double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree)

dean gaudet
2002-04-22T20:37:03Z

On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> You seem to think I'm against Bitkeeper, or its use, or that I think
> Bitkeeper isn't helping linux. You're wrong. I am against carrying what
> *appears* to be a big advertisement for Bitkeeper itself in the Linux
> source tree. This I see as akin to putting up a commercial billboard in a
> public park. Would you be comfortable with that?

part of what i'm reacting to in this debate is what i perceive as a
different set of standards which people apply to software versus, say,
hardware.

linux-kernel (and the kernel itself, and the zillions of websites out
there with supporting documentation) are chock full of "advertisements"
for hardware. pro and con. i've made many hardware purchase decisions
based on stuff i read here, and stuff i find when searching for linux
documentation.

maybe someday we'll get scifi technology such as nanotech or replicators
(and "limitless" fusion energy) which can move us into a new economy in
which even open hardware is possible... but that's not the case today --
and i doubt many of you are using anything that could be considered open
hardware... almost certainly nobody is able to build an open hardware
platform with the same performance and quality standards as proprietary
hardware can achieve.

isn't there a bit of a double standard in place here?

i happen to put food on my table working at a hardware company; larry puts
food on his working at a software company. i happen to work at the same
hardware company as linus does: transmeta. every kernel for the past,
uh, 6 or 7 years, has included an advertisement for transmeta. could we
possibly conceive of removing all references to transmeta from the kernel,
mailing lists and archives? (oh i know if i go back that far in the
archives there was probably a big uproar when linus changed his email
address :)

-dean