IE and Netscape are freeware. Linus thinks that CVS is not good enough. RMS would have him resist the temptation of BitKeeper freeware, because it lessens the incentive to improve CVS (or replace it with something better). After all, where would Linux be today if its users and developers had been tempted away by non-commercial SCO or freeware Solaris? But Linus isn't fanatical.
Hilarious, and true. In fact .. hilarious because it is true. Thanks for that, you put a smile on my face!
This is where I don't even begin to understand Stallman's thinking. I believe that promoting free software is a very good thing, so it is not the underlying cause that confuses me (at least I don't think that is it). What I don't understand is how someone can think there is an ethical or moral problem with software that charges people to use it. I am not forced to buy it, I am not forced to use it... in fact, if I really don't like what is offered I will compete with it, regardless of price. Why is it 'wrong' to charge for software? What if I only charge for support and service? I just don't get it... I wish all this political nonsense and muddying of the waters did not happen, as perhaps I might understand.
Even hard-core GPL fanatics like Larry, who once wrote on Usenet, that he uses Linux even though it was technically inferior to BSD because it was GPL'ed and he got burnt at Sun working on non-GPL software, is now abandoning the GPL and hence any reason to work on the technically inferior Linux.
On the contrary, I think the FSF explains the different types of free software very clearly. The common response to a question such as yours is: would you buy a car with the hood welded shut? You're not a mechanic, so what do you care?
Take, for example, Intel Solaris. It was distributed free of charge from its web site, ISOs and all. I download it, install it on my web server, happy as a clam that I have a free, enterprise O/S behind MyPuppySam.org. Oops, the web server crashed, and I have to reinstall. Hmm, the Solaris CD-R is scratched. "Hey, buddy, can I borrow your Solaris disk?" I ask my friend. "Sorry, dude, didn't you read the license agreement? I'm not allowed to lend you my copy. You'll have to go download it again," he replies. Oops, it's not available for download any more, because it's been "deferred," whatever that means. Guess I'll have to pay $50 and wait for the mail man. I guess I should count myself lucky that I can buy the media kit, at all.
I'm absolutely not against commercial software
by any means, but Larry is way off when he
denegrates open source software by saying
that isn't where innovation takes place.
Hardly.
Mosaic, CERN httpd, Gnutella, Mosix.
What has the largest commercial software company "innovated" in the last 2 decades?
From my experience, true innovation comes from either individuals or small tight-knit groups.
An environment that open source is ideally suited for.
condemned by free software icon Richard Stallman
How can this nutjob be considered an icon of freedom in the linux community?
It's obvious he only has room for his own self interests.
The system is no longer GNU + Linux kernel. If it's about giving credit in proportional amounts, then X, perl, Berkeley, Apache, Netscape, and many other major contributors should also be recognized.
... people dislike RMS for various reasons, his sometimes abrasive personality and lack of tact almost certainly among them.
That is just flatout nonsense, and has been rebutted so many times, so effectively, that one seriously wonders how people can still say that with a straight face, much less get modded up to +5 for it. The reasons, of course, are ad homonim
The core UNIX/Linux operating system consistes of the kernel, various file and binary utilities, a few core libraries, and (arguably) a compiler. It most certainly does not include a GUI windowing system (Microsoft's confusion as to what constitutes an operating system aside), nor does it include a web browser, much less a web server.
The core Linux operating system consists of the Linux kernel and a collection of critical components that were written by the GNU folks long before Linux came along. You may not like RMS's request, or argument, that Linux systems ought to go by the moniker of GNU/Linux, but only someone completely ignorant of operating system design, and of the internals and components of the Linux operating system, would ever argue that "if we call it GNU/Linux we should call it Berkely/GNU/X/Apache/Netscape/Linux." That, or someone who knows better, but has a political ax to grind and is willing to bend the truth more than a little in order to do so.
As an excersize, remove GNU glibc from your (GNU/)Linux system and reboot. If that doesn't make clear the fallacy of your argument, then I suspect nothing ever will.
Call it GNU/Linux, or just call it Linux if you prefer, but please cease and desist spreading absolute nonsense about what is and is not a part an operating system v. what are user space utilities that run on top of an operating system.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I hate to be picky --oh, how I dread that-- but when you are following up a clause with a word or phrase that explains or adds an important piece of data to the clause you should use a colon rather than a semi-colon.
Like this.
One person has access: Linus.
You could also use a hyphen for a similar effect.
Only one person has access --that's Linus.
Save those semi-colons for breaking up lists that include comma containing elements and for use with conjunctive adverbs.
For all the borking I hear on this thread about the "badness" of BK, I have to ask if there are any viable GPL'd alternatives to it?
