Slashdot Mirror


BitKeeper Love Triangle: McVoy, Linus and Tridge

erktrek writes "NewsForge has given a brief interview to the parties involved in the (inevitable?) BitKeeper debacle." Here is some of our previous coverage.

21 of 850 comments (clear)

  1. Quick Summary by WD_40 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Linux leader Linus Torvalds has begun looking for a new electronic home for his project's source code after a conflict involving the current management system, BitKeeper"

    Linky

    --

    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

  2. Re:You git! by ray-auch · · Score: 4, Informative
    Based on one one his posts (see here) it might just as likely be aimed at Tridge (if it is aimed at anyone).

    Quote Linus:

    When we were trying to figure out how to avert the BK disaster, and one of
    Tridges concerns (and, in my opinion, the only really valid one) was that
    you couldn't get the BK data in some SCM-independent way.
    So I wrote some very preliminary scripts [...snip...] Larry was ok with the idea to make my export format actually be natively
    supported by BK (ie the same way you have "bk export -tpatch"), but Tridge
    wanted to instead get at the native data and be difficult about it. As a
    result, I can now not only use BK any more, but we also don't have a nice
    export format from BK.
    Yeah, I'm a bit bitter about it.


    Seems clear who he is a bit bitter at.
  3. Re:Nice to annonuce dumping Bitkeeper, but.. by endx7 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They didn't drop BitKeeper. BitMover dropped the free version BitKeeper and refused to license the paid version to any employees of OSDL.

    Being Linus works for OSDL, that pretty much means BitKeeper has to go or Linux has to leave OSDL. It is the same case for Andrew Morton. I think Linux prefers to drop Bitkeeper.

  4. Re:Freedom Matters by Liselle · · Score: 5, Informative

    So nice of you to copy this comment from an earlier story, verbatim, without crediting the original author.

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  5. BitKeeper sees two problems by dstone · · Score: 4, Informative
    Any chance we could get a 1-2 line summary of what the "debacle" is exactly?

    Larry McVoy sees two problems with Andrew Tridgell's reverse-engineered, free tool. One is "condoning reverse engineering". The other is, in his words:
    Corruption. BK is a complicated system, there are >10,000 replicas of the BK database holding Linux floating around. If a problem starts moving through those there is no way to fix them all by hand. This happened once before, a user tweaked the ChangeSet file, and it costs $35,000 plus a custom release to fix it.

    If Tridge's tool is out there we are now supporting our code and his code. We couldn't do that.

    1. Re:BitKeeper sees two problems by Chris_Jefferson · · Score: 3, Informative

      One extra piece of information which seems missing from the article (and might change / expand some people's viewpoint).

      Andrew Tridgell is the author or rsync, and one of the founders and major developers of samba (you know, that program that lets you connect to windows file sharing), and I don't really see how this is different from samba (and surely no-one wants rid of that?)

      --
      Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
    2. Re:BitKeeper sees two problems by arivanov · · Score: 3, Informative

      Complete and utter bollocks.

      This has happened before. See for the discussions about LMcV and lmbench in the 90-es. In fact, the moment I saw that Linus has AGAIN selected a Larry McVoy tool my first thoughts were "Oh no, not another lmbench". I bet I was not the only one.

      Considering that he is also known to be litigation happy I am not going to qualify his behaviour that time and this time. Just read the LKM on both occasions as well as some of his musings. They are selfexplanatory.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  6. Re:My opinion hasn't changed by dark_panda · · Score: 4, Informative

    KDE never used BK. That was an April Fool's joke. Apparently they are switching from CVS to Subversion, though.

    J

  7. Re:What? by Sanity · · Score: 4, Informative
    No, but if you _host_ a site on Microsoft IIS, you must agree to the license...
    Yeah, and if you RTFA you will notice that Tridge didn't use BitKeeper:
    I did not use BitKeeper at all in writing this tool and thus was never subject to the BitKeeper license. I developed the tool in a completely ethical and legal manner.
  8. Re:What? by nadamsieee · · Score: 4, Informative

    Exactly. And Tridge was NOT hosting a BK site. What he did was perfectly ethical. Furthermore, reverse engineering is a vital part of our economy, and McVoy needs to stop making himself look foolish by vilifying it.

  9. Re:Zealotry? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 4, Informative
    Then this 'Tridge' guy comes along

    He hardly "Came along", if I remember right he wrote most of rsync and was the initial author of (and is still a major developer of) Samba. Devising and reverse engineering protocols is what he does.

  10. more history by veg_all · · Score: 4, Informative

    Context is everything. I posted this article (written at the time of Linus' adoption of bitkeeper) from Linux World in the last BK thread. Casts the current events in an interesting (and not McVoy-friendly) light.

    --
    grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
  11. Re:The OSS Religion Clashes With Reality by atari8 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Just like the GPL sets conditions for anyone using software

    No, it doesn't. It sets conditions for anyone who copies, distributes or creates derivative works of software. You can completely repudiate the GPL and continue to use GPL-licensed software (except for copying, distributing, and deriving).

    You're thinking of an End User License Agreement (EULA). EULAs take away users' rights. The GPL is not an EULA. The GPL gives you rights you would not have had without a license.

  12. How Samba was written by Andrew Tridgell by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Informative

    (prostituting anonymously)
    Go, AT!

