No More BitKeeper Linux 958
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has a lengthy article detailing BitMover's recent decision to drop support for its free version of BitKeeper. Linus Torvalds began using BitKeeper back in February of 2002, a decision that has resulted in frequent flamefests, but also in increased kernel development productivity. Evidently the recent decision was due to OSDL's decision to keep paying a developer who was working on reverse engineering BitKeeper... What tool Linus will move to is still being determined."
Freedom matters (Score:4, Insightful)
But wait.
Now, look what happened. The company (or individual) that was your friend a couple of years ago, decides today that you've offended them. Now they are taking their ball and going home.
Now you are stuck. You need to replace what they gave you. Oh, it'll cost you: manpower, lost opportunities, potentially a pile of pesos... Get ready for a painful transition. And as annoying and dangerous as this is for source control in mainline kernel development, there are many, many scenarios where this kind of manuevering will screw you much worse - alienating your customers, stranding years of development, the whole works.
This is why freedom matters.
And what is BitMover so upset about? That anyone would dare compete with them?
The audacity!
Does any vendor of a commercial product have a moral high ground to complain when a competitor appears? And whose problem is it if they are trying to charge money for something other will do for free?
Too Obvious Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering what has transpired, the obvious choice is subversion [tigris.org]:)
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:4, Insightful)
How has this left Linux out in the cold? Because he now has to pay to use BitKeeper? What's wrong with that? BitMover feels that OSDL broke faith with them by having a developer who was reverse engineering their product.
If BK is such hot stuff, then it will be worth some money to Linus. If it isn't, I guess he'll find something else to use.
Re:In it for the money (Score:2, Insightful)
When giving out the free version looks like it will start to HURT the bottom line, as the head a company with employees (who need to get paid) he has to reconsider things.
What tool to move to? (Score:4, Insightful)
OSS communities tend to settle on one project, and nothing or noone ever seriously competes with it. Ie; the linux kernel, SAMBA, OO.o, Mozilla, GIMP, eventually either KDE or Gnome (heck, used to be lots of desktops), etc..
In the source control realm, it seems to be all about subversion. It seems to have the mindshare and community behind it.
Re:Bitkeeper (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. If he decided tomorrow that future kernels would all be compiled in Microsoft Visual C++, what would be the problem? After all, it's not as though his choices on tools affect anyone but him, is it?
Oh, except that all the other developers are forced to either use the same tools he does or find workarounds to allow them to use different tools.
Personally I've always felt that relying on a payware source control program for kernel development was a big risk, and removed much of the stimulus to create really first-class open source source control programs: I guess that's now been clearly demonstrated. And regardless of who's in the wrong here, I can't help but feel that the Bitkeeper folks are going to lose a lot of sales due to programmers regarding them poorly as a result of this action.
Why change? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see this as a problem for the time being.
Collective Punishment (Score:1, Insightful)
Does he really think that it is appropriate to transfer a military practice onto a community which supposes to act transparently, democratically (yes, there's a meritocracy, but also democracy) and with respect for individual rights (eg working on private project in their spare time).
Great way to squash all diversity and enforce group-think.
Re:Linus Shminus (Score:5, Insightful)
It is important to other people working on the kernel though.
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In it for the money (Score:3, Insightful)
In the past developers were exposed to bitkeeper through work on the Linux kernel. Then there was the possibility that through that exposure they would recommend BitKeeper for the proprietary projects they build on top of linux. This model seemed to work well due to the 'open comments' rule. (Anybody using the free version had their commit comments posted for all to see on the bitkeeper website).
Now there is no high profile exposure for bitkeeper. They're about to lose the best free advertizing they ever had. In two years nobody will be using bitkeeper at all.
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:4, Insightful)
Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
-b0lt
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's very relevant, because it's exactly the point: since Mozilla is open source, if enough people are interested, it's easy for the browser suite version to live on even if the original maintainers are no longer pursuing it. And, it turns out that enough people are, so we get a solid maintainer transition plan and a workable future for Mozilla SeaMonkey [mozilla.org]. No such thing is possible with BitKeeper.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
While everyone has a fit when stallman is mentioned, it's true that the people who don't consider the politics of licences are often burned.
