From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bitkeeper
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 17:50:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030720005043.GF28055@work.bitmover.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200307200030.h6K0UsbF018196@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 08:30:53PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> So Larry - *IF* funding was there, would you consider a business model similar
> to Hans Reiser's?
I'd consider anything which resulted in a healthy business. The choices
we've made to date have been 100% focussed on staying healthy so we can
grow as a company and continue to support Linux (and the other open
source guys, but I personally only care about Linus - he's unique),
and our commercial customers. We've been approached by investors and
companies which wished to buy us outright and I passed on both because
it was clear that they wanted one thing: money. They would have shut
down the free use of BK in less than a day after the deal was done.
The thing you need to consider is that the Linux community is not that
different than our commercial customers - both need us to be healthy so
that we can support them. Healthy costs a lot of money.
Part of the problem is that people are extremely short sighted. Until we
gave you BK nobody had any idea that a system like this was possible.
We can see a lot of problems with BK and a lot of problems in the
development process of Linux (and other systems) that maybe we can help
make easier. When people think about funding us they think about the
$$$ it would take to have a couple of guys doing bug fixes. That's not
good enough. We need the dollars to do the next thing that helps make
development work better. BK is fine but it is not the end all answer.
There is a lot of work in bug tracking, project management, review tools,
web interfaces, etc. We're not going to be interested in any business
model that means we get enough money to fix some bugs but not enough to
solve the next set of problems.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-07-20 0:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-07-18 19:51 Bitkeeper Richard Stallman
2003-07-18 20:06 ` Bitkeeper Rik van Riel
2003-07-18 20:22 ` Bitkeeper nick
2003-07-18 20:40 ` Bitkeeper Shawn
2003-07-18 21:28 ` Bitkeeper Alan Cox
2003-07-19 23:45 ` Bitkeeper Pavel Machek
2003-07-20 0:23 ` Bitkeeper Jeff Garzik
2003-07-18 20:32 ` Bitkeeper Shawn
2003-07-18 20:44 ` Bitkeeper Rik van Riel
2003-07-19 18:42 ` Bitkeeper Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-07-19 18:49 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 18:57 ` Bitkeeper Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-07-19 19:05 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 20:02 ` Bitkeeper Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-07-18 20:09 ` Bitkeeper Trever L. Adams
2003-07-18 20:44 ` Bitkeeper Shawn
2003-07-18 21:03 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-18 21:58 ` Bitkeeper Trever L. Adams
2003-07-18 22:17 ` Bitkeeper Mike Fedyk
2003-07-18 22:39 ` Bitkeeper Alan Cox
2003-07-19 8:20 ` Bitkeeper Eric W. Biederman
2003-07-19 15:34 ` Bitkeeper Mark Mielke
2003-07-18 22:29 ` Bitkeeper Scott Robert Ladd
2003-07-18 20:30 ` Bitkeeper Michael Buesch
2003-07-18 20:36 ` Bitkeeper Shawn
2003-07-18 20:44 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-18 21:03 ` Bitkeeper Shawn
2003-07-18 21:08 ` Bitkeeper David Schwartz
2003-07-18 21:28 ` Bitkeeper Shawn
2003-07-18 21:23 ` Bitkeeper Alan Cox
2003-07-18 21:50 ` Bitkeeper David Lang
2003-07-18 21:54 ` Bitkeeper Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-07-18 22:16 ` Bitkeeper Alan Cox
2003-07-18 22:01 ` Bitkeeper Trever L. Adams
2003-07-18 22:27 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 9:45 ` Bitkeeper Marcus Metzler
2003-07-19 20:42 ` Bitkeeper Adrian Bunk
2003-07-19 21:57 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 22:28 ` Bitkeeper Adrian Bunk
2003-07-19 22:39 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-19 23:45 ` Bitkeeper Adrian Bunk
2003-07-20 0:02 ` Bitkeeper Larry McVoy
2003-07-20 0:10 ` Bitkeeper Tupshin Harper
2003-07-20 0:26 ` Bitkeeper Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-07-20 1:11 ` Bitkeeper Jeff Garzik
2003-07-20 0:23 ` Bitkeeper Jeff Garzik
2003-07-20 0:28 ` Bitkeeper jiho
2003-07-20 0:30 ` Bitkeeper Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-07-20 0:50 ` Larry McVoy [this message]
2003-07-20 0:22 ` Bitkeeper Jeff Garzik
[not found] ` <3F19DA04.80809@c-zone.net>
[not found] ` <20030719235526.GA31428@work.bitmover.com>
2003-07-20 0:21 ` Bitkeeper jiho
2003-07-19 23:57 ` Bitkeeper Pavel Machek
2003-07-18 21:06 ` Bitkeeper Jörn Engel
2003-07-18 22:00 ` Bitkeeper Svein Ove Aas
2003-07-18 22:25 ` BK is not heaven, sure [Was: Re: Bitkeeper] J.A. Magallon
2003-07-18 23:50 ` Bitkeeper James Simmons
2003-07-19 1:05 ` offtopic crap (was Re: Bitkeeper) David S. Miller
2003-07-19 15:00 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-07-20 2:50 ` Bitkeeper Zack Brown
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-19 16:00 Bitkeeper John Bradford
2003-07-19 16:17 ` Bitkeeper Mark Mielke
2003-07-19 10:33 Bitkeeper John Bradford
2003-02-15 8:21 BitKeeper John Bradford
2003-02-15 22:26 ` BitKeeper Pavel Machek
2003-02-16 11:40 ` BitKeeper John Bradford
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030720005043.GF28055@work.bitmover.com \
--to=lm@bitmover.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox