Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld)
ComputerWorld notes that the kernel is not the only project affected by the end of the BitKeeper era. "As the July 1 deadline approaches, BitMover is trying to work with as many projects as it can to either come to licensing terms or move their source code onto another system, [Larry] McVoy said. Still, some may be in for a nasty surprise a month from now, when they can no longer add software to their source code repositories.
'As July 1 approaches and people start to realize that it's not just about the kernel, it's about these other projects, there's going to be some crap hitting the fan,' McVoy said."
(Log in to post comments)
Last doubts have been removed Posted Jun 3, 2005 18:18 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] If I had any doubts left about McVoy's ethics, they have been resolved. He's a spoiled brat taking his marbles and going home, gleefully pointing his fingers at the other kids, Nyaah Nyaah Nyaah. Like all such sulky brats, he won't find much community support next time he needs help.
Last doubts have been removed Posted Jun 3, 2005 19:21 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] I don't blame him. I don't blame him at all. He's been clear from the beginning that his project is proprietary. Anybody who expected anything better than what we're getting now was kidding themselves.
I would point the finger in two directions. First, to the people who chose to use BitMover due to its features, ignoring the fact that it was proprietary and they were at risk of the future lock-in or inavailability problems that they're now facing. That was head-in-the-sand behavior, and I hope people learn a lesson from this.
Second, I point a more active finger at the people who were BitMover apologists early on. The people who shouted down the free software "fanatics" who rejected BitMover simply because it was proprietary. Stallman may be annoying, but his principles often turn out to be very practical. Many people were saying it was nutty to insist on using a free solution, because BitMover had the features that solved a lot of problems that the free alternative didn't solve. Many of those people said that those clamoring for a free solution were being impractical and foolish and too stuck to principles. Well, hello, now we're seeing the downside of having not stuck to principles. It's not just religion, there are practical reasons why people want freedom.
-Rob
Last doubts have been removed Posted Jun 7, 2005 0:29 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Funny, I see it very differently. Most of the problem from my perspective is the freaking out in the press and amoungst many members of the community over the fact that BitMover is going away. Big deal. It fulfilled a need for a time and now that time has passed. That really is all the there that there is, or ever was.
Does anyone here really think that Linus didn't understand the implications and potential pitfalls?
Last doubts have been removed Posted Jun 3, 2005 19:48 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] > He's a spoiled brat taking his marbles and going home, gleefully> pointing his fingers at the other kids
No he's not. He's someone who developed software and asked that people who used it respect his licence. How can we as a community expect people to respect *our* licenses when people within the community can't repect others?
How can anyone respect a changing license? Posted Jun 3, 2005 19:56 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] He kept changing the terms of the license. How can anyone honor that, let alone respect it? Then when Tridge, who had never signed on to any license agreement, wrote a silly little client to merely read the repository, in his spare time, McVoy whined and changed the terms one last time to screw over everybody. That's hardly honorable or deserving of respect. Shoot everybody for what one person does, especially when that one person's actions were hardly the stuff of so-called piracy.
How can anyone respect a changing license? Posted Jun 3, 2005 21:44 UTC (Fri) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] The "changing license" story is a myth:
$ ./bk help bkl|grep version
As for Tridge, I'd love someone to explain to me how he managed to snoop
We then watched the connects from his domain, it's clear that someone was
The myth is real Posted Jun 3, 2005 21:57 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] I didn't follow it closely, but I remember the license changing, or at least what McVoy said was the license. At some point the source code was withdrawn, at some point you couldn't use it to develop competition, at some point you couldn't use it if your company developed competition, and so on and on. It kept on getting more and more restrictive. I am not going to quibble over details, because I don't remember them, neither the order of the restrictions nor exactly what they were. But there was a definite feel of the noose tightening every time McVoy got a bug up his backside. He had a Do What I Mean, Not What I Say license, and what he meant changed over time. Companies were denied licenses which they could have gotten a year before. People were denied free usage for non-competing free source products because they were employed by a company who had even the slightest connection to other version control products, free or not.
