And yet for some reason, an anonymous coward trying to suggest a history of being balanced in opinion really doesn't mean jack to me.
Torvalds does the Open Source movement a great disservice by downplaying the importance of freedom.
Or perhaps, Torvalds is fight for the freedom of developers to be able to CHOOSE how they conduct their business, and not be beholden to an ideological mantra. GPL zealots do themselves a great disservice by misrepresenting people to showcase their ideological agenda.
McVoy revoked Linus' license for something that Tridge did. That's like the cops arresting you because your neighbor stole money from a bank.
No, that's more like taking back the tractor you lent to a friend because his neighbor is taking apart the engine at night in order to learn how it works.
Never trust the client. The client is in the hands of the enemy.
A telling statement of the rationality of a GPL zealot.
Well, bitkeeper did a bait and switch with the Linux kernel and that is NOT funny!
Liar. Bitkeeper changed its policy because they decided their free (as in beer) agreement with Linus was untenable with Tridge circumventing the agreement by trying to reverse-engineering the BK client.
Bitkeeper should have known this and not made the offer in the first place, and Linus should not have accepted the offer!
Because we all know that anyone who operates a business using a proprietary license is EVIL, and that oppression by GPL zealots is GOOD!
buttkeeper was basically designed for Linus - of course he likes it
Buttkeeper was designed to allow revision mergings between different developers (collaboratively) while keeping proper tracking of what merged with what, and what merge took precidence. That ends up in efficiency for Linus and likeminded developers. Why should Linus prefer an inferior or, in this case, non-existent tool?
It's a custom solution designed for the way he prefers to work.
And why shouldn't a developer chose which tool he prefers to use? Ah, because to use a tool that isn't GPL is the moral equivalent of oppression. Is that why the GPL zealots' feel justified to run a smear campaign on Linus because he DARED use a proprietary tool? After all, look at all the work Perens and Tridgell do for the kernel. They're justified to make decisions for developers that manage the project and do the work. They're justified to misrepresent and make half-baked rationalizations.
No one else really cares what revision control system they have to use.
Then why do the GPL ideologues make it such an issue? Why can't people respect the choice that Linus made to use the tool he preferred?
So Linus, stop your whining and grow up.
God forbid Linus should express his side of the story.
Putting GPL meta-data in a proprietary format in the first place was stupid and was doomed to fail.
Who CARES if the GPL meta-data is STORED a proprietary format? The source code can get dumped out by the client. The changeset information can get dump out by the client. What is being denied to the GPL zealot?
Worse yet - he made this decision unilaterally without consulting all the GPL Linux code contributers.
How DARE he decide what SCM he preferred to use! How dare he suggest the other developers can go use something else!
I'm glad Tridge forced the free software community to wake up and eat its own dogfood.
I'm glad to see you're admitting it was Tridge's actions that precipitated the event.
I was under the impression that largish computing establishments don't run XP, they run Win 2K or 2003. (I can understand having this problem with laptops.)
I'm surprised so many establishments find updating their enterprise with SP2 so difficult. (Most SP2 problems I've seen come from updating PCs in use, not clean reinstalls.) I presume most of them would follow good practices like not allowing the user to install software on their machine, and separate the user space from the executable space. This allows you to "clone" machines. Do validation testing for all applications on a small group, and then one weekend wiping all the drives with the new OS mirror copy. At very least, segregate your servers from the users' PCs. Then at least you can update your servers and reduce your security vulnerability. Disclaimer: I am not an Windows Administrator.
Damned Microsoft somehow changed my Automatic Update settings. I prefer to be notified and have nothing done. I then wait a week, google for complaints about the patches, before letting the buggers in.
Last night, the damned update tool put them in automatically. I had to go back in and revert my settings. Pretty futile, considering Microsoft will screw me over again at some point. Thank god I only keep XP for games (and taxes)...
People suggest that it would be a resource point to get fuel (h2o), and yes, from a gravity point of view it could be cheaper in a construction/energy point of view.
But its a ploy. Its really about the militarization of space. Its about knocking down observation satellites, or potential anti-ballistic missle platforms. When the Soviets and US were competing in space during the 50's & 60's, tons of money were thrown on manned space programs. (And the US was so wealthy at that point. So what if they spent money on sending spam in a can to the moon & back.)
But the USSR gave up the competition. We shown we could send human there & back alive. Nothing new to be learned there. Skylab was probably the last manned scientific endeavor. The space shuttle program was really in place to lift military satellites a regular rocket at the time couldn't do, and permit some limited ability to have a space presence if needed. The space program was dying.
The ISS is not really a return to a manned space program. Its a tiny kludge in space that can only hold a couple of astronauts who have to spend most of their time keeping the station functioning and themselves alive. The space research is negligible.
In come the Chinese, in the late 90's announcing and conducting a program to send a man into space. Why the heck would the Chinese spend billions to pull a space stunt the US did 30 years ago? Hint: Its not about reclimbing Everest.
In 2000, the neocons come into power. Now they want to have a "space program". After all, why keep funding NASA? The ISS doesn't do anything for us. And the shuttle is due to retire from its mission of accomplishing nothing useful.
With a moonbase, you have a permanent presence in space. You can coordinate any form of military activity, rather than from earth, where it can be disrupted with an EMP. And its easier to conceal the activity. And even if its not offensive, its still a better vantage point to conduct defensive operations.
And then picture the possibilities, hurling large, kinetic masses at your enemies.
Or perhaps its just bull excrement to get some free positive press. I just don't understand why they don't just shut down NASA's manned programs. We're never going to have the money to throw at an improved shuttle program. We couldn't even fund the ISS we originally wanted. Nope, its about using NASA as a cover for the military. And the military has its eye on the Chinese.
I was not criticizing the Register. I still have strong disagreement about the content, but it obviously is parody.
I was criticizing Slashdot, for so egregiously misrepresenting Torvalds as having said those things. (and not corrected until 04/13 17:24 GMT, despite warnings from subscribers before release of the story to the slashdot public.)
I proceeded to flame Perens, because he seems to think its okay to proceed before the correction to present an argument against Torvald's position on F/OSS, and continue to misrepresent Torvalds in the process. But for Perens, its not about being accurate about what Torvalds said, its about what allows Peren's editorial appear most reasonable.
Why should businesses adopt Linux if it can't competently act upon meeting its production timetable?
...Linux has a production timetable? From what I've read of his posts on the subject, Linus might disagree...
No, Linus has stated he has no delivery timetable. That's because he does not want to be beholden to a committed timetable. But he's always known he has to push out a new kernel as early as he could get away with doing so. The computing industry appreciates that fact. If they didn't believe it to be the case, they couldn't trust basing their products upon Linux. A serious delay in the Linux kernel would threaten delay of THEIR product release. The private sector takes that issue seriously.
It took one and a half years from start to release of the 2.6 kernel. Linus and other developers have stated BK enabled that accelerated development. The last kernel (2.4) had major flamewars over pushing out its release; "its taking too long".
If the next kernel takes over three years to release, then the linux movement is dead. You will always have enthusiasts, like OS2 or Trek, but everyone else will leave it for dead. Commercial interests will not be able to trust it will develop quickly enough to exploit industry advancements. Microsoft can afford that length of delay because they are the defacto monopoly; linux is not. Tridgell has now decided for everyone that F/OSS ideology takes precidence over development rate. But wishful thinking will create a DSCM, and wishful thinking will ensure it doesn't take longer than the last cycle.
If you can't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. Learn from HURD. Learn from Debian; they are hemorraging their userbase because they will not update quickly enough to satisfy its users, and are leaderless in its direction.
Uh, what? That's a stick (negative reinforcement), by definition. The carrot (positive reinforcement) would be the benefits of using BitKeeper.
No, BK is the carrot. Negative reinforcement is punishment without offering anything in return. That is precisely what Tridgell did.
IMO, the kernel development organization is informal enough that Linus didn't have the authority to make that kind of agreement on behalf of everyone. There's no clear boundary between kernel developers and non-kernel developers -- what minimum level of kernel involvement would cause someone to be bound by the agreement?
There never was any LEGAL binding to the agreement. The only expectation was that participants in in kernel development abide to the SPIRIT of the agreement, which was NOT TO REVERSE ENGINEER the product.
Nothing stops you from burning the American flag. The courts (so far) will protect your right to burn the flag. But you're a real megalomaniacally self-centered idiot to expect people to not think of you as a piece of garbage for expressing yourself in that manner.
What you're seeing is a (limited) rebellion against Linus because he has hit the limit of the authority conferred on him by the community. John Locke would have been proud.
No, what I am seeing is a bunch of southerners cheering on John Wilkes Booth for assassinating their tyrant.
Linus certainly did not have the authority to compel the community to abide by agreements he negotiated. But Tridgell did not have the community's authority to act on its behalf. Individuals might have supported him, but if Tridgell truly had the support of the developers, then he could merely had the community refuse to use the tool. He couldn't do that. So he unilaterally decided to poison Torvald and McVoy's agreement. Would Locke be proud of the Bolsheviks?
I'm not saying Trigdell was unethical because he committed an act of reverse-engineering.
Ok. I think that's finally sunk in now.
If you're referring that remark towards me, I say I've ALWAYS taken that position.
I guess part of what has me and others upset is that Larry _is_ apparently arguing that (articulating it in the form of a "no-coat-tails" moral principle)... and that Linus appears to be buying into the argument.
Linus (and I) buy that argument because we respect the concept of intellectual property. You and people who take your position DO NOT. If Larry is giving a license to use HIS product and provide support for it, he also has the right to retract that offer. He may be an obnoxious asshole, he may be deluded in his worldview, he might be the sneakiest, greediest, most vile person on earth. But BK is HIS property. He is ENTITLED to place conditions upon usage of HIS product. It may have not been realistic to expect all developers to abide to the agreement. But McVoy cannot be labelled a bad guy for retracting use of HIS product. Is the U.S. the bad guy for retracting their donation of food to North Korea?
I was too upset earlier and having a hard time separating your argument in my mind.
Please at least realize that my issue is not whether Tridgell had the "right" to reverse-engineer, its whether Tridgell has the "right" to compel policy upon a community because he can unilaterally act to create the result, against the wishes of the community's defacto leader. My answer is that if he acts on behalf of the community, the community can decide not to use the product. When he takes independent action to compel a result upon the community, he is being a megalomaniacal asshole.
note: the following is based on an incomplete understanding of what transpired; if you can correct me with a reference please do so
Thinking more about this... could a similar scenario occur if Linus were using e.g. a GPLed SCM instead?
What a FATUOUS argument! WHERE IS THIS GPL SCM that supports the kind of features that BitKeeper does?!?!? If it existed, this whole issue would be MOOT! There would be NO consequence to changing over. The fact that a single ideologue could subvert a project manager's decisions would merely be an academic argument.
The problem is that it isn't a mere academic exercise. There is no ADEQUATE F/OSS replacement to BK! Abandoning BK will mean development cannot be done in the manner it was previously conducted! Consequence: rate of development slows down. Programmers/maintainers get turned off from spending a chunk of their time negotiating changes between trees and handling source control tasks automated by BK. Bugs that cause transaction corruptions will then need to be acted upon. If its a dedicated project group, work slows down until that group fixes the bug. If its a kludge, then Torvalds (or the kludgemeister) stops work to debug and fix it. If BK is used, then McVoy & Co. work on it until its fixed. And since McVoy has a background in SCM, *I* feel a whole lot better with an experienced person working on the problem, rather than ad hoc amateurs who may not have any professional experience designing/maintaining SCMs.
Who the hell is Tridgell to make that decision for Linus? Is he Linus's boss? Does he fund kernel support? Is he an indispensible participant in kernel development? Were anti-BK developers PREVENTED from participation in kernel development?
Who is Linus to impose his tool preference on kernel developers? He's the guy who started this whole ball of wax. He's the guy developers are sending their modifications to his creation. He's the guy who has a track record for making decisions that has gotten the kernel to this point today. I trust *his* track record.
If you don't like the decisions that Linus makes, tough. If you really think they portend disaster, find likeminded developers and fork the kernel. Or go join HURD. But only a self-righteous F/OSS fundamentalist zealot thinks its okay to unilaterally compel a group of people to do things HIS WAY because HE's the exemplar of principle sent by the God RMS. Tridgell did not organize the majority of developers to abandon BK. He unilaterally took a course of action to cause BK to be removed from use for the kernel developers.
That might make you pleased as punch. You want to blame McVoy for being "unreasonable" or "uncharitable" and Linus "stupid", I certainly can't stop you from thinking so. Any more than Linus could stop anyone in the internet from reverse-engineering BK and triggering McVoy's retraction of BK for kernel development. But its not going to stop me from thinking Tridgell was a jerkoff for what he did, or that you're a jerkoff because you think its okay to pull the rug under Linus when it suits your worldview.
I'm speaking like someone who wants linux to be the preferred choice to do computing. I want to help my mother and family use linux PCs, not XP. (Because XP is "easier", runs the programs they want to run, works on all hardware...) That won't happen if Linux doesn't become the widespread choice of platform for business.
I work in the information industry. I don't want to be working on Microsoft platforms 10 years from now because linux consistently stumbled, got a reputation for amateurish behavior and not being able to release quickly enough to satisfy customers, and lose the confidence of the industry.
You, on the other hand, mouth platitudes like an poser loser. "Hackers don't meet deadlines, they don't program for money, its purely for the knowlege and pleasure."
Yeah, I can see why your more comfortable with slowing things down, espousing F/OSS theory, getting rid of those damn capitalists. Accomplishing doesn't mean jack to losers like you. Worse, you think you're entitled to tell producers how they should do their job. (Man, I hate that Ayn Rand...)
Go become a HURD fanboy. They wouldn't be caught dead using BK. They're the ultimate in hacking. There's way more computer science theory in microkernel, multithreaded programming than an outdated monolithic kernel design like Linux. Leave Linux to the soulless masses...
