Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Software Announcements Technology Linux

BitMover Releases Open Source BitKeeper Client 255

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the bits-a-shakin dept.
diegocgteleline.es writes "Larry McVoy, the owner of BitKeeper (also one of the guys behind LMbench) has posted a message to linux-kernel where he announces a open source client of BitKeeper, which would only allow synching against BK trees. It looks like it's licensed under the NWL (No Whining License) that will force you to 'not whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BitMover Releases Open Source BitKeeper Client

Comments Filter:
  • by ABeowulfCluster (854634) on Friday March 18, 2005 @02:21AM (#11973366)
    So.. this doesn't run under WINE then.
  • Bazaar-NG (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cronopios (313338) on Friday March 18, 2005 @02:26AM (#11973381) Homepage Journal
    Too late.

    Right know, I put my expectations on Bazaar-NG [bazaar-ng.org]: all the goodies of GNU Arch and the simple interface of Subversion. Developed by Canonical (of Ubuntu fame).
    • Re:Bazaar-NG (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shish (588640) on Friday March 18, 2005 @02:42AM (#11973433) Homepage
      How do I use bazaar, arch or subversion to check out the kernel's bitkeeper repositories?

      The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel; you can use the open source client instead.

      • The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel

        Of course, you never did anyway. There have been numerous ways to get at the up to date kernel source for a long time without requiring bitkeeper (e.g., bk2cvs).

      • The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel

        I hope you are not in violation of the license, or that you have not agreed to the license.
        • The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel
          I hope you are not in violation of the license, or that you have not agreed to the license.
          The "no whining license" according to Mc Voy (which you'd know if you RTFA) is a joke. It's BSD licensed.
  • by MatthewNewberg (519685) on Friday March 18, 2005 @02:37AM (#11973407) Homepage
    I wonder if someone could extend said license to other things in life such as Family, Jobs and Girlfriends..
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I wonder if someone could extend said license to other things in life such as Family, Jobs and Girlfriends...

      What are these "Jobs and Girlfriends" things of which you speak?
    • ..but where exactly is this license found to be read?

      (does it include "no compete" clause?)
    • It might be a joke, but such "no negative comment" provisions have been tried by others. Very pernicious. Probably legal and enforceable, just as any secrecy provision is. The US 1st Amendment may give rights (prohibit certain government actions), but you can easily give them up by contract/licence.

  • Bitkeeper website (Score:5, Informative)

    by kihjin (866070) on Friday March 18, 2005 @03:10AM (#11973514)

    "BitKeeper has made me more than twice as productive, and its fundamentally distributed nature allows me to work the way I prefer to work - with many different groups working independently, yet allowing for easy merging between them."
    -- Linus Torvalds, February 2004

    Linus did it. I can too! *jumps on the bandwagon*

    • Re:Bitkeeper website (Score:4, Interesting)

      by greppling (601175) on Friday March 18, 2005 @05:34AM (#11973912)
      This has been quoted so many times, I still think it is a silly exaggeration. A couple of things changed when Linus switched to BK:

      1. He wrote scripts so that he didn't have to jump between applying patches and reading e-mail, instead he is now reading a batch of patches, queuing them, and then starts a script to apply them.
      2. Developers have instant access to Linus' tree. Any source control system would have provided this.
      3. The comments to the patches in the e-mails sent to Linus now actually make it to the public. Just about any GNU project does this via ChangeLog under any revision control system.
      4. A script was written to automatically extract release notes from the changelog comments.
      5. Merging with subsystems maintainer is easier if they pile up the patches in bitkeeper repositories.

      Maybe all of the above together yielded a factor of two. But only with respect to 5. is BK at all relevant. And even there -- by a HUGE amount the largest merge point is Andrew Morton, who uses quilt instead of BK to manage his tree with some hundred patches per week throughput to Linus. And I haven't read any complaints from Linus that he isn't using BK.

      • It's not like Linus had never heard of source control. He had, and he felt that using something like CVS would have made him *less* productive, because he would have had to spend more time wrangling with the system trying to rename files and such.

        BitKeeper was written for the way Linus works (literally-- Larry worked with him to make it so), so it had all the inherent advantages of any source control, but the added advantage that Linus didn't have to adapt himself to the software.
    • "When I equipped my +6 Bitkeeper Shield of Source Code, my PRDTVTY not only increased by more than half, it went up to 11" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap, February 2005
  • by shadowmatter (734276) on Friday March 18, 2005 @03:43AM (#11973622)
    They should have used the Open Profanity License [lcdf.org] instead!

    - shadowmatter
  • by melted (227442) on Friday March 18, 2005 @03:55AM (#11973655) Homepage
    I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares to the state of the art, Perforce. Perforce charges $700 per seat, and after working with it for years, I can say it's worth it. Everything is just the way it should be. I wish someone would reimplement the damn thing under GPL license. After using Perforce at work, all other systems look like a joke.
    • by hashinclude (192717) <slashdot@h[ ]include.com ['ash' in gap]> on Friday March 18, 2005 @04:17AM (#11973723) Homepage
      Yeah, I love perforce too. The good thing is (if you RTF Licensing terms from the website [perforce.com]) is that GPL/BSD and other open source projects can get a P4 license for free.

      Blockquoth the site:

      Organizations developing software that is licensed or otherwise distributed exclusively under an Open Source license may be eligible to obtain Perforce licenses gratis. This includes upgrades but not support. Perforce Software reserves the right to approve the Open Source license; those fitting The Open Source Definition, including the GNU and FreeBSD licenses, are good candidates. Execution of a End User License Agreement for Open Source Software Development (PDF) is required. For more information, please see the Perforce and Open Source FAQ or contact opensource [at] perforce [dot] com
    • To quote The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

      "State of the art" doesn't mean "best overall implementation". It means that it implements the most recent advances in the field. Perforce is actually quite conventional (being originally based on either RCS or SCCS--I can't recall which). It uses the "single authoritative repository" model of version control.

      The "state of the art" in version control is exploring the model of distributed and decentralized repositories. BK,
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 18, 2005 @05:15AM (#11973873)
      It compares much better than perforce.

      With Bitkeeper it's very easy for every organization - and even every developer - to have his own "fork" of the tree which acts as a "master repository" for others to create branches off of.

      For example, within RedHat, they can have one (or many) child branches from Linus's branch (or any other developer's branches); and "reparent" the branches as needed to merge in the various pieces they need. Other employes' repositories may point to one inside RedHat; or they may point to Linus's; and of course they can "reparent" their repository to switch between the two as needed.

      Similarly, any company or group of developers can have similar structures.

      Also; it's important to note that not everyone needs access to a "master repository"; and that indeed no-one needs access to a "master repository" except when they're merging with that master.

      Bitkeeper works perfectly on my laptop in disconnected mode - and I have the full power of the source control system on my laptop even with no net access - I can create branches, merge branches, etc. If I'm traveling with someone else from the company I can merge my branches with his merely with a cable between the laptops - no connection to the home office is needed.


      We used perforce at a previous company I was at with offices in China, Taiwan,Romania, and California and it was a horrible experience. Connecting to oversees repositories was painful; and merging changes between the oversees repositories sucked even worse.

      Try BitKeeper. I'm sure you'll switch.

      • For example, within RedHat, they can have one (or many) child branches from Linus's branch (or any other developer's branches); and "reparent" the branches as needed to merge in the various pieces they need. Other employes' repositories may point to one inside RedHat; or they may point to Linus's; and of course they can "reparent" their repository to switch between the two as needed.

        How would you know, Mr. Anonymous Coward? The fact is, very few employees at Red Hat use Bitkeeper at all. I should know,
    • Perforce is firmly in the low-cost bracket when it comes to SCM systems. It's better than VSS or CVS, but it doesn't touch high end systems such as Clearcase (UCM) or Bitkeeper.

      Bitkeeper simply beats the pants out of Perforce if you ever have to worry about doing a lot of complex merging or maintaining branches in several sites (in different parts of the world; try having a team in India with an unreliable internet connection) and/or you have a lot of engineers working on a laptop away from the office usin
    • Perforce is a "better CVS", and uses a centralized repository. If you have a centralized development model and everybody has broadband or better access to a central server, Perforce works great.

      The open source world is finally catching up to Perforce: Subversion is almost as good.

      Bitkeeper uses a distributed model, so it doesn't require a centralized development model nor does it require continuous broadband access to a single central server.

      There seems to be about 20 different projects trying to take
      • There seems to be about 20 different projects trying to take on Bitkeeper. Nobody's quite there yet. My personal favorite is Darcs.

        Have you tried a few different ones, then? What's better about Darcs? I've only used Arch and although it's pretty cool, it's a bit complicated to set up and it's pretty slow.

        I'm just about to start a new project where a distributed repository would be useful, so I'm interested in what the options are.

  • by irabinovitch (614425) on Friday March 18, 2005 @04:43AM (#11973795) Homepage
    Larry McVoy [socallinuxexpo.org], BitMover Founder, gave a great talk about BitKeeper and the delta development model at SCALE 3x [socallinuxexpo.org] (Southern California Linux Expo [socallinuxexpo.org]) last month. Its available online here [bitmover.com]. -Ilan
  • NWL (Score:2, Informative)

    by kspiteri (599317)
    A copy of NWL can be found at http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/14/47/ [lkml.org]:

    /*
    * tarball.c copyright (c) 2003 BitMover, Inc.
    *
    * Licensed under the NWL - No Whining License.
    *
    * You may use this, modify this, redistribute this provided you agree:
    * - not to whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.
    * - that there is no warranty of any kind.
    * - retain this copyright in full.
    */
    • This license would never be approved for the "Open Source" logo by OSI. If necessary, I would suggest that we change the OSD to make sure that a license does not impose restrictions on freedom of speech. Sheesh.
      -russ
  • Rule of Thumb (Score:3, Insightful)

    by R.Caley (126968) on Friday March 18, 2005 @07:25AM (#11974208)
    Always worry about a company who won't give any idea about pricing unless you get in contact with a salesdroid.

    So far as I can see on their website, BitMover fall under that heading.

    • So do IBM (with Clearcase). In fact any fairly serious SCM system that's available out there doesn't quote a price on the front page.

      • So do IBM (with Clearcase). In fact any fairly serious SCM system that's available out there doesn't quote a price on the front page.

        perforce does - the pricing link on the front page takes you to the prices on this page [perforce.com]

    • Professional software rarely gives a price publicly. Look into real CAD packages, real EDA packages, RTOSes, compilers for non-PC systems, etc, etc, etc. You'll find that most of them require you to call your company rep to get a price.
      • Re:Rule of Thumb (Score:3, Insightful)

        by base3 (539820)
        The conversation, simplified, is something like this:

        Customer: How much is it?

        Salesman: How much do you have?

        • -funny +insightful

          The real conversation is:

          Customer: How much does X cost?

          Salesman: How much do you have?

          Customer: I have Y. But my company is so big, you are going to give it to me for Z (Z Y).

          Salesman: OK.
          • The *real* conversation is:

            Customer: How much does X cost?

            Salesman: How much do you have?

            Customer: I have Y. But my company is so big, you are going to give it to me for Z (Z < Y).

            Salesman: My company is big too, but OK.

            [three months later]

            Customer: We've implemented it, but feature FOO doesn't work the way that you said it did! The world will end if feature FOO doesn't work!

            Salesman: Sorry, you must have misunderstood me. You can buy third-party app BAR to provide that functionality. And pay us m
  • I think whining should be enshrined as a basic human right. A "No Whining" license is just going too far.

    I want to be able to whine all I want, and I'm prepared to whine about this until it is changed.

  • Unfortunaly the NWL does not quality as Open Source. At least that's what some people think [google.com]

    From the Open Source definition:

    5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

    The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

  • So, uh, there are like over a hundred posts here, and since nobody has said so yet... what the hell IS BitKeeper? I get the impression it's something used for the Linux kernel? What does it do? Why is this news newsworthy?

    Would be nice if the article submissions actually contained some of this information...
  • by dwheeler (321049) on Friday March 18, 2005 @05:45PM (#11980500) Homepage Journal
    For some info on OSS configuration management tools, including references to many of them, see Comments on OSS/FS Software Configuration Management (SCM) Systems [dwheeler.com]. That paper, in turn, references lots of other pages on the topic:
    "The
    better SCM initiative [berlios.de] was established to encourage improved OSS/FS SCM systems, by discussing and comparing them. Among other things, see their comparison file [berlios.de]. Zooko has written a short review of OSS/FS SCM tools [zooko.com]. Shlomi Fish's OnLamp.com article compares various CM systems [onlamp.com] as does his Evolution of a Revision Control User [berlios.de]. The arch folks have developed a comparison of arch with Subversion and CVS [gnuarch.org] (obviously, they like arch). Another pro-arch discussion is Why the Future is Distributed [verbum.org]. A pro-subversion discussion is available at Dispelling Subversion FUD [red-bean.com]. Slashdot had a discussion when Subversion 1.0 was announced. [slashdot.org] Kernel traffic posted a summary of a technical discussion about BitKeeper. [kerneltraffic.org] Brad Appleton has collected lots of interesting SCM links [cmcrossroads.com]. jemfinch has some interesting essays about SCMs [supybot.com] (he uses the term VCS), including why he thinks the approach to branches used by Darcs, Arch, and Bazaar-ng is a poor one. A brief overview of SCM systems that can run on Linux is available [linuxmafia.com]."

    There are lots of OSS/FS software configuration management (SCM) tools. CVS [cvshome.org], Subversion [tigris.org] (SVN), and GNU arch [gnuarch.org] get lots of press, but there are many others such as Aegis [sourceforge.net], CVSNT [cvsnt.org], Darcs [abridgegame.org], FastCST [zedshaw.com], OpenCM [opencm.org], Vesta [vestasys.org], Codeville [codeville.org], Bazaar [canonical.com] and Bazaar-NG [bazaar-ng.org].

    You might also take a peek at my paper Software Configuration Management (SCM) Security [dwheeler.com].

When I left you, I was but the pupil. Now, I am the master. - Darth Vader

Working...