Tridge says he didn't use the bk client, I believe him. Unless you saw him using it, what you saw on your end of the wire is immaterial.
The myth is real Posted Jun 4, 2005 13:43 UTC (Sat) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Posting a rant based on details you can't remember and won't bother researching is hardly productive.
I don't remember the details either because I looked at the license a long time ago. Even back then, those restrictions were there and I don't believe the source was ever available (certainly not for the server). It also had things like posting your changelogs on their servers. I never used it.
Oh please Posted Jun 4, 2005 14:26 UTC (Sat) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] That was not a rant. You want rants? See Larry McVoy for that. Don't call me on not researching something that you won't research either.
Yes, the licensing, or at least McVoy's interpretation of the license, did change as people kept on doing what had been legal but annoyed McVoy. There are any number of web sites with little stories about how they could not do what they had done before, because McVoy changed things. I am certain google or archives would show this if you cared to search. I won't, because I remember this. You won't, because you don't remember it. Which makes more sense?
And yes the client source was available, for a while. If you think not, you have not been paying attention. McVoy had a nice rant when he withdrew that.
Oh please Posted Jun 4, 2005 17:46 UTC (Sat) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] I am certain google or archives would show this if you cared to search. I won't, because I remember this. You won't, because you don't remember in Right so, I've searched, I can't find any mention of the open source client. I did find a message in my old email: From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@valinux.com> To: bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com Subject: How does one get the sources to bitkeeper? Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:01:47 -0700 OK, stupid question. Suppose I'm paranoid and I want to see the sources to bitkeeper (the license seems to imply this is possible, since it has all sorts of words about source distributions, and compliace with the test suites, etc.) How do I get access to the bitkeeper sources? They're not on the download page..... is there some other place I have to go to get a hold of one? Say, a place where I can get a clone of the repository for bitkeeper? :-) Does that sound to you like the client was open-source in 2000? I also tried to find the source (I think that's why I joined that list) and it wasn't there. What about BitMover announces Open Source Client for BitKeeper from March this year? Does that sound like the client had been open source before? I didn't see any mention of it in the LWN comments. As Larry's reply to you shows, the license hasn't changed since 2003. Larry's interpretations may have changed but it's the judge's interpretation that really matters. I'm not trying to defend Larry, but comments based on vague memories of things you weren't really following anyway aren't very helpful.
Easy way to find out what port to connect to. Posted Jun 4, 2005 2:10 UTC (Sat) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] It's called "nmap", and it works quite nicely. You just portscan, and then look for anything that looks likely.
And he used telnet, of all things, to connect. TELNET! And it worked.
If that qualifies as reverse engineering, it can only be applied to sloppy forward engineering.
How can anyone respect a changing license? Posted Jun 4, 2005 19:33 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Great, more classic Larry McVoy misdirection. Please forget that kernel developers adopted BitKeeper a wee bit before 2003. Pay no attention to this post by a certain Larry McVoy claiming that the license was... well, changing. Also please ignore the 404 error you'll get if you try to follow the link given in that post to the text of the license itself. Inconvenient evidence like this might lead you to the conclusion that the "changing license" story is true. I don't know how that dirty, rotten scoundrel we call Tridge figured out the protocol changes on bkbits but I'll take a wild guess: he ran nmap and applied common sense. (See flewellyn's post above.) Care to tell us what cunning protocol change you made on bkbits that he couldn't possibly have worked out using elementary methods? No, of course not. So much more convinent to spread half-truth and innuendo with so little substance it's impossible to disprove, isn't it?
