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

Re:I don't get it.

[jd]

AFAIK, the reason was that CVS and other version-tracking systems just weren't cutting the mustard. They weren't good enough about conflicting patches (where the conflicts were created by some other patch), and they weren't good about patches that overlap or otherwise interact.

BitKeeper, from what I understand, was the best alternative out there at the time. Unfortunately, the maintainer is proving buggy and may be unstable under certain conditions.

Cox on the point of this troll.

[damsgaard]

From: Alan Cox
To:
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper ...

If everyone spent the time replacing bitkeeper instead of beating up
Larry they'd get a lot further. I appreciate beating up Larry is more
fun but.... ...

Re:Jesus

[SharpFang]

[i]That sounds waaaaaaaaay too much like Microsoft for me[/i]

Naah. Microsoft would never SAY such thing. (they do this secretly)

Re:Jesus

[BigDish]

Next up on Slashdot: BitKeeper bought out by RIAA. The RIAA finally found someone with more-threatening legal tactics than their own, and has purchased that company to help improve their legal threats.

Re:Not necessarily true

[42forty-two42]

Then a developer in one of those countries should do the reverse-engineering, then share the specs with the rest of the world :)

Re:Jesus

[antiMStroll]

lessee: atheist, vegetarian, linux user. have i missed anything

Proficient in the use of small arms.