Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
So.. this doesn't run under WINE then.
Don't be a stupid. At least read the mailing list posting:
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).
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
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
I wonder if someone could extend said license to other things in life such as Family, Jobs and Girlfriends..
mnewberg.com
There are so much real open alternatives like subversion, arch and (my personal favourite) darcs - just to name a few. Why bother with bitkeeper?
Need a Wiki? Check out DokuWiki
Don't worry about the license, it's a joke. BSD license OK with everyone?
"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*
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
They should have used the Open Profanity License instead!
- shadowmatter
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
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
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.
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)