Look at how much MS or Apple have given back to BSD as opposed to how much linux has got from IBM. Who has the better dynamic community of sharing?
Seriously, there are many reasons FOR the GPL. I am sick of people who aren't political having an allergic reaction to it, while you might not value the reasons for the GPL there *ARE* perfectly legitimate and powerful reasons for believing in it.
There is tons of hateful propaganda against the GPL. I don't mind the BSD guys* doing what they do, it's cool. I have respect for them. But I don't like the hate that gets sent back. It's one thing not to agree, it's another thing to just characterise other people as "weenies" and "hippies" or whatever.
*Fully comprehending that there are pro-BSD trolls that don't represent all of BSD community. Just talking about impressions.
and thus, R.Stallman was right after all (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems now, after all, it was R.Stallman all along. Yes, Linus has a good point in chosing for technical superior alternatives...BUT, in the end, as is clearly shown now, you can't just devide the political/ideological/proprietary issue from the mere technical one. When push comes to shove, an alternative that isn't really free, isn't really an alternative. You are always dependend on the goodwill of whomever owns the product- even when buying it, I may add.
So, it would seem the viewpoint of Linus, in this instance, is the weaker one, because now he doesn't have a 'tecnological superior' product anymore, and what is he going to do? Go for another proprietary product, because it's technologically better? And have the same thing happen to him again? I don't think so. I think he learned his lesson, and he will go for the really free alternatives that R.Stallman suggested, which, albeit not as good, at least allow you to continue with it as you see fit.
Stallman can be a nag sometimes because of his gnu/linux diatribe, but in this instance, he was right.
Re:I cant wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Big Mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
BitKeeper's main claim to fame was that Linus and the kernel folks used it. That's the kind of endorsement that you can't buy for any amount of money. Without that, most people would never even know BitKeeper exists.
Its a really stupid move. An open source competitor might have taken some of their business, but most of the open source users would probably be using something else free anyway. 90% of corporate customers would rather pay for something. An open source clone would probably validate BitKeeper.
Not to mention the ill will they will generate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom over Function (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom matters (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that Larry is being pissy about a tenuous connection to a third party developer working on a BK alternative just makes him sound like an asshole. It was nice to read his little speech about accepting commercial developers, like any time a company releaases a commercial product for Linux all the OSS guys should cease work on anything to compete with it. That attitude is the whole reason OSS got started in the first place.
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's just that he really, really, really, really believes strongly in what he believes in. And that if you don't understand it, you are somehow stupid/lesser/not worth talking to.
hmpf (Score:3, Insightful)
But you were right in your original assessement. That said, let's not forget that, at least in the former version, Freenet was heavily dependent on suns' java too.
There IS merit in taking the " only technological superiour" route, only one takes a risk as well, as is shown in this case.
From the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be the stupidest things I've ever heard. Clearly, Word-formatted documents are the wrong format to be using.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is where to go now? My preference would be GNU Arch, as it's more decentralized. But it may not be ready for this heavy a use, and I am hardly an expert in revision control.
Bruce
Re:Too Obvious Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering what has transpired, the obvious choice is subversion:)
I, unlike the rest of these boobs, understood your joke.
Re:and thus, R.Stallman was right after all (Score:4, Insightful)
If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper.
Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen.
So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice.
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Classic Heroin Marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's hope that it doesn't.
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care what a license agreement says, unless you get to look at the source, reverse engineering should be perfectly legal. The progress of science (which is basically just reverse engineering on a grand scale) should not be stopped because it might hurt someone commercially.
Besides, it's not OSDLs job to enforce Larry McVoy's license agreement for him. Larry could sue the developer if he wanted the developer to stop. If I wrote DeCSS in my spare time, should the movie industry go after me, or my employer? What would you say if the movie industry called the fact that my employer wouldn't fire me a "Breach of faith" on the part of my employer?
Re:Freedom matters (Score:5, Insightful)
If I blame anyone, I blame the dismissive people who said this would never happen, and if it did, it wouldn't matter.
BitMover is doing what's best for BitMover. They had a sexy marketing line with "fake freedom" and it fooled some people. Who do you "blame?" The marketing department? Or the people they convinced?