    How Samba was written
    ---------------------
    Andrew Tridgell
    August 2003
    Method 1:
    ---------
    First off, there are a number of publicly available documents on the
    CIFS/SMB protocol. The documents are incomplete and in places rather
    inaccurate, but they are a very useful starting point. Perhaps the
    most useful document is "draft-leach-cifs-v1-spec-02.txt" from 1997
    which is a protocol specification released by SNIA and authored
    primarily by Microsoft (with significant input from many other people,
    including myself). This document has expired as an IETF draft, and
    Microsoft has dropped their attempts to get CIFS accepted as an IETF
    standard, but the document is still available if you look hard enough
    with an internet search engine.
    There are numerous other public specifications for various pieces of
    the protocol available. I maintain a collection of the ones I know
    about in http://samba.org/ftp/samba/specs/
    Method 2:
    ---------
    I call this method the "French Cafe technique". Imagine you wanted to
    learn French, and there were no books, courses etc available to teach
    you. You might decide to learn by flying to France and sitting in a
    French Cafe and just listening to the conversations around you. You
    take copious notes on what the customers say to the waiter and what
    food arrives. That way you eventually learn the words for "bread",
    "coffee" etc.
    We use the same technique to learn about protocol additions that
    Microsoft makes. We use a network sniffer to listen in on
    conversations between Microsoft clients and servers and over time we
    learn the "words" for "file size", "datestamp" as we observe what is
    sent for each query.
    Now one problem with the "French Cafe" technique is that you can only
    learn words that the customers use. What if you want to learn other
    words? Say for example you want to learn to swear in French? You would
    try ordering something at the cafe, then stepping on the waiters toe
    or poking him in the eye when he gives you your order. As you are
    being kicked out you take copious notes on the words he uses.
    The equivalent of "swear words" in a network protocol are "error
    packets". When implementing Samba we need to know how to respond to
    error conditions. To work this out we write a program that
    deliberately accesses a file that doesn't exist, or uses a buffer that
    is too small or accesses a file we don't own. Then we watch what error
    code is returned for each condition, and take notes.
    Method 3:
    --------
    Method 3 is a greatly expanded variant of the "swear words" technique
    I have already mentioned. It involves writing something called a
    "protocol scanner". A protocol scanner is a program that tries all
    possible "words" in some section of a protocol and uses the response
    to automatically deduce new information about the protocol. It is like
    the French Cafe technique but with a very patient waiter.
    For example, some section of the protocol might contain a 16 bit
    "command word" that tells the server what operation to perform. There
    are 64 thousand possible command words, so we try all of them and note
    which ones give an error code other than "not implemented". Then we
    need to work out how much supplementary data each command word needs,
    so the program tries 1 byte of blank data, then 2 bytes then 3 bytes
    etc until the server changes its response in some way. When the
    response changes then you know (with a fairly high level of confidence
    at least) that you are using the right quantity of data. You then try
    using non-blank data, putting in a filename or a directory name or a
    username until the server changes its response again. After a large
    number of tries the program eventually finds a combination of data
    that gives no error code at all - the server

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  13. Re:What replacement systems are being considered ? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Does anyone know the 'short list' of SCM tools being considered ?

    Linus specifically mentioned Monotone, and he's working on his own tool called git. There have been positive rumblings about Bazaar-NG.

    What features are needed/why BK is so great is a long topic, but being fully decentralized and being able to run over email are some of the major features.

    Shouldn't a really good SCM server system have a standardized, controlled interface that can allow simple, third-party clients, anyway ?

    In fully distributed SCM, there may be no server, so all the work has to be done in the client. For exmaple, merging is one of the trickier parts of SCM, and it has to be done on the client side.

  14. Re:My opinion hasn't changed by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was using Microsoft networking back in the late eighties, on a network of something called a Research Machines Nimbus, at school. Oddly enough, we ran Windows 1.0 over it, with hilarious results (ie it was slow and crashed a lot.)

    Anyway, the point is Microsoft's SMB protocols pre-date Windows. Windows interoperated with them without any problems, they were just DOS drives, after all.

    You young'uns! You don't know how hard it was then! We used to have to wire coax to the back of PCs to get out Ethernet networks, kid!

    </TONE>

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  15. Re:Confused by Quixote · · Score: 3, Informative
    Did I get that right?

    No.

  16. Re:What? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are wrong. tridge does not use bk as part of his OSDL work (which is entirely on Samba4).

    Jeremy Allison,
    Samba Team.

  17. Re:My opinion hasn't changed by chgros · · Score: 3, Informative

    If McVoy thinks that reverse-engineering is so "dishonest", then why did he offer to give free tools to a worldwide project whose primary focus is to reverse-engineering an entire OS?
    What project? What OS?
    AFAIK Linux is a "forward" engineering project (the device drivers might be different in some (most?) cases)

  18. Re:I think Tridge is lying by fcgreg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, since you see fit to call Tridge a liar, I'll point you to some information on just how he can ethically accomplish such tasks. Let's start with an informative post from this very thread (right near the top):

    Slashdot reference

    All of your questions are answered, such as "How did he test it?" and "How does he know it's interoperable?". You may also decide to browse the SAMBA site, or at least Google the Web a little bit before you hurl baseless insults like a fool.

    Then, after actually getting yourself a modicum of information, maybe you can post back here with an apology before you get modded "Flaimbait" or "Troll".

    --
    Greg T.
  19. Re:My opinion hasn't changed by bluGill · · Score: 3, Informative

    The joke started about a week before April 1 when the admins were comfortable doing the switch to subversion and just needed a date and 12 hours to do it. The first proposal when they announced this to kde-devel was do to the conversion on March 31, so that everyone would wake up to an announcement that KDE has switched to subversion, and then have to figure out if it was a joke or not.

    The switch didn't happen then, but it is close if it hasn't happened already.