How can anyone respect a changing license? Posted Jun 5, 2005 18:27 UTC (Sun) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link] Dr. Tridgell telnetted to a bk server. Typed the 'help' command and used netcat to dump the contents of the "clone" command to a file. Gosh but Tridge is 'leet evil reverse engineer isn't he? At the conference where he revealed what he did, the audience was shouting out the commands ahead of him. He used a bog standard UNIX tools in a one liner shell command to dump a repository. That is "echo clone | nc thunk.org 5000 > e2fsprogs.bk"
At this point, I have a difficult time believing you haven't gotten the straight of this story. Why are you still implying that Dr. Tridgell did anything improper?
It wasn't terribly difficult to analyze the clone dump and create a tool for working with it.
How can anyone respect a changing license? Posted Jun 3, 2005 23:36 UTC (Fri) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link] Not to mention McVoy trying to get Tridge fired from the OSDL..
Last doubts have been removed Posted Jun 6, 2005 6:36 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] How can we as a community expect people to respect *our* licenses when people within the community can't repect others?I'm tired of hearing this absurd argument. Let's see. Because "our" licenses are fair, and written to encourage sharing? The GPL and most other free software licenses are generous in spirit: they let you take the code and internally do as you wish with it. It's only if you want to distribute it when you have to comply with a (usually small) set of restrictions. Because "our" licenses do not impose unreasonable burdens on the intellectual activities of others? I can't see how a "no reverse engineering" clause is worth any respect; if I ever was forced to use a product that carried one, I would not feel compelled to respect it. Because the legal value of a license is debatable and depends on the jurisdiction? It is entirely possible that it's legal to use (not distribute) a program and reverse-engineer it, e.g. in the European Union; any clause trying to prevent it might be invalid. Because "we as a community" carries no meaning, since everyone is entitled to her or his own opinion as to when a license is worth respecting? That phrase does not add much to the discussion, except if you want to erect yourself as the "conscience of the community"; and then I think you would be very frustrated. As others have said before on LWN, using an operating system or a set of programs does not make you abide to a moral status, a set of principles or a group behavior. I know I don't read and I don't care for the licenses of proprietary programs I'm forced to use at work; and what worse form of disrespect than indifference? And yet I expect people to respect the license (GPL) of the few lines of code I have published, if they want to redistribute them. Is it unreasonable?
McVoy's ethics are fine... Posted Jun 3, 2005 18:45 UTC (Fri) by dank (subscriber, #1865) [Link] Larry's ethics are just fine. He may not be very popular now,and he definitely has some rough edges, but he's well within his rights.
So lay off. There are several silver linings to this
1) Linux benefitted from Bitkeeper for several years. This
2) Subversion and other projects are now a lot closer to being
So it is, as they say, all good.
I quite disagree Posted Jun 3, 2005 19:19 UTC (Fri) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] McVoy is still at it. When he saw the end coming he decided the best thing to do was try to give the industry a sucker-punch. Obviously it's taken him a long time to get over his hurts. Notice I said *his* hurts because he will continue to 'go' on about things while the rest of the world has 'moved' on.
I saw a blurb on May 20th that said that MySQL AB was dropping BK and sent them a thank-you at that time.
McVoy's tactics, "The sky is falling", won't get him any further. Maybe he shoud do like SCOX and send out threatening letters...
I quite disagree Posted Jun 4, 2005 15:37 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Well, the important thing is that after July 1, McVoy loses any influence over the community that he might ever have had and it is extremely unlikely that he will ever be able to gain a foothold again.
The other piece of good news is that the Linux Kernel guys have demonstrated that it is possible to dump Bitmover's much vaunted generalized solution and replace it with a more specialized one without all that much difficulty. You can bet that Bitmover's customers are watching. And if they aren't, you can bet that there are plenty of people around who are ready and willing to point out to them both the possibility, and the cost savings.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 3, 2005 19:20 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] I suspect that BitMover won't last very long at this point. Having all of the well-known users of your flagship product leave it for alternatives (including one developed in a couple of months specifically to satisfy the requirements of former users) is not a good sign.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 3, 2005 19:40 UTC (Fri) by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045) [Link] > I suspect that BitMover won't last very long at this point.
