RMS Calls On Linux Developers To Replace BitKeeper

JakusMinimus writes "The developer of BitKeeper has issued fighting words to RMS and he has responded on the LKML,. I remember the flap about this way back when Linus decided on BitKeeper, now it seems many of the non-free concerns were warranted."

Comments

what the hell is bitkeeper, and who the hell cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a closed-source version of CVS

???

Re:I vote we replace it with...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a waste of a FP.

That said, I'd like to point out how much I enjoy junk like this. Geeks getting their panties in a knot over something stupid, flaming each other, turning stupid shit into a goddamn MORAL CRUSADE.

It's source control, for chrissakes. Get out of your house now and then and it won't seem so HUGELY IMPORTANT.

Whassup to my homies. Easy-E, RIP. Eminem is a sucka.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux Developers call on RMS to TAKE A FUCKING SHOWER.

Re:Jesus Larry McVoy is death

[Anonymous Coward]

He is an insecure intellectual property THIEF. If I was running Sun, I would sue him; he worked on Teamware and ripped half this shit off of Sun.

HIS LICENSES MEAN DEATH. THEY ARE BECOME SHIVA.

Insecure isn't even the word. This prick makes Steve Jobs look cool.

Bitkeeper is kept closed because its VERY useful and enticing but its a pile of TRIVIAL enhancements. And McTard can't stand to have the world see how smart he really is. No no no. It must be kept hidden. Fuckin McVoy is like Schmeegol from LOTR with his precious. PRECIOUS.

Now if Red Hat shipped TrueChange, Perforce, or (more relevant in this case) Subversion, then it would be a different matter.

Thank you for the list of better alternatives to the piece of totalitarian crap known as BitKeeper. Larry has used people, contacts and has used chicanery to dupe the open source community into aprecating the ways of Bill Gates and others. I find his snarky, snotty curt replies and completely ambiguous license (which apparently is a "living document" [a term which is a load of non committal crap aptly describing what the BK license is] and can be changed to meet Larry's mood if he so wills it). I read those links above, and find his to be an embarrassment, and would advise that he hire some blond tart to interface with the "geek" public; she even in her tartdom, would probably piss me off less than this guy. RMS may be a weirdo, but its guys like this who twist and mangle a concept the profit by that makes that guy look like a saint. A least RMS is consistent. This Larry character is a sophist, and that would be a compliment at best.

If green haired people killed him for doing that I wouldn't blame them - but seriously:

So, then, is it okay to have a EULA:
"Jews, Niggers and W.O.P's can't use this software, dang knabbit!"

Sounds ridiculous. I'm sure Microsoft would like to say; Sun Corporation employees may never use Microsoft Windows.

But they can't, not that they won't, there are probably a billion laws in place that protect the consumer. The EULA is a pile of shit, and rarely stands up in court. Copyright stands up just fine [can't pirate, reverse engineer, blah blah], but everyone knows the EULA is a crock of shit.

About a typical EULA, is says this product's license may not be resold or transferred to another person, which would arguably make the software worthless (a valid suggestion). How can Software copyright holders contradict the value of their own software in a EULA by suggesting its worthless? They really cant.

The EULA is a piece of crap, in general, its a bullshit pile of legalese crap and cruft, and no one ever reads them, and when they do, they find all sorts of stupid, irrelevant and contradictory crap. And the states and the federal government, particularly a jury of peers, is likely to override bullshit EULA contracts in favor of laws protecting consumers.

This whole thread is really stupid. McVoy has to know the EULA means shit. He copyrights his works and makes it clear you cant steal it, but you can use it if you don?t make money off of it. Kind of classic. The crock is that the guy has exceptions, and all sorts of crap going on and excuses for the Linux kernel and just lame, random precedentless behavior.

This who subsection of law and debate is crap. There is a simple axiom to all this: If you use the software to make money and its not free (like real free, not McVoy free, free like beer, you drink it and piss it out) buy the stuff. The software vendor should set a price (preferably in the affordable range, don?t you software pricks scratch your head why shit gets warezed when its 1000-2000% overpriced with NO support and no integration services), and that?s the end of it.

I looked at bitcrapper. It?s a reasonable product, works, reminiscent of Teamware. Its distribution method is lame, its password to download is stupid, its asking for an ema

Re:Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

And what other response is there to Stallman? The man's ego is the size of a small planet - yet again he calls on his legion of basement-dwelling unemployables to copy yet another successful product. He still doesn't realize that nobody HAS to conform to his communist philosophies regarding software.

Why, for once, can't "free" software advocates call for something original? Has there EVER been an original idea from Stallman?

Next time, when RMS opens his filthy government-supported piehole, I for sure am going to sigh at his startling inability to relate to those who have to work for a living.

OK, RMS...

[Have Blue]

The usual response to someone loudly complianing about a missing feature in a free software package or lack of free equivalent to a commercial feature...

WRITE IT YOURSELF.

YASAABTUBLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another stupid ass argument brought to us by linux users.

You know why your desktop is two generations behind Microsoft, because you choose arguing over coding ever time