RMS Weighs In On BitKeeper
An anonymous reader writes ". . . and boy, is he pissed! The BitKeeper license, he told the Linux kernel mailing list, is 'the whip hand' of proprietary software. His brief but pungent comment is carried by Linux and Main."
Another example of what happens when 12 month old puppies are dealt moderation points.
Keep the animals in their respective cages por favor.
Well said. Bravo, bravo.
;-)
Let me know when your movie is done. I'll buy a ticket.
I write in my journal
Not to troll here or anything, but aren't these postings of RMS rants a tad redundant? We all know the man isn't going to like anything that's not open source, and we all know what he has to say (well, anyone that really cares anyway.) He's on the fringe anyway, the GNU-nazi camp is a vocal minority of the Linux community (hence why the stupid GNU/Linux thing never caught on.)
:P)
Besides, a tad more on topic, Bitkeeper does what the kernel developers need it to do. Other open source alternatives do not. From what I've read, they've basically said that if there's an open source alternative to bitkeeper that does what they need it to, they'd use it. I very often see people bending their projects to fit open source tools, when it should be the other way around (tools made to fit the projects.) This is obviously a bit counterintuitive.
The niche for hardcore zealots is closing as the "open source" world heads toward the mainstream. RMS and his rhetoric are part of that group that needs to go if anyone is going to take Linux or open source seriously.
Mod me down, I got karma to burn. But at least give me some decent replies (not flames
As long as ($TASK !~
Untrue, try, for playing games, and the business end of things maybe windows has the edge, but when it comes to just about anything else, not just server oreiented domains, unix systems have the edge.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.