I am in a position to get a VC system in place at work. We have looked at a lot of commercial stuff, but they leave me kinda dry and with a lot less money. The are very proprietory, usually only work on Windows, and don't work & play well with others.
I think I would love to implement CVS, however there are some problems with this solution. Although it is "Free", GPL'd, open, & x-platform, it is also somewhat difficult to setup, use, & maintaine from an enterprise view.
Stop bitching about BK and build something better!!!!
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
One thing I recall RMS saying is that they should at least make sure to set up a CVS mirror that was synched regularily with the BitKepper tree - whcih seems like a great idea, then people who want to keep using CVS can do so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The beauty of the GPL is that you can use the software as much as you like and the license does not matter. If you dont want to agree to the GPL then you are still given all your standard entitlements under normal Copyright.
Only when you want to distribute the software or its source does the GPL come into play.
I admire Richard Stallmans idealism.
I amdire Linus pragmatism, the right tool for the right job.
It's funny because it's true.
From the interview: "If the company were to go under, then BitKeeper becomes GPLed."
This is, in my opinion, a big commercial selling point. Often companies have gone out of business due to mismanagement or other problems, and the people who bought from them were left with no support and an expensive conversion to something else.
Isn't it kind of demeaning to have to resort to selling t-shirts to keep yourself from being homeless when you have such valuable (monetary wise) skills such as software development? And don't try and tell me that all open source projects can be made lucrative simply by offering support services and contracts. That simply just doesn't work most of the time.
I simply don't know why someone who has spent 4 years and thousands of dollars on a college degree in their specific field such as computer science would then want to degrade themselves by working for free and having to resort to all sorts of gimmicks such as selling project t-shirts just to put food on the table.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Wowsers, what courage! You post under a 'real account'! You studmuffin!
In the interview, McVoy says, "If the company were to go under, then BitKeeper becomes GPLed."
Simple solution. Kill the company, free the SCM.
But where is Subversion? It seems to be forgotten on the Tigris.org backyard.
If the freedom is so important, why not to help to Subversion project?
RMS, do you here?
If I install JBuilder on a Linux box, do I have to call the OS Borland/GNU/Linux?
Larry McVoy: I was an Art History major specializing in Greek art, pottery and sculpture, when I figured out that was really cool but not going to support me.
;-)
Am I the only one who managed to read that as Geek art?
It's all about context. I inferred nothing negative in the statement. It seemed the poster thought Bitkeeper was a fancier version of CVS. And asked to find out if it was or wasn't.
Although, I do agree that if it usually is used negatively, to avoid confusion, it should be stated that it is not meant in a negative way. So, I still believe the original poster.
Beyond this, it is just going to be a pissing contest, for neither of us know what the original poster meant; we are just inferring meaning. Unless we ask the poster, who did state they meant nothing negative in it. Regardless, you believe one thing, I believe another. Let us leave it at that.
This is accustational: "how is doing that not reinventing the wheel?"
This is curiousity using a cliche: "if we do that it seems to me that we would be reinventing the wheel? Although I admit I don't understand it completely."
MAD (MPEG Audio Decoder) is an example of someone writing cool GPL software and then successfully licensing it with a non-GPL license to many commerical products that do not want to share their code.
cpeterso
I'm sick of Larry McVoy claiming that he derives no benefit from Linus and the other kernel developers using BkBits. He tries to sound like some sanctimonious benevolent sack of shit for letting them use it, and then spouts all that tripe about his "paying" customers.
But the truth is that he couldn't buy that kind of advertizing anywhere. At least 99% of his market is *heavily* influenced by Linus's endorsement and that "BitMover is the dotcom in Linux!" or whatever his glossy ads say.
At least Hans Reiser was up front about his motivation for getting ReiserFS into the 2.4 kernel (and *somewhat* gracious when it didn't make it in right way), and he was actually donating code.
It's a bit like Nike claiming that by giving Michael Jordan free shoes that we should all kiss their feet for being so gracious as to allow us to watch basketball.
What is your criterium from calling something part of an operating system
... nice, subtle appeal to authority there btw) there are literally thousands of Apache+GNU+Linux servers deployed throughout the web which prove that a GUI is not an essential part of an operating system, indeed isn't a part of the operating system at all, while a filesystem clearly is.
It isn't my criterium, it is the criterium that has been applied by numerous academics, and virtually every UNIX vendor, and is encoded in the POSIX standard itself. (C.f. amongst numerous others, Tannenbaum et. al.)
Also I really do think that a GUI is an essential part of a modern operating system. Just like a file system is an essential part of an operating system.
