Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS Calls On Linux Developers To Replace BitKeeper

Posted by timothy on from the worthy-ambition dept.

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."

3 of 795 comments (clear)

  1. Follow-ups by SharpFang · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Possible replies by: Rik van Riel Trever L. Adams Michael Buesch Shawn Shawn Larry McVoy Shawn Larry McVoy Jrn Engel Alan Cox Trever L. Adams Svein Ove Aas Trever L. Adams Alan Cox Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... Mike Fedyk Scott Robert Ladd J.A. Magallon Alan Cox James Simmons David S. Miller (Eric W. Biederman) Jeff Garzik Mark Mielke From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu ...>

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  2. Copy of the Message by TheRedHorse · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just in case it gets slashdotted:

    > If you are trying to copy BK, give it up. We'll simply follow in the
    > footsteps of every other company faced with this sort of thing and change
    > the protocol every 6 months. Since you would be chasing us you can never
    > catch up. If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
    > into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.

    I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client
    that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching
    to that from Bitkeeper. At that point, McVoy will face a hard choice:
    if he carries out these threats, he risks alienating the community
    that he hopes will market Bitkeeper for him.

  3. Re:Is this why kernel.org is off the air? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Huh? It was up yesterday.