Unlikely. The dispute over BK is license-based. Those who have paid for their licenses (e.g. the big commercial players) won't be fazed by what is going on - it doesn't affect them. They will continue to use BK if it suits their needs. If it doesn't suit their needs, then having Linus et. al. endorse it is meaningless.
Larry is within his rights to take his marbles and leave. That's what proprietary licensing is about.
I believe the OSS community owes him a debt of gratitude for so clearly illustrating the hazards of proprietarily-licensed closed-source software, regardless of whether it's available at no monetary cost.
Not that this excuses his personal behaviour, esp. towards Tridge.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 3, 2005 20:13 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The big commercial players can continue to use BK. But there will be little reason for them to do so when there's a no-cost alternative which people have experience using and even have experience with the transition from BK. And a lot more tool development is going on now for git, since people with a wider variety of interests and goals can work on them. For example, gitweb is enormously better than the BK equivalent. There are a couple of local browsers in the works, and so forth. Ironically, this all depends on outsiders having the sort of access to the data that Larry was specifically upset by.
Larry is certainly within his rights to take his marbles and leave. But that doesn't mean that it's a good step toward selling software.
Not so ironic, really... Posted Jun 3, 2005 20:46 UTC (Fri) by azhrei_fje (guest, #26148) [Link] > Ironically, this all depends on outsiders having the sort of access> to the data that Larry was specifically upset by. Not really. From what I've read, Larry was planning on this. If you want to release a commercial closed-source product with lock-in, then your license must punish those who attempt to interface with your data storage. This prevents others from hacking on the interface and figuring out how it works, thus pushing you out of the picture. If your license did not have those restrictions, others would make better clients and you'd lose some of your customers (potentially, anyway).
DMCA-screwed nation? (er... if it's nation and not a crowd) Posted Jun 4, 2005 9:40 UTC (Sat) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] Go study the story of Phoenix BIOS and IBM PC clones. After that, move on to the copyright *history*. After that, try to apply your mental abilities to "how this damned world still strives".
It is only in US that the crowd is careless enough to vote statistically and buy from bigboards, not from any sane judgement. Try to educate yourself, one by one, how the world *was* designed and how these crapmongers are screwing it -- and your poor brains and lives -- to squeeze some more numbers to gain some more power while they're not dead yet.
I don't aim to insult any US citizen who *does* use his brains, but I'm afraid many of them could probably sign these words.
C'ya in Siberia folks! :]
--
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 4:20 UTC (Sat) by kreplach (guest, #30311) [Link] Ummm...EXCUSE ME....
I'm sure someone will correct me if wrong here, but whose idea was it to use BK for kernel dev in the first place? Let's take the kid gloves off and get real. It was Linus' ultimate decision, right? And didn't he make some comments about how pragmatic he was, about how he had no bones about using the "right tool" even if proprietary? Why not let's just admit it was NOT A SMART MOVE for reasons EVERY BIT as obvious then as today. It was actually much worse than that, because it took a crap on the very ethos of open source/free software. Wake up Linus (and the rest of you who don't "get it", or pretend not to), there's no separating politics from ANYTHING. Every act has political implications, like it or not, and just because responsibility for that is a complicated pain in the rear for SOME PEOPLE, doesn't get you off the hook. The BK "Productivity Gains" argument is a red herring. What if Torvalds had put out an open call to the community instead -- "Hey we need this crucial thing, can we make it happen soon?". Do you think that would have been motivational? Just a little? Hey Linus, you made a big fat (and hopefully EMBARRASSING) mistake, Stallman was exactly correct, and STILL IS. Next time he says something, listen, and think deeper. MUCH deeper. Anyone who ever ridiculed the "the fanatics" of OSS should do the same. This little BK saga was so predictable it's boring.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 8:11 UTC (Sat) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] except that nobody did create the tool, they didn't create it for another three years either (and there were pleanty of people screaming that it was critical during all that time)
personally I think that Linus made the right choice when he started useing bitkeeper, there wasn't another reasonable choice to make at the time (and according to him there wasn't three years later eiter, which is why he wrote his own)
anyone who was watching linux at the time can definantly state that the way kernel developement was going three years ago was a mess and getting worse. continueing on like that would have been a disaster
part of the reason that there are things approaching being reasonable alturnatives now is exactly what Larry stated would happen, people are dopying bitkeeper (at least in part), and a lot more are doing so becouse they could use bitkeeper without having to pay the commercial license rate to do so.
also remember that bitkeeper was around for a year or so (with commercial clients) before Linus decided to start useing it, and that decision took place after he pointed out problems with the product and the product was changed to meet his needs.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 17:24 UTC (Sat) by kreplach (guest, #30311) [Link] "(and according to him there wasn't three years later eiter, which is why he wrote his own)"
We're back to the land of Red Herring. So what exactly was preventing him from writing his own 3 years ago? Too Busy? Like now? Necessity mothers invention, the move to Bitkeeper simply postponed the inevitable. Again, the productivity gains argument is a wash, that was a temporary fixable condition (with a free and open long-term reliable solution available for the creating). The "nothing was available" argument is a wash, proven by the fact that BK is out, and a new system is in (and in hardcore development mode). And that sure didn't take long did it?!
OSS SHOULD be (frequently is) about taking a deep breath, and doing the right thing, the right way, because there is no corporate timetable to adhere to, no release date that must be hit at any expense to quality, no marketing dept or shareholders breathing down your neck. That right there is THE BIG DIFFERENCE between us (and I use that term loosely, because the comments preceding mine are not well reasoned IMHO) and them. To put it another way: Cutting corners, compromising for the sake of short term gain is a BAD BAD MOVE in OSS (and many elsewheres). It's contrary to the core
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 19:15 UTC (Sat) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] one reason he didn't write his own three years ago is that at that time he didn't have nearly as good an understanding of what he really wanted.
so he was able to use bitkeeper for free, learn how to work with it and take advantage if it's features that were not available from any other source at the time. at that point the mechanics of writing a partial clone is trivial compared to the task of figuring out what you need to write (Larry is very much correct when he says that much of opensource software is not new ideas, but clones of commercially developed software)
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 20:22 UTC (Sat) by sivaraj (guest, #30323) [Link] Enough with this "all free software are clones of commercial software" argument, already. Any software development project gets its input from its users. Idea or inspiration is, as they say, 1%. After that initial idea, rest of the evolution of the software happens via user interaction. That 1% happens both in free software as well as proprietary software world. In fact, I would say most popular ideas are nowadays developed as free software - just look at bittorrent.
Over time, most of the idea based software will be written as free software - because idea is cheap. Only the mundane business logic - that constitutes over 90% software development today - will be written outside of free software.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 21:10 UTC (Sat) by kreplach (guest, #30311) [Link] "one reason he didn't write his own three years ago is that at that time he didn't have nearly as good an understanding of what he really wanted."
Good lawd, you people are amazing (gvy is on the money, however! RIGHT ON). Listen to yourself PLEASE. You just said, in effect, "Linus can't figure out how to design software that he himself would use every day". That's Brilliant deduction. REALLY. If you believe that, I fear for the longevity of an open community that includes this sort of brain function.
Stop with the Torvalds apologism already and get a clue as to what principles are operational here. He made a stupid move (which shat on the spirit of free software ethos indirectly if not directly), ignoring highly pertinent advice from very smart people. Get over it.
McVoy this, McVoy that, does not matter. He's not open source. End of Story. The moral is this: Set a good example. If there's any way at all to avoid using proprietary stuff to perpetuate open source projects (or anything at all), then DO IT. Respect the people who donate time and energy to OSS, by respecting the principles they came here to support. Get it? Where else are you gonna go? You think you can trust a for-profit institution? Get real. OSS is one of the last places on earth where trust and truth have hope. It's a big deal. Don't discount it, and Don't forget it. There's more going on here than "pragmatism", "right tool for the right job", etc.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 23:40 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Here is the way I see it.
Way back when, during the "Linus Scalability Crisis", when kernel developers were starting to lose patience, and *perhaps* even confidence in Linus as the benevolent dictator of the project, Linus, being the pragmatic fellow that he is, and recognizing the limitations of the generalized OSS solutions that existed at the time, chose the most expedient route and went with Bitkeeper. It was far superior to the set of scripts that he was using to manage patches. (I'll take a guess that his scripts were better for his purposes than the generalized OSS SCM systems available at the time.)
Being only human, he made a mistake (as years of flamewars and the current withdrawal of BK availability demonstrate). I'm not criticizing that. It is simply a fact of life.
When I say that, people very often point out how beneficial BK was to to kernel development. It showed Linus what he wanted, right?
Hogwash. Linus pretty much new what he wanted, and Bitkeeper provided it. Certainly, there were things that Linus did not like about Bitkeeper, at first. And certainly some of those things he thought he did not like, he eventually came to like.
There is no doubt that Linus learned something from BK and the thought that had gone into creating it.
The problem that I have with that is the implication that Linus (stupid plodder that he is) would never have figured that out all by himself.
Nonsense. He was 90% of the way there at the time that he chose BK.
It would not have taken 3 years or more for him to have figured out what he wanted.
Kernel development is in excellent shape these days. But I believe that it would be in as good or better shape if the switch to its own customized and OSS solution had occured earlier. (Apparently, the generalized OSS solutions are not quite there yet, based on his reaction to Monotone and the rest, though speed, and not functionality, seem to be his objections these days.)
There is no point crying over spilled milk at this time, and I'm certainly not blaming Linus. And there no doubt *were* benefits to using BK. But there were definite downsides, as well.
Well, that's all over now. As far as I'm concerned things are back on track.
All's well that ends well, I guess.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2005 23:56 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Just an addendum. The original problem with Linus's scalabilty had a lot to do with his willingness and ability to delegate responsibility. BK both encouraged and provided the means for that. It would never have taken Linus 3 years to figure that out and find a way to do it.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 5, 2005 0:52 UTC (Sun) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Linus can't make a mistake or that he's too dumb to write a SCM himself.
however as he has said repeatedly he's not interested in writing some types of software, and SCM software is one of those catagories. he didn't WANT to do it (three years ago or now)
useing bitkeeper may have been a mistake, but it was a mistake that provided a LOT of advantages for three years, and during that time Linus WAS watching to see what free SCM systems were doing and found that they weren't doing what he wanted. go back and read his reponses to the 'I told you so' posts on LKML a couple months ago, in one that I remember he snapped at the poster and told them that they had had three years to come up with something acceptable, but all they had done is complain avout Linus useing a propriatary tool, they hadn't provided him with an acceptable alturnative.
I probably do overlook the disadvantages of useing bitkeeper in my posts, but in part it's becouse I am responding to people who want to make it sound like Linus was a complete idiot for ever useing bitkeeper in the first place becouse it wasn't free.
news flash for people, not everyone (not even everyone who develops opensource software) is a fanatic about only useing free software.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 5, 2005 1:41 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Hi Dlang,
I understand what you are saying. And I really do not disagree, for the most part.
However, there is a difference between an individual choosing an expedient solution by using proprietary software, and OSS's highest profile project choosing an expedient solution by using proprietary software.
And it is not just a matter of appearances. It created unnecessary divisions in the developer community. When you are already herding cats, it might not be such a good idea to introduce a rat into the mix. (Did I just call Larry a rat? Sorry. It was not intended. I was referring to introducing proprietary software into a community of developers who are more comforatable with OSS software. :-)
Like I say, there were both advantages and disadvantages.
In the end, I think we can both agree that all's well that ends well?
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 6, 2005 7:24 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Don't forget. Linus has stated REPEATEDLY that he is NOT a "Free Software" guy. He is an *engineer*, who believes that Free Software is an inherently better system. But just because it's inherently better doesn't mean any individual instance is better.
And while RMS will choose based on whether software is Free or not, Linus chooses based on whether any particular instance is better or worse. And as far as Linus was concerned, BitKeeper (at the time) was not the better solution, but the ONLY solution that was usable.
Cheers,
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 6, 2005 7:18 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] ""one reason he didn't write his own three years ago is that at that time he didn't have nearly as good an understanding of what he really wanted."
Good lawd, you people are amazing (gvy is on the money, however! RIGHT ON). Listen to yourself PLEASE. You just said, in effect, "Linus can't figure out how to design software that he himself would use every day". That's Brilliant deduction. REALLY. If you believe that, I fear for the longevity of an open community that includes this sort of brain function."
Well, why don't you read up on the history, where you'll find dlang is spot on the money. Doing something for the FIRST TIME is damn hard. Copying it is easy. And read the git archive - kerneltraffic is great. Look at how many times Linus ranted that the people trying to write a CVS "just don't get it".
At the end of the day, Linus was RIGHT to use BitKeeper. If he hadn't, we wouldn't have Linus today and that could well have been the end of Linux.
Just remember - DOING SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME IS HARD !!! and that's what BitKeeper did. The reason we can copy it today is because Larry (and Linus and others) have done all the hard work of working out the spec.
Oh - and how true it is I don't know, but I think Larry is on record as saying that the requirements of the kernel are moving more and more down a dead end as far as BitKeeper functionality is concerned. So from a commercial point of view he doesn't care.
At the end of the day, we now have git. And we still have Linus. And if it weren't for Larry, we would almost certainly have neither. Think on this:
IT TOOK A GENIUS (Larry) TO DESIGN BITKEEPER.
IT TOOK ANOTHER GENIUS (Linus) TO CLONE BITKEEPER.
If anyone thinks CVS is easy, just look at the two sentences above.
Cheers,
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 5, 2005 5:04 UTC (Sun) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] I must ask, what prevented YOU from writing an SCM tool for Linus and everyone else to use 3-6 years ago?
How DARE you, and all the other clowns in this thread who are siding against BitKeeper, EVER accuse or question the motives of the people who GIVE YOU STUFF FOR FREE.
You can rant and rave all you like and come up with the most lunatic ideas I've read in a long time, but the fact remains it was people JUST LIKE YOU that made BitKeeper licensing very restrictive. All you contribute to the open source community is hot air and bullshit.
If you want to dig a hole, do you take a banana, because someone handed you one, and it's kinda scooped a bit so could well work, maybe, with a bit of effort; or do you go buy a shovel?
Linus chose BitKeeper because it was a shovel and he needed to dig holes. All you crack monkeys were jumping around screeching "bananas! bananas!" and were too blinded by your own idiotic obsession with "free & open fruit" you couldn't understand even the concept of digging a hole. I seriously doubt even 95% of you have been in the open source community as long as Larry McVoy has. Do you see him preaching some religion from the street corner? No, he's writing good software.
If you can't code up, shut up. I don't think you realise how utterly immature and moronic you sound.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 5, 2005 14:27 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] > How DARE you, and all the other clowns in this thread who are siding against BitKeeper, EVER accuse or question the motives of the people who GIVE YOU STUFF FOR FREE.
I think you left out a phrase. Didn't you mean:
How DARE you, and all the other clowns in this thread who are siding against BitKeeper, EVER accuse or question the motives of the people who GIVE YOU STUFF FOR FREE, OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS"?
Steve Bergman
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 5, 2005 17:39 UTC (Sun) by alext (guest, #7589) [Link] You say"I seriously doubt even 95% of you have been in the open source community as long as Larry McVoy has" I would counter that he could be considered a parasite of it really these days. He develops something to help the community, discovers he can sell it for lots and then decides that Open Source and Free Software are great provided he not only gets more out in terms of software than he puts in but also more out in terms of financial reward. That's how it looks. I don't know what he has done in the past but I can see clearly he now wants to participate only if people play to his rules.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 5, 2005 23:56 UTC (Sun) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] Except its the reverse; he develops some tools he sees a need for in the marketplace and sells them, then sees that the open source community could do with these tools too and releases a gratis version with an open source licence. This sounds pretty good to me, and the kind of thing we should be supporting from commercial organisations.
Then people would take the gratis version and do illegal things with it, like change its name and sell it to others, lift code from it for their own tools (this was against the license - it was open but not free-as-in-freedom; you could modify the source but could not redistribute modifications except back to BitMover); and so on. This is the kind of practice most people should find abhorrent - as its been pointed out you can't expect anyone to abide by your license agreement if you won't abide by theirs. Except of course vocal minorities in the open source coomunity congratulated these people and claimed they were doing the right thing.
Linus chose BitKeeper on technical merit and the fact it was under an open enough license and communication with BitMover was fantastic; anyone who ever used BitKeeper and dialled for support knows that they were top notch in this regard. This wasn't a mistake unlike what has been claimed above.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 6, 2005 4:21 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] This whole chapter in OSS history is now over. Can we just let it die, please?
only the *first* one is free. Posted Jun 6, 2005 1:17 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] > How DARE you, and all the other clowns in this thread who are> siding against (cocaine|GHB|Rohypnol|BitKeeper|Microsoft Internet > Explorer|Rohypnol), EVER accuse or question the motives of the > people who GIVE YOU STUFF FOR FREE. Dude, only the first one's free.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 6, 2005 11:51 UTC (Mon) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] > How DARE you, and all the other clowns in this thread who are siding> against BitKeeper, EVER accuse or question the motives of the people who > GIVE YOU STUFF FOR FREE.
Sometimes, free stuff isn't worth the price.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 6, 2005 11:05 UTC (Mon) by dan_b (guest, #22105) [Link] OSS SHOULD be (frequently is) about taking a deep breath, and doing the right thing, the right way, because there is no corporate timetable to adhere to, no release date that must be hit at any expense to quality, no marketing dept or shareholders breathing down your neck.I don't know where it's written that OSS "should" be about anything. But even if you adopt the All-Software-Must-Be-Free position, you're going to have to temper your idealism with pragmatism about the order things happen in if you ever want to get anywhere. Even RMS - he started out by writing free utilities (emacs, gcc) to run on proprietary kernels because he knew he'd get more people to write more of the system if tackled that way around then he would get by developing a free kernel on which there was no software to run.
Linux dispute boils over to MySQL, other projects (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 6, 2005 10:06 UTC (Mon) by geripi (guest, #29822) [Link] In my opinion, McVoy does not see the worth of a high market share. It is true, that for every copy of BitKeeper he gives away for free he does not DIRECTLY get money, but every gratis download of BitKeeper adds to a higher market share.Lots of projects might have used BitKeeper, if McVoy were not so unpleasant to the freeloaders. But lots of these free projects have some companies working on them (IBM and Linux for example). I am quite sure that IBM did buy lots of BitKeeper licenses, some of which will get abandoned, the longer Linux is away from BitKeeper. Microsoft might be unpleasant, the licenses a pain, but what MS actually got right, is TO NEVER ANNOY THE SMALL FREELOADERS. Windows won the war against OS2, because OS2 had the better copy protection (I know, Windows had none, so it wasn't hard to beat). BitMover will now loose customers, not win, especially because the motivation to write good replacements has been fuelled.
Gerald
|
|||||||||||