Re: Why not an arch mirror for the kernel?

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:47:07PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> 	More than a year ago, we had some research done to see what it
> 	would cost to reproduce BitKeeper from scratch. At that point,
> 	it was estimated to be about $12,000,000 and at least 3.5
> 	years from the time a good team started.
> 
> That sounds to me like the kind of research you'd want to include in a
> proposal to potential investors: to prove that you have a unique
> strength in the market being addressed (a "barrier to entry").  I find
> the apparent urgency and hysteria with which you defame arch on this
> list to be pretty funny.

Hmm, maybe I am urgent, I'm packing for a long weekend.  Anyway, you're
missing my points, and I don't see why, it's in your best interest to
get it.  Let's try it as a question, and see if that works.  

Suppose all the kernel people started using your tool today.  On your
web page, you have a long list of things which need to be done to Arch
and your best case scenario is that it will take about year to do them
(your words, not mine).  So suppose the kernel people start using
your tool right now, bury you in requests for changes, and you can't
keep up.  They leave because it doesn't work.  End result: big negative
endorsement from the kernel team.  Obviously, you don't want that, and
equally obviously, you understand the probability of that (read your
own website), so maybe with all that, you'll understand why I said that
if you want to succeed you should pick a small group and work with them
closely until Arch is ready.

OK, let's address your other point.  It sounds like you think we're trying
to convince VC's of something and somehow doing so means that I need to
be badmouthing Arch.  Or maybe you think we have VC's leaning on us and
they are telling us that we'd better kill Arch.  Or some such thing, the
implication being that investors (or lack of them, or desire for them)
are causing me to go after Arch.  That's not true, we are not now and
were not then in discussions with VC's, the only investment BitMover 
has is from engineers who work here on the code.  We're self supporting
through sales of the product and we are not dependent on or subject to
the whims of any VC.  And we've declined offers to be bought so we could
stay that way.  Go read the ArsDigita archives and you will understand
why.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm