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

No Whiners License...

[ABeowulfCluster]

So.. this doesn't run under WINE then.

Re:Strange

[sampowers]

Don't be a stupid. At least read the mailing list posting:

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

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

[Per Abrahamsen]

The original implementation of GNU Arch was done in bourne shell. Pyhton is a big step up from that.

In any case, I think it is a fine combination when the core functionality of a program is written in a statically typed language, and UI binding it together is written in a dynamically typed language.

Re:Bazaar-NG

[shish]

How do I use bazaar, arch or subversion to check out the kernel's bitkeeper repositories?

The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel; you can use the open source client instead.

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.

Indeed...

[Svartalf]

Larry's entitled to license things under any license he wants to. It's HIS product. However, having said this, it's still quite understandable for people to not want Linux development being tied to a closed-source product with nasty gotchas in it's free license. That's not whining in the least.

The only thing resembling "whining" seems to be coming from Larry himself with this silly license. All it's going to do is make the acrimony WORSE, not better. Kind of childish, in my not so humble opinion.

Re:Indeed...

[Anonymous Coward]

However, having said this, it's still quite understandable for people to not want Linux development being tied to a closed-source product with nasty gotchas in it's free license. That's not whining in the least.

The problem is that people who whined about BK being propietary should have shut their mouth up, but they didn't. When Linus switched to BK, he made clear that he would NOT force to anyone to use BK, and that's how it has been: Linux kernel.org releases are released in GNU diff format, so everybody can code and contribute. The one reason why all^Wmost of the kernel developers use BK is because they aren't stupid, BK is a great tool and can save hours of work, and it lets them to work easier between those who use BK. When someone wants to get a patch to get merged they also made the GNU diff format patch available, and even if they didn't, bkbits.net provides you a link to get a GNU diff patch for every changeset out there. Those who claim that "anyone who wants to closely track patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program" to develop the kernel are just wrong because you have access to the latest kernel changes without installing a non-free tool. -mm and -ac tree are maintained using open tools, so I don't see where is BK being "required".

The one reason why people whine is because they want to have the advantages of BK, but without using a propietary tool. That's not possible, there's not a OSS tool comparable to BK, subversion arch and friends are not even close. Everybody agrees that having such tool would be great (Linus even tried to convince Larry to release BK under a open license) but there's not one.

IMHO is just like when RMS had to use propietary tools to start developing GNU - Linux developers just use BK because using a OSS SCM would mean the linux kernel development would slow down a lot, and that's not good (and again, if you are going to propose to use subversion, arch, etc, it probably means that you do not understand the frenetic kernel development needs and the power of BK)

Re:Strange

[tupshin]

Actually he said in the email that the whining license was a joke and he's actually licensing it as BSD (and later said it could even be considered public domain), though until the source code is re-released with proper license headers, I doubt his statement to lkml is legally binding in any way.

-Tupshin

NWL (No Whining License)

[MatthewNewberg]

I wonder if someone could extend said license to other things in life such as Family, Jobs and Girlfriends..

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

[Chris_Mir]

Whoa cool. You should talk to Linus! I'll bet he didn't look into those yet!

Re:Open alternatives

[koko775]

Because BitMover will itself be a "real open alternative". Why bother with subversion, arch, and (your personal favorite) darcs? Surely it's because you have the power of choice, and the freedom of source?

Re:Open alternatives

[winchester]

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

Gosh, get a clue, will you! Or read the lkml archives. Linus chose bitkeeper precisely because all the alternatives you mention don't cut it.

This is exactlythe attitude that keeps holding open source back. It's not about whether the source is open or not, it is about choosing the right tool for the right job. More people should understand this...

Re:Open alternatives

[AuMatar]

No, your attitude is the one with the problem. No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own. If you don't have the skills/time to do so, encourage others who do to take it up. Just criticizing without doing anything about it helps noone.

Re:Open alternatives

[evvk]

It is only a client restricted in features.

Re:Open alternatives

[slavemowgli]

Linus made that choice two years ago, though, and both Arch and Subversion have probably improved since then (I can't talk about darcs, since I don't know that really).

That being said, it's not just about closed source, although that certainly is a factor, too (did you ever think about where those GNU tools you're (probably) using on a daily basis came from, and why they were created?); the problem with BK is not so much that it's closed-source, but that its "free" (as in beer) license does not permit you to work on any projects that could be seen as competing. That's a serious restriction of your own freedom, and it sure does overstep some ethical boundaries at least because it not only tells you what you can and cannot do with the software in question (BK), but also what you can and cannot do in the rest of your life. There is at least one kernel developer I can remember right now (Andrea Arcangeli) who got bitten by this - he already worked on Arch (I think - it may have been another system, too, though) in the past, so he simply could not use BK at all, and until now, he could not even directly access Linus' BK tree, instead having to rely on things like the bk2cvs gateway etc.

And what's also bad about the whole thing is that this is not the deal that was initially promised: initially, it was (basically) "you (the kernel developers) get to use our commercial product (BK) for free, and we get the opportunity to use the fact that you use it to advertise BK and show how it's able to efficiently handle even large projects". I can definitely understand why Andrea (and others) were upset, and while Linus had to take many things into account (and while it certainly is clear that BK did provide a substantial improvement over CVS), I think the criticism of BK is all but unjustified (and Larry's arrogant and condescending attitude which he showed in many, many lkml posts didn't exactly help, either).

Re:Strange

[M1FCJ]

Thinking of his track record, I wouldn't bet on his software. First you couldn't do anything, then you couldn't even use it if you were messing with other source control systems, now he is saying it is free for anything. If someone reverse engineers a GPL/BSDL BitKeeper server clone using the client will he tolerate it or will he try to crush it? That's the crux of it.

FTFA...

[FireballX301]

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

Re:Strange

[Gordonjcp]

Or was I not supposed to follow any of the links?

You ain't from round here, are ya, boy?

Bitkeeper website

[kihjin]

"BitKeeper has made me more than twice as productive, and its fundamentally distributed nature allows me to work the way I prefer to work - with many different groups working independently, yet allowing for easy merging between them."
-- Linus Torvalds, February 2004

Linus did it. I can too! *jumps on the bandwagon*

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.

No whining? Weak!

[shadowmatter]

They should have used the Open Profanity License instead!

- shadowmatter

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It compares much better than perforce.

With Bitkeeper it's very easy for every organization - and even every developer - to have his own "fork" of the tree which acts as a "master repository" for others to create branches off of.

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.

Similarly, any company or group of developers can have similar structures.

Also; it's important to note that not everyone needs access to a "master repository"; and that indeed no-one needs access to a "master repository" except when they're merging with that master.

Bitkeeper works perfectly on my laptop in disconnected mode - and I have the full power of the source control system on my laptop even with no net access - I can create branches, merge branches, etc. If I'm traveling with someone else from the company I can merge my branches with his merely with a cable between the laptops - no connection to the home office is needed.

We used perforce at a previous company I was at with offices in China, Taiwan,Romania, and California and it was a horrible experience. Connecting to oversees repositories was painful; and merging changes between the oversees repositories sucked even worse.

Try BitKeeper. I'm sure you'll switch.

Re:Perforce Licensing

[hashinclude]

Yeah, I love perforce too. The good thing is (if you RTF Licensing terms from the website) is that GPL/BSD and other open source projects can get a P4 license for free.

Blockquoth the site:

Organizations developing software that is licensed or otherwise distributed exclusively under an Open Source license may be eligible to obtain Perforce licenses gratis. This includes upgrades but not support. Perforce Software reserves the right to approve the Open Source license; those fitting The Open Source Definition, including the GNU and FreeBSD licenses, are good candidates. Execution of a End User License Agreement for Open Source Software Development (PDF) is required. For more information, please see the Perforce and Open Source FAQ or contact opensource [at] perforce [dot] com

Which is nice...

[Kjella]

No, your attitude is the one with the problem. No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own.

...if you're trying to do the community a service. If you're looking to put food on the table doing something completely unrelated (where this is simply a support function), it is mindnumbingly stupid. Most likely you're long out of business by the time it is working.

Sure, if all you need is some minor customization, maybe. But if it clearly isn't anywhere near being up to the task, pick something non-OSS. Earn some money, help out the projects where it is feasible to replace proprietary with OSS.

That is the way OSS projects prospers. I make a 98% solution a 100% one. That makes it a 98% solution for someone else, who'll make it a 100% solution for them. And the snowball is rolling. Not by one company breaking its back trying to bring it from 40% to 100%.

Kjella

Presentation about BitKeeper

[irabinovitch]

Larry McVoy, BitMover Founder, gave a great talk about BitKeeper and the delta development model at SCALE 3x (Southern California Linux Expo) last month. Its available online here. -Ilan

Re:bitkeeper is not on my radar

[dave420]

But you keep your beer in your own fridge, which you don't have the schematics for, so your analogy is somewhat lacking ;)

I admire your ideology-before-productivity attitude, though... inspiring.

Re:Rule of Thumb

[base3]

The conversation, simplified, is something like this:

Customer: How much is it?

Salesman: How much do you have?