McVoy did not coerce Linus to adopt the use of his product. McVoy did not tell Linus he can only release the kernel if it uses proprietary products. McVoy required that the Linux kernel developers did not actively reverse engineer his product. The consequence of not abiding that agreement was that he would remove the right to use his product and his support for no monetary compensation. That is carrot, not stick.
Tridgell decided Linux must not be developed with proprietary tools, and actively chose to pursue his legal right to reverse engineer BK, against the agreement Linus and Larry made. Tridgell, who is not a kernel maintainer or defacto leader of kernel development, decided to dictate what SCM Linus should chose by taking a legal course of action which would abrograte the agreement Linus made with Larry.
I'm not saying Trigdell committed an illegal act by reverse-engineering the client. I'm not saying Trigdell was unethical because he committed an act of reverse-engineering.
I'm saying Trigdell was unethical (or if that word is not correct, jerklike, or assholish) to take a course of action which prevented the project manager (Linus) to select the tool he wished to be used. Cox and Perens (for example) were vehemently against the adoption of BK, but they did not try to actively subvert the agreement Linus made with McVoy. Tridgell should have respected, not the specific decision Linus wanted to make, but that a project manager needs to be able to choose the course of action his project takes, and that he has other concerns beyond ideology. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.
There are consequences to abandoning the use of BK, namely the lost time and progress. There is no way today we can accurately quantify that loss, but that does not mean you can dismiss the issue. You must adequately determine the proper hedging to manage risk. Tridgell, not supplying an acceptable alternative, apparently did not do this. But he did chose to prevent Linus from taking his preferred course of action.
This has big marketing implications. Why should businesses adopt Linux if it can't competently act upon meeting its production timetable? Translation: can I afford to adopt a platform if it can delay implementation my strategy for 6 months to a year? Can I trust a platform to meet my needs if any yahoo with an agenda can derail its production schedule?
Do you want the kernel to follow a development plan led by Linus, or like implemented like HURD? If its the latter, develop for HURD, don't sabotage how Linus wishes to run the group.
But the maintenance also suffers from union bloat.
Unions are naturally economically "inefficient" organizations. Their priority is to their members' salaries, interests, and their organization. Like wise, democracy is a pathetically inefficient organization, who's leaders are chosen by intellectually mediocre majority of its voters. Shall we now discard the Constitution for an intellectual or financial meritocracy?
Furthermore, as someone who has worked in the public sector, I look at unions and organizational bureacracy as a necessary evil, because the alternative is management by the whims of scumbag lawyers, who are the elected legislators and executives.
Have you ever seen a sense of urgency from crews making emergency repairs?
Have you ever worked in those sweltering, stinking tunnels? Are you willing to lose life or limb in order to rush repairs?
That overtime work that makes them so beat while doing their hard physical labor in disgusting conditions is greedily demanded by unions in negotiations. They might well be "understaffed", if you don't count the extra guys who hang around on the job, like any other NYC union gig.
Its simple, you don't need to give out overtime if you have enough qualified technical staff to man required shifts. Again, reality sucks. What alternative are you suggesting?
You'll see the spectrum from cheap Westchester bar cars and Disney-like stations, to Bronx buses out of _The Warriors_
I live in the Belmont section of the Bronx. Bronx buses are no worse than the other boroughs. If you're really not an idiot, stop focusing on utopian pipedreams, and focus on the critical details. (1) If you can't secure money to complete a 2nd Ave subway line, don't try initiating construction. (2) You can't borrow money to keep fares low for a politician's re-election. (3) Straphangers PIRG, assuming they are a competent, legitimate organization, should hire accountants and transit consultants, and ferret out specific areas where money and service can be improved. (4) If you want to force the union to be more efficient, fine. Be willing to fight for improvements, and suffer service outages caused by union tactics. (5) If you can't take the effort to come to an informed opinion, shut up. If you see a specific way to improve a situation, act, don't whine. If not, stop thinking you're entitled to whine to a national website who don't give a crap about NYC issues.
Leave it to an anonymous coward to not do his homework and spout out his positions based on uninformed propaganda peddled by the corporate media and his equally uninformed regional peers.
You don't evaluate excessive funding by the gross revenue or ridership. Its by the net profit, analysis of operational efficiency, and future financial obligations. Controlling the LIRR does not mean they control enough net profit revenue to adequately offset their costs. (The LIRR requires maintenance and operational costs just like the subway.) Whatever subsidy they get from gov't does not match the operational costs OR NEW CONSTRUCTION they "choose" to embark upon.
The big problem with MTA mismanagement was that their "books" were closed until last year. That allowed them to conceal incompetence and graft, and expose their long term strategic planning, or lack thereof. The KEY screwup it to take out loans on operational costs and embark on new construction without funding. This means the loans will be due next year, and interest payments will balloon from that point.
It would be nice if elected politicians had some integrity, actually appointed managers that looked out for the organization and customer interests, and did not interfere with their operation. Instead, the MTA is a big cash cow, which politicians try to use to coerce unsustainably low fares, bad financial management, jobs program and political showcase. The only answer is to fire the political bums for brighter, more conscientious ones.
CVS loses some of the metadata -- and it's the metadata/change histories that you want to export when you switch revision control systems -- not just the raw code.
Whatever. It's not an optimal interface in kernel change management. But its not Larry's job to replicate 100% functionality of alternatives for free (in either sense). There certainly isn't a "lock-in" which prevents linux development from migrating to a different tool.
Even Larry realized that CVS wasn't sufficient, or he wouldn't have offered the direct-from-bk export functionality that Tridge turned down (since it would still require accepting a bk license to use).
That is purporting an intention which hasn't been backed up with evidence (i.e. - Larry gloating in a post that it was part of his evil master plan). You ignore the fact that Larry made an effort to enable anti-proprietary zealots to participate in kernel development without his product. You presume an intent based up an action you consider insufficient. You presume Larry conspired to create this situation. Linus used the tool, had direct dealings with Larry, and never expressed such an impression of Larry. Thus you F/OSS people must think Linus is some naive idiot that shouldn't be making decisions on how Linux participation should be conducted with the kernel he originated. (See the problem with presuming what people think? Am I the only person seeing a problem with dictating development policy without being a kernel maintainer?)
That wouldn't be so onerous if the BK license didn't prohibit working on SCM code for a year after last use.
I take no position concerning whether McVoy is sane or reasonable. My problem are ideologues who think they are preeminently qualified to dictate policy over how developers chose to do their work, or how linux should be released.
What intellectual property under the law would he have failed to protect? Copyrights? Patents? Trademarks? Or are you employing some sweeping extra-legal definition of "intellectual property"?
BK was created and funded by Larry. What ever intellectual property he has is whatever avenue under the law he choses to pursue. BTW, agreements are a form of contract, and that can be binding under law. Larry's the owner, he's entitled to set whatever conditions he choses to set. If you don't like it, lump it. But you, Perens, or Trigdell are not Linux kernel maintainers. You have no business unilaterally acting in a manner to subvert agreements made by Linus and McVoy, or more important, dictate what tools Linus choses to use.
Larry made that impossible by setting impossible conditions.
They are not impossible conditions. They are conditions which require the user to not use his product to reverse-engineer the product.
Just because you have a legal right to reverse-engineer a product doesn't mean you should actively reverse-engineer a product. Reporters have a 1st amendment right to ask a rape victim how did it feel and report it, but it doesn't mean they should do this.
Or are you seriously suggesting that Linus could make a good-faith agreement that was binding on the entire world (including Tridge), without consulting them?
An enforceable one? Certainly not. An agreement in which the participants would abide because they respect the decision making ability of its leader? Apparently I am horribly mistaken to think the linux community was capable of such discretion. Is Linus now required to consult every user on the internet on every operational decision he wished to embark on? Tridgell was incapable of expressing his opinion to Linus, or the community? Its pretty apparent "consultations" weren't prevented here. Are you suggesting that Linus should now
Tridge decided that Torvalds, the chief project manager of linux kernel, should not be able to use software tools if they are proprietary tools, nor make agreements with proprietary vendors. Tridge then proceeded to reverse-engineer the client tool, despite the fact it was against the wishes of Torvalds and McVoy. It would not result in an open alternative to BitKeeper, because you still have to reverse-engineer the server. It would make it impossible for Linus to maintain his arrangement with McVoy.
Hopefully, Tridgell was correct in there was an acceptable alternative to BK. Because if he isn't, development may be slowed to the point that it may be years before we get to see a new kernel release. Hopefully, it won't result in a situation where Microsoft can convince product developers to abandon adoption of linux as an OS platform because it can't change at an adequate rate to satisfy the commercial environment. Most of all, lets thank this one individual for making that kind of decision for all of us, rather than Linus.
Buts its a good thing that the Open Source Program Manager of Google, Inc. can take such a sympathetic position towards Tridgell. It's good Brin, Sergey, Schmidt & Co. don't mind subordinates making their strategic decisions for them. Or shrug if Google was prevented from responding when someone gamed their pagerank system.
I find it appauling that people actually buy it that reverse engineering here is immoral.
Almost no one who is against Tridgell's actions believes reverse engineering is immoral or illegal.
What is immoral is preventing the chief project manager (Torvalds) from choosing his tools because they believe using proprietary tools is unacceptable. Tridgell did this by acting in a manner that would abrograte the agreement Linus and Larry made concerning the product.
There's no problem with Tridgell criticizing the use of BK. The problem was taking Linus' choice away by Tridgell's unwanted course of actions. At least, he could have withheld from reverse-engineering BK until there was an acceptable non-proprietary alternative available for Linus. OR done the principled course of action, and developed that alternative product. Reverse-engineering client software would not have resulted in an alternative to BK (You still need to reverse-engineer the server). The only result would make it impossible for McVoy/Torvalds to continue their agreed arrangement.
Larry was providing an up-to-date CVS server. Non-BitKeeper users could still obtain the code and participate in kernel development.
Larry did that, not Tridge.
Larry was a businessman concerned about protecting his IP, and set conditions upon free use of his product. The owner of such property is entitled to set such policies, even if they are stupid and counterproductive. Linus agreed to abide by those conditions. He felt that rapidity and easier management of kernel development justified it.
What Tridge did was decide that Linus, the chief project manager of the world-wide kernel project, should not be permitted to use proprietary tools in the project. He then proceeded to reverse engineer the BK client. Tridge certainly may have not violated any legal issues. But he knew his action would probably result in Linus being compelled to abandon using the BK tool, or McVoy would have to abandon his position on protecting his intellectual property. (But that's acceptable to communists; they don't believe in property rights.)
Tridgell can claim he didn't chose to abrogate Linus's ability to chose tools or make agreements, or steal McVoy's intellectual property. He can insist he has a RIGHT to reverse engineer BitKeeper. But his action results in a cessation in the use of BitKeeper, makes it impossible for Linus and Larry to operate under their voluntary, agreed arrangement, which was their preference, and now kernel development progress reverts to the rate at pre-BK adoption.
Hope you zealots are happy. If Tridgell and F/OSS zealots are incorrect, and there isn't a tool comparable to BK, it will be a year before Linus will be able to START new kernel development. It will take OVER two years after that point to release a new kernel. And Microsoft will have new ammunition to feed to its Marketing department, provided by those principled people like Tridgell.
How the hell could I possibly have everything important wrong? What's important is to get a solid, working product out, and not have to wait 4 years for an official update! If timeliness, reliability, and performance are not important to you, then adopt an ideologically correct operating system like HURD. THEY stress the IMPORTANT principles!
If Linus can work better with a complicated SCMS, he should have one. It just shouldn't be proprietary, that's stupid because things like this can happen.
Only an incredibly arrogant dumbass would insist on Torvalds to abandon a proprietary DSCM when an adequate non-proprietary DSCM does not exist. Only an incompetent dumbass would insist on moving to a prototype non-proprietary DSCM with questionable support. If a bug is found which corrupts the database of patch changes, who is going to repair the transaction history? HOW are they going to be able to repair the transaction history? How long would development be shut down waiting for amateur team X to track down the bug? Don't give me this crap that the system works for linux. Its a lot easier to find amateur kernel hackers to contribute to something that affects all computer operation, than a DSCM which only a handful of programmers would even have exposure to equivalent tools. Who lives and breathes Source Code Management? This is precisely the problem seen with userfriendly OS and GUI initiatives. They still can't compete with XP or OSX in userstupid ease of use.
Linus has muy egg on face right now IMO, because he defended BK so stridently, and now has to move to something else due to adopting a closed, proprietary platform.
You arrogant, incompetent little shit. Linus picked a tool that was proprietary because it accelerated development and NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTED. Who the fuck are you to pass judgement on Torvalds management decisions? Even strident F/OSS supporters like Cox and Perens has to admit kernel development accelerated with the adoption of BitKeeper and that there was no F/OSS alternative tool at the time of adoption. And note, they aren't as smug, judgemental assholes as you.
As for Microsoft laughing, absolutely not. Linux just got nailed with what everyone has said all along results from proprietary software: vender lock-in. Microsoft is assuredly NOT laughing at this one. It's going to cause too much of a shake-up to have been planned from the beginning, or at least for it to look that way (I personally am inclined to entertain conspiracy theories, though usually only for short periods of time) and thus it will make all proprietary software developers look bad.
WHAT VENDOR LOCK-IN??? How can a DSCM confiscate ownership of source code??? Its merely a TOOL. You can either choose to use a tool that accelerates development, or you can chose to use an alternative. But the F/OSS zealots were too stupid to realize the obvious: THERE IS NO ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. There are only buggy beta-quality alternatives. The closest in functionality is Monotype, and Linus has panned it. The alternatives today are so bad, that Linus is now constructing his own DSCM kludge, which means he is not committing patches or developing kernel code! So Trigdell and zealots like you CHOSE to revert kernel development to a crippled rate. A decision that was not the choice of the chief project manager of the linux kernel. Thanks, assholes. (Next, watch you jerkoffs crack out the pitchforks and demand Linux be renamed GNU/Linux.)