This is not a story about a corporation "getting burned" because someone dared to create an open source version of their product. Excuse me, that's called competition, and you can't play that card without being fundamentally against open source, if not all competition.
This is a story about the dangers of non-free software - dangers that exist for everyone, for AT&T and IBM just as much as for Linux and Gnu hackers.
I just hope everyone, corporate or otherwise, learns from the experience. If we don't, we can blame ourselves.
Re:What tool to move to? (Score:4, Insightful)
or maybe openoffice, koffice, abiword (sortof), gnumeric (sortof), etc?
maybe mozilla, konqueror?
bochs/qemu?
bash/sh/csh/tsh?
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you suggesting BitMover should simply roll over and let anyone violate their license? Should PearPC allow CherryOS to get away with violating their license? How are these two situations different?
Re:I cant wait (Score:4, Insightful)
The open source position on this one is not outrageous: they want a client which can't be taken away from them.
Larry, responds by *TAKING THE CLIENT AWAY* thus proving exactly what people were saying in the first place -- we've indirectly put Larry in a position of power as he controls the only tool we can now use: not only are we ethically opposed to this, but he seems to be a dick to.
Re:and thus, R.Stallman was right after all (Score:1, Insightful)
If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper.
I'm not surprised. Linus wasn't using source control before.
Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years.
Did you ever consider that he might have got a similar productivity boost by switching to a Free source control system instead of BitKeeper?
But he is honest (Score:4, Insightful)
He goes on to compare the activities of an individual deleoper to a "bad apple" in the Marine Corps!
Rhetorical fussilades like this really expose what an unbearable asshole he is.
Who says Linus will change? (Score:1, Insightful)
In fact, considering that Linus feels BitKeeper is far superior to anything else out there (including subversion, arch etc.) and has been using the commercial version for ages, why would he stop using it now? It's not like users and other developers cannot access the source code anymore.
Also, Linus has never been fanatical about using only free software. He has said many times that he prefers the better tool, whether it's free or not. And its his choice.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a demonstration that Open Source is more dependable. We understood that, but it seems paradoxical to outisders that it is the exclusive rights-holder, the very company that purports to support the software, that reduces dependability.
Bruce
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that OSDL should be responsible for what its employees do while not on the clock?
Re:I cant wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Together they put pressure on each other and arrive at a reasonable medium.
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, my point was that ignoring loyal users is not the sole domain of non-free software vendors, as the OP seemed to imply. Even though open-source developers can continue to develop a product after it is no longer supported, it still doesn't make it right.
Rather than marketshare, software vendors, both open- and closed-source, should be focusing on their loyal customers/users. However, they are managed by business school graduates, to whom, profit is everything.
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem I see here is the level of fragmentation in the open source SCM world. Monotone looks like it is designed from the ground up to be distributed. CVS and Subversion were not, but are both much more mature projects on the standalone side. Then you have arch which seems to fit somewhere in the middle. It would be nice to have some of these teams working together since something like a subversion with the distributed nature of monotone is what we really want here.
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't think of a bigger, more successful, more openly public project than the Linux kernel (maybe Mozilla). That makes a HELL of a bullet point on your marketing brochure. If I'm mom and pop software developer and I'm comparing versioning systems and I see "BK powers the linux kernel" I'm going to know this isn't some silly little program, it's legit.
I really have to imagine that the linux kernel did more for BK than BK did for the linux kernel.
McVoy is an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unlike the Marine corp, the open source community is more than willing to ignore their bad apples as 'not my problem' (the Marine corp punishes the group for the behavior of the bad apples, pretty soon there are no bad apples)."
This supposed open source fanatic obviously doesn't have a frickin clue. Comparing OSS developers to the Marine corp makes no sense, as there is no single organization that all OSS programmers belong to. Even if you had the desire to do so, you can't sit and police a group when you have no authority. OSDL quite simply wasn't going to stop doing business with a guy because of what he does in his free time, nor should they have to. It is none of their business, nor is it McVoy's.
