BitMover Releases Open Source BitKeeper Client

diegocgteleline.es writes "Larry McVoy, the owner of BitKeeper (also one of the guys behind LMbench) has posted a message to linux-kernel where he announces a open source client of BitKeeper, which would only allow synching against BK trees. It looks like it's licensed under the NWL (No Whining License) that will force you to 'not whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.'"

Comments

Bazaar-NG

[Cronopios]

Too late.

Right know, I put my expectations on Bazaar-NG: all the goodies of GNU Arch and the simple interface of Subversion. Developed by Canonical (of Ubuntu fame).

Re:Bazaar-NG

[Anonymous Coward]

It is just sad that it's written i Python. I like Python for scripting, but production software should not be written in dynamically typed scripting languages. The fact that the use of Python is listed as one of the top features indicates that the programmers behind this project are either immature, untalented, or both. The fact that they have apparently convinced the Canonical management into taking this approach seems to indicate a sad state of things at said company.

Re:Bazaar-NG

[millette]

Maybe you'd prefer a haskell implementation ? Darcs is decentralized, based on a "theory of patches" with roots in quantum mechanics.

Written in Haskell, darcs is used on many operating systems including Linux, MacOS X, FreeBSD, and Windows. Darcs includes a CGI script to browse your repository from the web.

Re:Strange

[Chasuk]

I don't know how relevant this is, not quite getting the gist of the article, but does this sentence (linked from the word message in the article) make any difference? Or was I not supposed to follow any of the links?

Don't worry about the license, it's a joke. BSD license OK with everyone?

Open alternatives

[ballermann]

There are so much real open alternatives like subversion, arch and (my personal favourite) darcs - just to name a few. Why bother with bitkeeper?

Re:Open alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Linus should consider how many developers he has alienated with his lassez-faire attitude. Maybe Linus should realize that as he himself has said, picking the GPL to license the kernel was the best thing he ever did. That's why people contribute to it. That's why people use it. If Linus wants to promote the interests of freeloaders and self-interested opportunists, that's certainly his prerogative. But it leads to the question: is Linus really the organizational genius he's made out to be? Or is he simply accidental beneficiary of his own arbitrariness?

Re:Open alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is suggesting anyone should dictate anything to Linus. He's free to do whatever he wants. But Linus's actions have consequences just like everyone else's.

Lookit, Linus's contribution to humanity is enormous. He's an amazing person. But when admiration turns to reverence, and his humanity morphs into immortality, then someone has gone a little coocoo. No one is perfect, and even great people like Linus can be better than they are.

If Linus thinks his only contribution to society is his code and sheparding of the kernel development process he is mistaken. He is a role model. Not only for his coding style, but for his position on ethical issues like code licensing. His decision to eschew public discourse on these matters, his agnosticism, foments more of the same from those who look up to him. Somewould might say that is a good thing. Others would not. With very little effort on his part, he could significantly better the world - even more than he already has.

Re:Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt his statement to lkml is legally binding in any way.

Wouldn't it be a perfect example of promissory estoppel".

Why do you think the headers carry any more legal standing than lkml?

I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares

[melted]

I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares to the state of the art, Perforce. Perforce charges $700 per seat, and after working with it for years, I can say it's worth it. Everything is just the way it should be. I wish someone would reimplement the damn thing under GPL license. After using Perforce at work, all other systems look like a joke.

Re:I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares

[Daniel Phillips]

For example, within RedHat, they can have one (or many) child branches from Linus's branch (or any other developer's branches); and "reparent" the branches as needed to merge in the various pieces they need. Other employes' repositories may point to one inside RedHat; or they may point to Linus's; and of course they can "reparent" their repository to switch between the two as needed.

How would you know, Mr. Anonymous Coward? The fact is, very few employees at Red Hat use Bitkeeper at all. I should know, I work there. Of the handful that do use BitKeeper, most are maintainers for whom BitKeeper is the route of least resistance. They would all probably switch if Linus switched. The vast majority of Red Hat developers do not use BitKeeper and would violently object to using BitKeeper on any project. This is because of the silly license, and because of a rather natural distrust of closed source tools in the open source toolchain, which BitMover has done their level best to confirm.

By the way, it's Red Hat, not RedHat.

Any SCCS based replacements with repositories?

[Anonymous Coward]

When all is said and done, dispite the licencing issues with BitKeeper, it is still a very good product. I have yet to hear of any decent opensource revision control products that are SCCS based with a concept of change-sets to a repository. Such a product would be very useful to those held hostage by the BitKeeper licencing, but need an opensource alternative with similar features to migrate to.

The other opensource revision control products mentioned above do not appear to be SCCS based with a concept of change-sets to a repository, and hence would not very useful to current bitkeeper users. If I am mistaken, then I would love to be proven wrong.

Re:Bitkeeper website

[greppling]

This has been quoted so many times, I still think it is a silly exaggeration. A couple of things changed when Linus switched to BK:

1. He wrote scripts so that he didn't have to jump between applying patches and reading e-mail, instead he is now reading a batch of patches, queuing them, and then starts a script to apply them.
2. Developers have instant access to Linus' tree. Any source control system would have provided this.
3. The comments to the patches in the e-mails sent to Linus now actually make it to the public. Just about any GNU project does this via ChangeLog under any revision control system.
4. A script was written to automatically extract release notes from the changelog comments.
5. Merging with subsystems maintainer is easier if they pile up the patches in bitkeeper repositories.

Maybe all of the above together yielded a factor of two. But only with respect to 5. is BK at all relevant. And even there -- by a HUGE amount the largest merge point is Andrew Morton, who uses quilt instead of BK to manage his tree with some hundred patches per week throughput to Linus. And I haven't read any complaints from Linus that he isn't using BK.

Re:NWL

[squiggleslash]

(I posted this earlier but can't see it. Slashdot eating posts? Mod on crack?)

You're modded as funny, but it really isn't GPL compatable and arguably isn't Open Source or Free Software either. It's incompatable with clause 6 of the GPL:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

(My emphasis.)

I think the "no whining" thing is dumb comment to put in a license and shows a pointlessly contentious attitude by the Bitkeeper people, something they've shown ever since the question of "Why is a major Free Software project being developed using and depending on unfree software?" issue was raised. They'd have been better off saying "This is our business model. We appreciate it will not be considered appropriate for Free Software, and suggest Free Software developers look elsewhere", and leaving it at that. The criticisms, for the most part, were of Linus and his decision to use Bitkeeper until the Bitkeeper people wieghed in.

Not that it was necessarily bad for Open Source and Free Software that they did. There's nothing more helpful to your cause for the proponents of what you oppose to act like an ass.