You may think that, but (despite being a project leader of a very interesting project
Indeed, it wasn't until people began adopting Microsoft Newspeak that the GUI was considered a part of the operating system (even though Macs had been bundling their GUI as part of their OS for years, ironicly enough).
You can make a GUI a fundamental part of your OS, without which the operating system cannot boot or function, but that isn't an indication of a GUI being necessary for a functioning OS as much as a design flaw in your implimentation (and a serious one at that if you have any serious intention of using it to deploy servers).
Interestingly enough Microsoft didn't do this (you can still boot without running the GUI in "dos" mode), and Apple has gotten away from that with their BSD-based OS X.
All of course is neither here nor there, since we are discussing UNIX operating systems like (GNU)Linux, not Mac or Windows. The X Window System is not, and never has been, a fundamental, core component of the UNIX or (GNU)Linux operating system, nor does it appear in the POSIX standard which does define, quite precisely, what is included in a POSIX compliant operating system.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
why does anyone pay attention to what Stallman says? isn't it obvious by now that he has no high-minded ideals and is only out for his own interest? geez..
I think one would be hard pressed to argue with the author in economic terms. As Rob has often said, the solution is probably somewhere in the middle. There are definite benefits in OpenSource from a developers point of view and peer review points of view, but as an unemployed programmer from the dotcom bust I can appreciate that programmers need to earn a living as well. His compromise model seems to be one of the more successful models in the business today. Apple does something similar with it's opening the OS core as Darwin and keeping the GUI and the fancy bits proprietry. This keeps them in money and provides the core with the benefit of many eyes and views and keeps OSS developers happy with something to hack on. I think of all the large companies Microsoft is probably the most scared to go this route with their products, although even they seem to be doing a bit of this even if it is only for PR purposes.
We need the profit motive to keep the gears turning, those gears crank out the new stuff. It's great that free software gives us free versions of existing products, but who is going to pay for the next generation of new products?
Compare that to this paragraph from his 1993 Sourceware OS paper:
Almost every good feature in computer operating systems today, including most features in DOS, Windows, and Windows/NT, came from the mind of one hacker or another. Typically, the work was not commissioned by a company.
(Highlighted in the original).
why does anyone pay attention to what Larry McVoy says? isn't it obvious by now that he has no high-minded ideals and is only out for his own interest?
geez.
Did anyone actually read RMS's recent reply?
:)
He says that the "non-free parts of the Linux kernel" are firmware and bytecode and such that get downloaded to devices upon bootup.
Then he goes on to say that setting some registers is one thing, but this is different.
What the hell is he on?
Why is "setting a few registers" any different?
What is code?
In my view- code is nothing more than a set of instructions.
Arghhh- it makes me want to just piss on his GPL and tell him that these "binaries" are in fact human-readable sourcecode- but he just doesn't speak the language
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
This notion of the "lone programmer" writing the Great American Program in his basement would be absurd if it didn't describe the beginnings of some of the most successful free software projects. We have to stop thinking of free software as a business model for producers and look at it from the point of view of the consumers.
California formed a department specifically to advise on IT issues. The state accepted that department's recommendation to buy millions of dollars of Oracle software, apparently far in excess of its need. California needs software. Should it enter an absurd contract with a proprietary software company, or should it spend the money on free software that is guaranteed to be there tomorrow, and that won't cost a penny more if the state hires more employees?
The UK spent half a billion dollars on air traffic control software that doesn't work very well.
Sun, on the other hand, has contracted with Wipro, an SEI CMM level 5 outfit in India to enhance Metacity as a GNOME window manager. They can do this because it's free software.
according to Larry McVoy (on the LKML), its at least an order of magnitude more complex than the Linux kernel.
The reason GPL was chosen for the linux kernel did not have anything to do with productivity, and it had a lot to do with freedom.
= acjbbg%242fq% 241%40penguin.transmeta.com&output=gplain
o 5%24a8%2 41%40cesium.transmeta.com&output=gplain
f q% 241%40penguin.transmeta.com&output=gplain
Read these posts by the man himself:
"The point about the GPL (for me) is the continual improvements it allows by everybody."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm
"I happen to believe that for stuff that I've done for my own enjoyment and made available to others because I like to, I want to always have the ability to decide to follow somebody elses fork of my work instead. The GPL gives me that. I have the right to say 'I don't _have_ to be the
driver - I can decide to be a follower too'."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9gpi
"However, I'm also idealistic. Not the rabid, frothing at the mouth, bomb-throwing crazy type idealist, but instead the type that thinks that the software world is better off with easy and free access to sources. Because that's what _I_ wanted to have when I started, and I couldn't have it.
So having the choice between the BSD license and the GPL, I actually think that the BSD license is a lot clearer and in some respects better, and in a perfect world I'd use that instead. BUT! I also think that the GPL is more conductive to making the world more like the place I would prefer."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=acjbbg%242
I'm not going to even try to make those links real clickable links; I's tried it before with the google links with lots of percent signs, and it never works.
It's a complex question, and I don't claim to have the answer; only to have some perspective. The Waco incident in the US illustrates one kind of outcome. Superficially, the Branch Davidians lost that battle. But in a deeper sense, they may have won. The deaths drew a lot of critical attention to the aggressive approach of the ATF agents. I've read that the ATF is trying very hard not to repeat this incident. If the Branch Davidians had been unarmed, I would probably never have heard of them. They would be arrested without incident and living in prison somewhere. And the government would have gone on to arrest more religious wackos of various kinds.
So it's possible that armed resistance by Jewish families would have raised awareness of how serious a move the government was making. People are not inclined to see oppression when the oppressed are quietly cooperating.
What makes this unlikely, however, is that the government did not show their intentions early on, or provide clear opportunities for defiance. For example, compulsory registration seems to have been a common tactic. Would anyone shoot a government official over being made to fill out a form? But if not then, when does one fight back?
I think rms allows any non-proprietary software. Non-proprietary doesn't mean a "specific license".
Oh, do I hear "but that isn't fun?"
CVS is not perfect. But maybe, just maybe, by using a technically better versioning tool for a while, it will free up enough programmers to write an improved, free versioning tool? Did anybody think about it this way?
In the long run, maybe, just maybe, the free & improved versioning tool will put BitMovers out of business. RMS himself advocates accepting short-term pain in return for long-term gains. ref: the existence of the LGPL!
Last I heard, Subversion is supposed to be a replacement for CVS. Why aren't more people joining the Subversion effort?
Linus is just trying to make the GNU/Linux kernel better - which benefits everyone. So shut the fuck up, quit complaining about non-free GIFs... er, versioning tools, and go write a better one!
Hrm, am I the only one who finds the car metaphor rather strained? One of the big problems with defining freedom in terms of availability to source code (and then proposing a right to have source code as a basic requirement of free speech) is that it seems both philosophically and practically out of touch with the realities of how software gets used.
In cost, most software fits into the same price bracket as consumer electronics. Open up most consumer electronic devices made in the last 20 years and you are confronted with a sticker that says "no user-servisable parts inside" and a massive quantity of tiny SMCs and ICs connected on a printed circuit board with hair-thin traces. This has seriously reduced the old fashioned art of hacking hardware. (And I say this as a kid who spent many hours with a multimeter and a sodering gun re-wiring "Simon.") If it breaks get a new one. If none of them work, do without. I don't believe that Sony is infringing on my rights by selling me a radio on an IC chip rather than made from big m&m capacators and hand-wound coils.
Software works under similar economics. Even with the source code only an elite minority have the ability to look under the hood, and even fewer have the desire to. Even if the idea that free speech demands open-source had a philosophical position stronger than a wet tissue, it would be a hard sell. Most bugs, glitches and gremlens are easily worked around and simply ignored. No one cares if software crashes your desktop computer once a day because it provides an excuse for a coffee break. The problems associated with that software are frequently well-balanced by the abilities you get from using that software.
So one of the first mistakes that open-source fundamentalists make is in translating their personal preferences for access to source code as a feature into a moral issue. Closed-source software places no constraints on you. If you don't like the absence of source code as a feature, you probably don't have to use it. You can vote with your feet and your wallet. Caveat emptor.
That may not be the best example of why GNU deserve to slap their name on Linux. Have you read these comments by glibc maintainer Ulrich Drepper? Here's a quote:
Stallman verses the world? I can't believe it! You could knock me over with a feather.
I've heard from several leaders of many highly visible GPLed projects who have essentially said that the biggest problem with the GPL is Stallman. Not that that's not my personal opinion, so don't flame the messenger.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The FSF does have a lot of funds. The whole world knows CVS sucks. (someone said CVS is ok for gcc... do you ever follow the gcc list? People periodically bitch of how horrendously slow it is to update code other than from trunk) Why does not the FSF and comrade Richard hire hackers to work on a next generation CVS? Perhaps a bitkeeper clone, perhaps something better?
I really must direct the moderator whom modded down this post as a troll to the following conversation Here after you read this, please re-consider the damage you have done to both my good name, my valid-non-troll post, and most importantly my karma. Thank you.
--
"...lines of code has commonly been found to outperform many of the more complex composite measures of software development." - A. Powell, 1996
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Larry: jump!
Jeff: ruff ruff! (jumps)
Bitkeeper is an order of magnitude more complex than Linux?
Larry McVoy's a moron.
Let's all hope his company goes out of business.