| |||||||||||||
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeperHow Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeperPosted Apr 21, 2005 4:27 UTC (Thu) by njhurst (guest, #6022)Parent article: How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper
So was all of LM's bluster just a way to distract people from looking too closely at bitkeeper? Surely there is more to bitkeeper than a simple wire protocol for transfering SCCS files? Is the rest of bitkeeper now easy to 'clone'?
(Log in to post comments)
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 21, 2005 13:29 UTC (Thu) by nhasan (guest, #1699) [Link] I think Larry should hide behind the good old DMCA. Just add rudimentary encryption, ROT13 would do, and his job is done.
Seriously though, why is Tridge reverse engineering the CIFS wire protocol OK and not Bitkeeper?
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 21, 2005 13:50 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Of course not. Telnet to port 80 at your favourite site and GET /whatever_url_seems_right and then draw the conclusion that, because you get HTML, the webserver simply spits out (static) HTML.That would be a stupid conclusion for most sites/webpages. So, what interests me, is why would Tridge want to share this with us?!
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 21, 2005 14:19 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] So, what interests me, is why would Tridge want to share this with us? Perhaps because he's tired of being accused of doing something wrong? In particular, "How could Tridge possibly investigate the Bitkeeper protocol w/o violating the BK license?" Well, here's how you do it.
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 22, 2005 1:34 UTC (Fri) by akumria (subscriber, #7773) [Link]
Andrew, during his talk, said (paraphrased) "People keep believeing I'm a reverse engineering wizard. I'm not. Let me show you the process for BitKeeper"
All the commands Tridge subsequently ran, were shouted out by the audience. The talk was recorded but I am not sure if/where it is available though.
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 21, 2005 14:52 UTC (Thu) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link] It depends on what you are trying to clone. It would help you interoperate with BK repositories, but I'd guess there is still a fair bit of smarts in the client (merge algorithms, etc).
So it is probably enough to work out how to mirror a bitkeeper repo for use with some other SCM tool, but not enough to make a clone of the bitkeeper tool.
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 22, 2005 1:42 UTC (Fri) by akumria (subscriber, #7773) [Link] Might be. I'm not sure. Why not see for yourself?
Tridge released his code this morning.
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 21, 2005 20:31 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] This report just doesn't match the claims that Linus tried to disuade Tridge from working on bk. If this is truly all Tridge did, there simply was no time to try to convince anybody in between. In any case, Larry McVoy specifically asked for no reverse engineering. If he was right or wrong, if it was or not legal to ask for it, etc. just doesn't matter to me. If somebody wants her wishes (as set forth via GPL, BSD, or whatever) to be followed, she should do the courtesy to reciprocate.
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 21, 2005 22:28 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] There's reasons why BSD and GPL are legal licenses, and not wishes. I want to be independently wealthy; Larry wanted no one to look at his program. I don't see why people should jump to fulfill either wish.
How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper Posted Apr 28, 2005 6:29 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > Larry McVoy specifically asked for no reverse engineering.
As do Microsoft.
> If somebody wants her wishes (as set forth via GPL, BSD, or whatever) to be followed, she should do the courtesy to reciprocate.
In both cases (the SMB protocols, the Bitkeeper protocol), Tridge did not use programs from the vendor (Microsoft, Bitmover) to connect to their services. He used programs under terms that he presumably *does* agree with.
Users of Samba should and must follow the wishes of Tridge (and its other authors), as set forth in the GPL. That has no hold, moral or legal, on anyone who simply connects their own client program to a Samba service.
|
|||||||||||||