Because the only DSCM tool that satisfactorily enhanced Linux development is now unavailable, we probably won't even see the START of 2.7 for another year. It took a 1.5 years of ACCELERATED development to get to the 2.6 release, Now people like you have condemned the next kernel release to be later than Longhorn. You don't think Microsoft
Its unlikely MTA maintenance is incompetent. I'd like to see how competent you would be maintaining 5,000 servers with high availability requirements. They are underfunded, and possibly understaffed.
What is incompetent is MTA MANAGEMENT. The problem is that the MTA has embarked on new construction, such as the 2nd Ave. line, without any guarantees from the state or federal to secure funding for its completion. Many times they raid the maintenance budget, or choose to fund the operations budget with borrowing (bad move). This is going to result in the crisis in a few years, when interest payments is going to make the operating costs skyrocket. The question is how much culpability do you put on the politicians (like Silber, Guiliani, Pataki) for coercing MTA on construction projects it can't cover, or preventing a fare hike in the late '90's.
You are thinking like an ignorant bean counter, and not a hospital administrator. Is increasing 100 deaths per year worthwhile in order to save money from sanitizing hospital equipment? If so, why bother autoclaving surgical equipment? After all, that costs money too.
As another poster pointed out, you can get neoprene keyboard covers. Add a daily cover change/sanitization for PC keyboards at patient area workstations, I don't believe its an unmanageable cost.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been critical of the Open Source movement
And yet for some reason, an anonymous coward trying to suggest a history of being balanced in opinion really doesn't mean jack to me.
Torvalds does the Open Source movement a great disservice by downplaying the importance of freedom.
Or perhaps, Torvalds is fight for the freedom of developers to be able to CHOOSE how they conduct their business, and not be beholden to an ideological mantra. GPL zealots do themselves a great disservice by misrepresenting people to showcase their ideological agenda.
McVoy revoked Linus' license for something that Tridge did. That's like the cops arresting you because your neighbor stole money from a bank.
No, that's more like taking back the tractor you lent to a friend because his neighbor is taking apart the engine at night in order to learn how it works.
Never trust the client. The client is in the hands of the enemy.
A telling statement of the rationality of a GPL zealot.
Well, bitkeeper did a bait and switch with the Linux kernel and that is NOT funny!
Liar. Bitkeeper changed its policy because they decided their free (as in beer) agreement with Linus was untenable with Tridge circumventing the agreement by trying to reverse-engineering the BK client.
Bitkeeper should have known this and not made the offer in the first place, and Linus should not have accepted the offer!
Because we all know that anyone who operates a business using a proprietary license is EVIL, and that oppression by GPL zealots is GOOD!
buttkeeper was basically designed for Linus - of course he likes it
Buttkeeper was designed to allow revision mergings between different developers (collaboratively) while keeping proper tracking of what merged with what, and what merge took precidence. That ends up in efficiency for Linus and likeminded developers. Why should Linus prefer an inferior or, in this case, non-existent tool?
It's a custom solution designed for the way he prefers to work.
And why shouldn't a developer chose which tool he prefers to use? Ah, because to use a tool that isn't GPL is the moral equivalent of oppression. Is that why the GPL zealots' feel justified to run a smear campaign on Linus because he DARED use a proprietary tool? After all, look at all the work Perens and Tridgell do for the kernel. They're justified to make decisions for developers that manage the project and do the work. They're justified to misrepresent and make half-baked rationalizations.
No one else really cares what revision control system they have to use.
Then why do the GPL ideologues make it such an issue? Why can't people respect the choice that Linus made to use the tool he preferred?
So Linus, stop your whining and grow up.
God forbid Linus should express his side of the story.
Putting GPL meta-data in a proprietary format in the first place was stupid and was doomed to fail.
Who CARES if the GPL meta-data is STORED a proprietary format? The source code can get dumped out by the client. The changeset information can get dump out by the client. What is being denied to the GPL zealot?
Worse yet - he made this decision unilaterally without consulting all the GPL Linux code contributers.
How DARE he decide what SCM he preferred to use! How dare he suggest the other developers can go use something else!
I'm glad Tridge forced the free software community to wake up and eat its own dogfood.
I'm glad to see you're admitting it was Tridge's actions that precipitated the event.
I was under the impression that largish computing establishments don't run XP, they run Win 2K or 2003. (I can understand having this problem with laptops.)
I'm surprised so many establishments find updating their enterprise with SP2 so difficult. (Most SP2 problems I've seen come from updating PCs in use, not clean reinstalls.) I presume most of them would follow good practices like not allowing the user to install software on their machine, and separate the user space from the executable space. This allows you to "clone" machines. Do validation testing for all applications on a small group, and then one weekend wiping all the drives with the new OS mirror copy. At very least, segregate your servers from the users' PCs. Then at least you can update your servers and reduce your security vulnerability. Disclaimer: I am not an Windows Administrator.
Damned Microsoft somehow changed my Automatic Update settings. I prefer to be notified and have nothing done. I then wait a week, google for complaints about the patches, before letting the buggers in.
Last night, the damned update tool put them in automatically. I had to go back in and revert my settings. Pretty futile, considering Microsoft will screw me over again at some point. Thank god I only keep XP for games (and taxes)...
People suggest that it would be a resource point to get fuel (h2o), and yes, from a gravity point of view it could be cheaper in a construction/energy point of view.
But its a ploy. Its really about the militarization of space. Its about knocking down observation satellites, or potential anti-ballistic missle platforms. When the Soviets and US were competing in space during the 50's & 60's, tons of money were thrown on manned space programs. (And the US was so wealthy at that point. So what if they spent money on sending spam in a can to the moon & back.)
But the USSR gave up the competition. We shown we could send human there & back alive. Nothing new to be learned there. Skylab was probably the last manned scientific endeavor. The space shuttle program was really in place to lift military satellites a regular rocket at the time couldn't do, and permit some limited ability to have a space presence if needed. The space program was dying.
The ISS is not really a return to a manned space program. Its a tiny kludge in space that can only hold a couple of astronauts who have to spend most of their time keeping the station functioning and themselves alive. The space research is negligible.
In come the Chinese, in the late 90's announcing and conducting a program to send a man into space. Why the heck would the Chinese spend billions to pull a space stunt the US did 30 years ago? Hint: Its not about reclimbing Everest.
In 2000, the neocons come into power. Now they want to have a "space program". After all, why keep funding NASA? The ISS doesn't do anything for us. And the shuttle is due to retire from its mission of accomplishing nothing useful.
With a moonbase, you have a permanent presence in space. You can coordinate any form of military activity, rather than from earth, where it can be disrupted with an EMP. And its easier to conceal the activity. And even if its not offensive, its still a better vantage point to conduct defensive operations.
And then picture the possibilities, hurling large, kinetic masses at your enemies.
Or perhaps its just bull excrement to get some free positive press. I just don't understand why they don't just shut down NASA's manned programs. We're never going to have the money to throw at an improved shuttle program. We couldn't even fund the ISS we originally wanted. Nope, its about using NASA as a cover for the military. And the military has its eye on the Chinese.
Are you suggesting the analogy is for Torvalds & McVoy, or Torvalds and the F/OSS community?
I was criticizing Slashdot, for so egregiously misrepresenting Torvalds as having said those things. (and not corrected until 04/13 17:24 GMT, despite warnings from subscribers before release of the story to the slashdot public.)
I proceeded to flame Perens, because he seems to think its okay to proceed before the correction to present an argument against Torvald's position on F/OSS, and continue to misrepresent Torvalds in the process. But for Perens, its not about being accurate about what Torvalds said, its about what allows Peren's editorial appear most reasonable.
So now it becomes moral and reasonable to blatantly LIE about what Linus has said? Is this what you call "responsible" journalism?
No, Linus has stated he has no delivery timetable. That's because he does not want to be beholden to a committed timetable. But he's always known he has to push out a new kernel as early as he could get away with doing so. The computing industry appreciates that fact. If they didn't believe it to be the case, they couldn't trust basing their products upon Linux. A serious delay in the Linux kernel would threaten delay of THEIR product release. The private sector takes that issue seriously.
It took one and a half years from start to release of the 2.6 kernel. Linus and other developers have stated BK enabled that accelerated development. The last kernel (2.4) had major flamewars over pushing out its release; "its taking too long".
If the next kernel takes over three years to release, then the linux movement is dead. You will always have enthusiasts, like OS2 or Trek, but everyone else will leave it for dead. Commercial interests will not be able to trust it will develop quickly enough to exploit industry advancements. Microsoft can afford that length of delay because they are the defacto monopoly; linux is not. Tridgell has now decided for everyone that F/OSS ideology takes precidence over development rate. But wishful thinking will create a DSCM, and wishful thinking will ensure it doesn't take longer than the last cycle.
If you can't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. Learn from HURD. Learn from Debian; they are hemorraging their userbase because they will not update quickly enough to satisfy its users, and are leaderless in its direction.
No, BK is the carrot. Negative reinforcement is punishment without offering anything in return. That is precisely what Tridgell did.
There never was any LEGAL binding to the agreement. The only expectation was that participants in in kernel development abide to the SPIRIT of the agreement, which was NOT TO REVERSE ENGINEER the product.
Nothing stops you from burning the American flag. The courts (so far) will protect your right to burn the flag. But you're a real megalomaniacally self-centered idiot to expect people to not think of you as a piece of garbage for expressing yourself in that manner.
No, what I am seeing is a bunch of southerners cheering on John Wilkes Booth for assassinating their tyrant.
Linus certainly did not have the authority to compel the community to abide by agreements he negotiated. But Tridgell did not have the community's authority to act on its behalf. Individuals might have supported him, but if Tridgell truly had the support of the developers, then he could merely had the community refuse to use the tool. He couldn't do that. So he unilaterally decided to poison Torvald and McVoy's agreement. Would Locke be proud of the Bolsheviks?
If you're referring that remark towards me, I say I've ALWAYS taken that position.
Linus (and I) buy that argument because we respect the concept of intellectual property. You and people who take your position DO NOT. If Larry is giving a license to use HIS product and provide support for it, he also has the right to retract that offer. He may be an obnoxious asshole, he may be deluded in his worldview, he might be the sneakiest, greediest, most vile person on earth. But BK is HIS property. He is ENTITLED to place conditions upon usage of HIS product. It may have not been realistic to expect all developers to abide to the agreement. But McVoy cannot be labelled a bad guy for retracting use of HIS product. Is the U.S. the bad guy for retracting their donation of food to North Korea?
Please at least realize that my issue is not whether Tridgell had the "right" to reverse-engineer, its whether Tridgell has the "right" to compel policy upon a community because he can unilaterally act to create the result, against the wishes of the community's defacto leader. My answer is that if he acts on behalf of the community, the community can decide not to use the product. When he takes independent action to compel a result upon the community, he is being a megalomaniacal asshole.
What a FATUOUS argument! WHERE IS THIS GPL SCM that supports the kind of features that BitKeeper does?!?!? If it existed, this whole issue would be MOOT! There would be NO consequence to changing over. The fact that a single ideologue could subvert a project manager's decisions would merely be an academic argument.
The problem is that it isn't a mere academic exercise. There is no ADEQUATE F/OSS replacement to BK! Abandoning BK will mean development cannot be done in the manner it was previously conducted! Consequence: rate of development slows down. Programmers/maintainers get turned off from spending a chunk of their time negotiating changes between trees and handling source control tasks automated by BK. Bugs that cause transaction corruptions will then need to be acted upon. If its a dedicated project group, work slows down until that group fixes the bug. If its a kludge, then Torvalds (or the kludgemeister) stops work to debug and fix it. If BK is used, then McVoy & Co. work on it until its fixed. And since McVoy has a background in SCM, *I* feel a whole lot better with an experienced person working on the problem, rather than ad hoc amateurs who may not have any professional experience designing/maintaining SCMs.
Who the hell is Tridgell to make that decision for Linus? Is he Linus's boss? Does he fund kernel support? Is he an indispensible participant in kernel development? Were anti-BK developers PREVENTED from participation in kernel development?
Who is Linus to impose his tool preference on kernel developers? He's the guy who started this whole ball of wax. He's the guy developers are sending their modifications to his creation. He's the guy who has a track record for making decisions that has gotten the kernel to this point today. I trust *his* track record.
If you don't like the decisions that Linus makes, tough. If you really think they portend disaster, find likeminded developers and fork the kernel. Or go join HURD. But only a self-righteous F/OSS fundamentalist zealot thinks its okay to unilaterally compel a group of people to do things HIS WAY because HE's the exemplar of principle sent by the God RMS. Tridgell did not organize the majority of developers to abandon BK. He unilaterally took a course of action to cause BK to be removed from use for the kernel developers.
That might make you pleased as punch. You want to blame McVoy for being "unreasonable" or "uncharitable" and Linus "stupid", I certainly can't stop you from thinking so. Any more than Linus could stop anyone in the internet from reverse-engineering BK and triggering McVoy's retraction of BK for kernel development. But its not going to stop me from thinking Tridgell was a jerkoff for what he did, or that you're a jerkoff because you think its okay to pull the rug under Linus when it suits your worldview.
I'm speaking like someone who wants linux to be the preferred choice to do computing. I want to help my mother and family use linux PCs, not XP. (Because XP is "easier", runs the programs they want to run, works on all hardware...) That won't happen if Linux doesn't become the widespread choice of platform for business.
I work in the information industry. I don't want to be working on Microsoft platforms 10 years from now because linux consistently stumbled, got a reputation for amateurish behavior and not being able to release quickly enough to satisfy customers, and lose the confidence of the industry.
You, on the other hand, mouth platitudes like an poser loser. "Hackers don't meet deadlines, they don't program for money, its purely for the knowlege and pleasure."
Yeah, I can see why your more comfortable with slowing things down, espousing F/OSS theory, getting rid of those damn capitalists. Accomplishing doesn't mean jack to losers like you. Worse, you think you're entitled to tell producers how they should do their job. (Man, I hate that Ayn Rand...)
