Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree (fwd)

Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree (fwd)

[Pavel Machek]

----- Forwarded message from Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> -----

To: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>, Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16ybpZ-0000V4-00@starship> <20020420191940.D856@suse.de>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020420191940.D856@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health.

Hi!

>  > Oh I don't disagree at all.  Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
>  > existed before.  But it is proprietary.  Which other tool in the tool chain
>  > is proprietary?
> 
> Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux.
> Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with
> their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as
> it

Standford checker was proprietary?

> was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?

That's another case; doing development on proprietary CPU is okay, so
doing development on emulator (== CPU equivalent) should be okay, too.
									Pavel
-- 
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly.  However, I really think that the U.S.
no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly.  However, I really think that the U.S.
no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa