Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Thunder from the hill <thunder@ngforever.de>]

Hi,

> Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.  
> I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
> had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
> because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".

Several guys (mis-)use Linux as war against Windows, which is really
childish. But it seems they're an important amount, on both sides (There
are even users who use Windows as a protest against Linux). That does,
however, not help you to get an non-propietary tool.

As long as there is nothing I could use instead, it's a good idea to use 
BitKeeper instead, and as long as there is a way to use it, users will 
actually look it up in the Documentation dir. If users don't find an 
answer there, they'll certainly massively bother the LKML.

Documentation also contains information on how to use existing tools 
with Linux Kernel. If we exclude BitKeeper just because it's propietary 
tool, we'll get into trouble.

BTW, why then do we include processor support into the kernel tree? I 
can't find any way to download them from the Internet!

Regards,
Thunder
-- 
                                                   Thunder from the hill.
Not a citizen of any town.                   Not a citizen of any state.
Not a citizen of any country.               Not a citizen of any planet.
                          Citizen of our universe.