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.
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
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.
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
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"
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.
Mandrake has just renamed the classic software business model of support contracts into a marketing entity called club.
This model is the oldest model out there. It created IBM, DEC and the other old greats and it is keeping some of them alive till now.
Yes, it is different from the MSFT style "pay now what we give is what you get, and no support" model. But this does not mean that it is by any means less economically sound. It is actually more sound on the long run.
So I do not think that Mandrake will have any problems with the Club. It is likely that the other linux vendors will take it as well.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Well... With some effort you can make a linux distribution that runs on one floppy alone by removing semi-non-essential stuff. Would that mean that everything that got removed is not part of the OS?
Not all OS's have a GUI included. That's true. However that doesn't mean that a GUI is not part of the operating system when it is included. I really see no fundamental difference between a filesystem and a GUI system. Both provide services to the user of the OS. And for a desktop user, both are essential.
Greetings,
Project Manager of Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace3d.org). Support CS at http://tinyurl.com/cb3x4
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.
I enjoy how you contradict yourself here. Funny, but I thought glibc was for userspace applications. Every single textbook, paper, and non-MS-influenced publication I can find -- and there are about 5 of them at my desk, including the Tannenbaum book you claim to cite in another post -- defines an operating system as the (as in singular) program which serves as a layer between the hardware and the application author, and presents a consistent system call API to these applications. They say nothing about it being "the program ... oh yeah, plus some libraries and utilities." Nothing. They do talk about the API the OS provides for those libraries and utilities, but they are separate.
I agree with you that we shouldn't call it "Berkely/GNU/X/Apache/Netscape/Linux". I just don't see how you can selectively ignore your own arguments when they stop being convenient for you.
-jdm