Re: [OFF TOPIC] BK license change

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

FYI - You won't see me replying to this because he's joined some others in
my procmail filter, enabling me to get more work done.  I love procmail.

Besides, Rik is doing a great job, thanks Rik!  

To underscore Rik's point: it took 4 years of at least 6 day/week efforts
by a team that varied in size from 3-8 engineers to get BitKeeper where
it is today.  Pavel is welcome to try and do better, but he sure as
hell isn't going to do it in his spare time.  Nobody is, it's a much
harder problem than it looks like.  I really wish people would try it
and find out.  Maybe I'm wrong, in which case we can all get on to doing
something more fun.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 04:34:30PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > In short: go build a better answer, and until you do it, how about
> > > easing off on the "BK is evil corporate software" mantra a bit?  It's
> >
> > BK *is* evil corporate software, with unique trapdoor capabilities, and
> > with unique ability to take away rights from user any time it wants.
> 
> BK is made available to us at no cost;  BK is saving Linus and
> Marcelo a lot of work, making it possible for them to merge more
> patches into the kernel.
> 
> If you only spent 10% of the energy you spent complaining on
> making a bitkeeper replacement, maybe you'd realise that Larry
> is making a very useful contribution.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Rik
> -- 
> Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
> 
> http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm