From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:50:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:50:30 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:54546 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:50:29 -0400 Message-ID: <3DAAF717.6030306@pobox.com> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:55:51 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rms@gnu.org CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper outragem, old and new References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard, By this point, BitKeeper users will continue to be BitKeeper users and BitKeeper haters will continue to be BitKeeper haters. No one's mind is changing about BK these days -- either they like it or they don't. The debate has reached the level of emacs vs. vi, pro/anti-abortion, gun control, . No one's mind is being changed, there's just a lot of energy wasted on pointless ranting. Thus, you should have seen even before hitting 'Send' that your message was nothing but a lot of hot air, slashdot fodder and a troll. Would it not be logically more productive to direct FSF efforts instead towards funding Arch or SubVersion development? Jeff, a humble BitKeeper user and kernel developer