Linus Torvalds' BitKeeper blunder
Linus Torvalds' BitKeeper blunder
Posted May 5, 2005 15:31 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)Parent article: Linus Torvalds' BitKeeper blunder
Bradley Chapman wrote:
the 'free beer' version of BitKeeper has been removed due to the so-called reverse engineering done by Andrew Tridgell
This claim reflects a rather eccentric and polemical theory of causation, rather like saying "It's your own fault I broke your wife's arm. You should have handed over your wallet."
I doubt that, e.g., Perforce would ever cease letting open-source developers have free-of-charge licences for their SCM (which they do, by the way), for no better reason than someone telnetting into a repository, hitting return, and following the resulting suggestion of typing "help" -- which is literally what Tridgell did. Yet, BitMover decides differently, and you call it "due to" Tridgell's small typing spree? Weird.
McVoy finding unbearable people manually issuing BitKeeper directives using telnet and netcat, and getting to see SCCS files by doing so, may or may not have been a rational response -- you be the judge -- but calling it all Tridgell's doing seems a bit warped.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