Go become a HURD fanboy. They wouldn't be caught dead using BK. They're the ultimate in hacking. There's way more computer science theory in microkernel, multithreaded programming than an outdated monolithic kernel design like Linux. Leave Linux to the soulless masses...
McVoy did not coerce Linus to adopt the use of his product. McVoy did not tell Linus he can only release the kernel if it uses proprietary products. McVoy required that the Linux kernel developers did not actively reverse engineer his product. The consequence of not abiding that agreement was that he would remove the right to use his product and his support for no monetary compensation. That is carrot, not stick.
Tridgell decided Linux must not be developed with proprietary tools, and actively chose to pursue his legal right to reverse engineer BK, against the agreement Linus and Larry made. Tridgell, who is not a kernel maintainer or defacto leader of kernel development, decided to dictate what SCM Linus should chose by taking a legal course of action which would abrograte the agreement Linus made with Larry.
I'm not saying Trigdell committed an illegal act by reverse-engineering the client. I'm not saying Trigdell was unethical because he committed an act of reverse-engineering.
I'm saying Trigdell was unethical (or if that word is not correct, jerklike, or assholish) to take a course of action which prevented the project manager (Linus) to select the tool he wished to be used. Cox and Perens (for example) were vehemently against the adoption of BK, but they did not try to actively subvert the agreement Linus made with McVoy. Tridgell should have respected, not the specific decision Linus wanted to make, but that a project manager needs to be able to choose the course of action his project takes, and that he has other concerns beyond ideology. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.
There are consequences to abandoning the use of BK, namely the lost time and progress. There is no way today we can accurately quantify that loss, but that does not mean you can dismiss the issue. You must adequately determine the proper hedging to manage risk. Tridgell, not supplying an acceptable alternative, apparently did not do this. But he did chose to prevent Linus from taking his preferred course of action.
This has big marketing implications. Why should businesses adopt Linux if it can't competently act upon meeting its production timetable? Translation: can I afford to adopt a platform if it can delay implementation my strategy for 6 months to a year? Can I trust a platform to meet my needs if any yahoo with an agenda can derail its production schedule?
Do you want the kernel to follow a development plan led by Linus, or like implemented like HURD? If its the latter, develop for HURD, don't sabotage how Linus wishes to run the group.
Unions are naturally economically "inefficient" organizations. Their priority is to their members' salaries, interests, and their organization. Like wise, democracy is a pathetically inefficient organization, who's leaders are chosen by intellectually mediocre majority of its voters. Shall we now discard the Constitution for an intellectual or financial meritocracy?
Furthermore, as someone who has worked in the public sector, I look at unions and organizational bureacracy as a necessary evil, because the alternative is management by the whims of scumbag lawyers, who are the elected legislators and executives.
Have you ever worked in those sweltering, stinking tunnels? Are you willing to lose life or limb in order to rush repairs?
Its simple, you don't need to give out overtime if you have enough qualified technical staff to man required shifts. Again, reality sucks. What alternative are you suggesting?
I live in the Belmont section of the Bronx. Bronx buses are no worse than the other boroughs. If you're really not an idiot, stop focusing on utopian pipedreams, and focus on the critical details. (1) If you can't secure money to complete a 2nd Ave subway line, don't try initiating construction. (2) You can't borrow money to keep fares low for a politician's re-election. (3) Straphangers PIRG, assuming they are a competent, legitimate organization, should hire accountants and transit consultants, and ferret out specific areas where money and service can be improved. (4) If you want to force the union to be more efficient, fine. Be willing to fight for improvements, and suffer service outages caused by union tactics. (5) If you can't take the effort to come to an informed opinion, shut up. If you see a specific way to improve a situation, act, don't whine. If not, stop thinking you're entitled to whine to a national website who don't give a crap about NYC issues.
Leave it to an anonymous coward to not do his homework and spout out his positions based on uninformed propaganda peddled by the corporate media and his equally uninformed regional peers.
You don't evaluate excessive funding by the gross revenue or ridership. Its by the net profit, analysis of operational efficiency, and future financial obligations. Controlling the LIRR does not mean they control enough net profit revenue to adequately offset their costs. (The LIRR requires maintenance and operational costs just like the subway.) Whatever subsidy they get from gov't does not match the operational costs OR NEW CONSTRUCTION they "choose" to embark upon.
The big problem with MTA mismanagement was that their "books" were closed until last year. That allowed them to conceal incompetence and graft, and expose their long term strategic planning, or lack thereof. The KEY screwup it to take out loans on operational costs and embark on new construction without funding. This means the loans will be due next year, and interest payments will balloon from that point.
It would be nice if elected politicians had some integrity, actually appointed managers that looked out for the organization and customer interests, and did not interfere with their operation. Instead, the MTA is a big cash cow, which politicians try to use to coerce unsustainably low fares, bad financial management, jobs program and political showcase. The only answer is to fire the political bums for brighter, more conscientious ones.
Whatever. It's not an optimal interface in kernel change management. But its not Larry's job to replicate 100% functionality of alternatives for free (in either sense). There certainly isn't a "lock-in" which prevents linux development from migrating to a different tool.
That is purporting an intention which hasn't been backed up with evidence (i.e. - Larry gloating in a post that it was part of his evil master plan). You ignore the fact that Larry made an effort to enable anti-proprietary zealots to participate in kernel development without his product. You presume an intent based up an action you consider insufficient. You presume Larry conspired to create this situation. Linus used the tool, had direct dealings with Larry, and never expressed such an impression of Larry. Thus you F/OSS people must think Linus is some naive idiot that shouldn't be making decisions on how Linux participation should be conducted with the kernel he originated. (See the problem with presuming what people think? Am I the only person seeing a problem with dictating development policy without being a kernel maintainer?)
I take no position concerning whether McVoy is sane or reasonable. My problem are ideologues who think they are preeminently qualified to dictate policy over how developers chose to do their work, or how linux should be released.
BK was created and funded by Larry. What ever intellectual property he has is whatever avenue under the law he choses to pursue. BTW, agreements are a form of contract, and that can be binding under law. Larry's the owner, he's entitled to set whatever conditions he choses to set. If you don't like it, lump it. But you, Perens, or Trigdell are not Linux kernel maintainers. You have no business unilaterally acting in a manner to subvert agreements made by Linus and McVoy, or more important, dictate what tools Linus choses to use.
They are not impossible conditions. They are conditions which require the user to not use his product to reverse-engineer the product.
Just because you have a legal right to reverse-engineer a product doesn't mean you should actively reverse-engineer a product. Reporters have a 1st amendment right to ask a rape victim how did it feel and report it, but it doesn't mean they should do this.
An enforceable one? Certainly not. An agreement in which the participants would abide because they respect the decision making ability of its leader? Apparently I am horribly mistaken to think the linux community was capable of such discretion. Is Linus now required to consult every user on the internet on every operational decision he wished to embark on? Tridgell was incapable of expressing his opinion to Linus, or the community? Its pretty apparent "consultations" weren't prevented here. Are you suggesting that Linus should now
Tridge decided that Torvalds, the chief project manager of linux kernel, should not be able to use software tools if they are proprietary tools, nor make agreements with proprietary vendors. Tridge then proceeded to reverse-engineer the client tool, despite the fact it was against the wishes of Torvalds and McVoy. It would not result in an open alternative to BitKeeper, because you still have to reverse-engineer the server. It would make it impossible for Linus to maintain his arrangement with McVoy.
Hopefully, Tridgell was correct in there was an acceptable alternative to BK. Because if he isn't, development may be slowed to the point that it may be years before we get to see a new kernel release. Hopefully, it won't result in a situation where Microsoft can convince product developers to abandon adoption of linux as an OS platform because it can't change at an adequate rate to satisfy the commercial environment. Most of all, lets thank this one individual for making that kind of decision for all of us, rather than Linus.
Buts its a good thing that the Open Source Program Manager of Google, Inc. can take such a sympathetic position towards Tridgell. It's good Brin, Sergey, Schmidt & Co. don't mind subordinates making their strategic decisions for them. Or shrug if Google was prevented from responding when someone gamed their pagerank system.
I find it appauling that people actually buy it that reverse engineering here is immoral.
Almost no one who is against Tridgell's actions believes reverse engineering is immoral or illegal.
What is immoral is preventing the chief project manager (Torvalds) from choosing his tools because they believe using proprietary tools is unacceptable. Tridgell did this by acting in a manner that would abrograte the agreement Linus and Larry made concerning the product.
There's no problem with Tridgell criticizing the use of BK. The problem was taking Linus' choice away by Tridgell's unwanted course of actions. At least, he could have withheld from reverse-engineering BK until there was an acceptable non-proprietary alternative available for Linus. OR done the principled course of action, and developed that alternative product. Reverse-engineering client software would not have resulted in an alternative to BK (You still need to reverse-engineer the server). The only result would make it impossible for McVoy/Torvalds to continue their agreed arrangement.
Larry was providing an up-to-date CVS server. Non-BitKeeper users could still obtain the code and participate in kernel development.
Larry was a businessman concerned about protecting his IP, and set conditions upon free use of his product. The owner of such property is entitled to set such policies, even if they are stupid and counterproductive. Linus agreed to abide by those conditions. He felt that rapidity and easier management of kernel development justified it.
What Tridge did was decide that Linus, the chief project manager of the world-wide kernel project, should not be permitted to use proprietary tools in the project. He then proceeded to reverse engineer the BK client. Tridge certainly may have not violated any legal issues. But he knew his action would probably result in Linus being compelled to abandon using the BK tool, or McVoy would have to abandon his position on protecting his intellectual property. (But that's acceptable to communists; they don't believe in property rights.)
Tridgell can claim he didn't chose to abrogate Linus's ability to chose tools or make agreements, or steal McVoy's intellectual property. He can insist he has a RIGHT to reverse engineer BitKeeper. But his action results in a cessation in the use of BitKeeper, makes it impossible for Linus and Larry to operate under their voluntary, agreed arrangement, which was their preference, and now kernel development progress reverts to the rate at pre-BK adoption.
Hope you zealots are happy. If Tridgell and F/OSS zealots are incorrect, and there isn't a tool comparable to BK, it will be a year before Linus will be able to START new kernel development. It will take OVER two years after that point to release a new kernel. And Microsoft will have new ammunition to feed to its Marketing department, provided by those principled people like Tridgell.
How the hell could I possibly have everything important wrong? What's important is to get a solid, working product out, and not have to wait 4 years for an official update! If timeliness, reliability, and performance are not important to you, then adopt an ideologically correct operating system like HURD. THEY stress the IMPORTANT principles!
Only an incredibly arrogant dumbass would insist on Torvalds to abandon a proprietary DSCM when an adequate non-proprietary DSCM does not exist. Only an incompetent dumbass would insist on moving to a prototype non-proprietary DSCM with questionable support. If a bug is found which corrupts the database of patch changes, who is going to repair the transaction history? HOW are they going to be able to repair the transaction history? How long would development be shut down waiting for amateur team X to track down the bug? Don't give me this crap that the system works for linux. Its a lot easier to find amateur kernel hackers to contribute to something that affects all computer operation, than a DSCM which only a handful of programmers would even have exposure to equivalent tools. Who lives and breathes Source Code Management? This is precisely the problem seen with userfriendly OS and GUI initiatives. They still can't compete with XP or OSX in userstupid ease of use.
You arrogant, incompetent little shit. Linus picked a tool that was proprietary because it accelerated development and NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTED. Who the fuck are you to pass judgement on Torvalds management decisions? Even strident F/OSS supporters like Cox and Perens has to admit kernel development accelerated with the adoption of BitKeeper and that there was no F/OSS alternative tool at the time of adoption. And note, they aren't as smug, judgemental assholes as you.
WHAT VENDOR LOCK-IN??? How can a DSCM confiscate ownership of source code??? Its merely a TOOL. You can either choose to use a tool that accelerates development, or you can chose to use an alternative. But the F/OSS zealots were too stupid to realize the obvious: THERE IS NO ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE. There are only buggy beta-quality alternatives. The closest in functionality is Monotype, and Linus has panned it. The alternatives today are so bad, that Linus is now constructing his own DSCM kludge, which means he is not committing patches or developing kernel code! So Trigdell and zealots like you CHOSE to revert kernel development to a crippled rate. A decision that was not the choice of the chief project manager of the linux kernel. Thanks, assholes. (Next, watch you jerkoffs crack out the pitchforks and demand Linux be renamed GNU/Linux.)
Because the only DSCM tool that satisfactorily enhanced Linux development is now unavailable, we probably won't even see the START of 2.7 for another year. It took a 1.5 years of ACCELERATED development to get to the 2.6 release, Now people like you have condemned the next kernel release to be later than Longhorn. You don't think Microsoft
Its unlikely MTA maintenance is incompetent. I'd like to see how competent you would be maintaining 5,000 servers with high availability requirements. They are underfunded, and possibly understaffed.
What is incompetent is MTA MANAGEMENT. The problem is that the MTA has embarked on new construction, such as the 2nd Ave. line, without any guarantees from the state or federal to secure funding for its completion. Many times they raid the maintenance budget, or choose to fund the operations budget with borrowing (bad move). This is going to result in the crisis in a few years, when interest payments is going to make the operating costs skyrocket. The question is how much culpability do you put on the politicians (like Silber, Guiliani, Pataki) for coercing MTA on construction projects it can't cover, or preventing a fare hike in the late '90's.
Doesn't seem very practical to me
You are thinking like an ignorant bean counter, and not a hospital administrator. Is increasing 100 deaths per year worthwhile in order to save money from sanitizing hospital equipment? If so, why bother autoclaving surgical equipment? After all, that costs money too.
As another poster pointed out, you can get neoprene keyboard covers. Add a daily cover change/sanitization for PC keyboards at patient area workstations, I don't believe its an unmanageable cost.
...those F/OSS zealots prevented the Linux source code from being TAKEN OVER by evil Larry McVoy! Please explain how an SCM can accomplish this?