He's got to be delusional if he thinks he's got the most open source friendly commercial organization out there. There are a lot of companies that work in the OSS world without bullying other developers. McVoy has turned his company into a joke amongst the OSS crowd, and will probably promptly run it bankrupt too. And I have to say, it looks good on him.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
What consequences? Having the kernel be way better than it would have been if Linus had listened to you people and not used BitKeeper?
Sure, BitKeeper might be going away--but the things Linus accomplished while it was here will NOT go way.
Re:and thus, R.Stallman was right after all (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose someone lends you a car, and you drive a 1000 miles in a month. That someone shows up and takes the car away because he suddenly stops liking you. Do you say, "Damn, I knew it! We should have kept walking" or "Oh well, at least we made good progress for a month?" How can you ignore the progress the kernel devs made in their process while using bk? Furthermore, it looks like some of the delegation skills that bk forced upon Linus, that sped up kernel development, may actually work with any version control system and thus lead to permanent improvement.
Re:Freedom matters (Score:3, Insightful)
anyway, i think he's being a little blind if he thinks his organization is as friendy as any to open source. sure, they're friendly to open source, as long as it isn't competing with them. sorry buddy, that's not the way it works.
and his comment about marines and disciplining the 'bad apples' is nothing short of ludicrous. it's not up to the free software community to discipline somebody for the decisions they make on how to spend their free time.
Re:BitMover is in the right (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no "theft of MitMover's work". The independant contractor in his own free time was working on creating a competing product.
By your logic, Open Office is stealing the work of MS on its Office suite...
Further, when I contract with a company, they have NO influence on what side projects I do. I would probably be offended if they even asked me to stop working on a personal project.
Re:BitMover is in the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
and thus, R.Stallman was right after all (2) (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you follow some of the links from the article, it talks about productivity doubling since using BitKeeper."
There is, ofcourse, always the matter that there might be a relation noted, but therefor not a causality. Is there really a heightened production? Is it due to Bitkeeper? Is it *all* due to Bitkeeper?
Those are reasonable questions, and I think, even the neutral Linus could be biased a bit in this regard, because after all, he has made and kept to this decision for 3 years, contrary to much critique.
"Even if there is a cost now moving to something else, it may still work out better in terms of productivity to have used BitKeeper for the three years. Also the use of BitKeeper in Linux seems to encouraged a lot of work on open source alternatives, so they may well be better now than they would have been had BitKeeper not been chosen."
The cost will not be minute, I assure you. Yes, it *might* have been worthwile, but I have problems with this 'might' because it is largely based on speculation. If it really is all that much beneficial, he (Linus) would obviuosly chose another technological superior, yet proprietary system. I doubt that he will, however. Well, we'll see.
"So from the practical, rather than ideological, point of view, even with dropping it now it may still have been the best choice."
See above.
"When you are provided a powerful tool for no cost under the condition that you don't fund the creation of a competing tool based on that technology you are not at the whim of someone's goodwill."
Ermm...yes, you are. I don't follow you: you just describe a situation where, at least in that instance, you are at the whim, and you claim it's indicative that you aren't? Unless you equal 'whim' with totally unreasonable demands, this makes no sense. however, being depended on the goodwill of someone does not infer being unreasonable: they can have very good reasons (even economical ones are good too, in a sense); but still it remains a fact you are at their mercy.
"When they approached OSDL and said you have a employee doing this (reverse engineering our technology), please have them stop and OSDL says it's not our problem."
See above. Besides, reverse engeneering isn't illegal per sé, so they were right to say it's not there problem.
"Its not like they all of the sudden started says hey OSDL/Linus you now need to start paying for this since you like it. They said we are giving you free access to our tool but you have staff that are now striking at our revenue line, which happens to be how we fund this tool you like. Please have them stop and we will continue to provide this tool."
That's very amicable (or not) of them, but it still means one is not free to use the tool; thus, one is dependend on their goodwill.
"When you still thumb your nose at the company who has employees to support and revenue to generate you are only putting them under the gun."
See above.
"So based on this evidence you can see this isn't a RS versus Linus issue versus a OSDL taking responsibility issue. If OSDL came back to the table and said Ok, mea culpa, we will make this right then the problem wouldn't be there."
Yes, it would, since it would still be clear that they are not really free. If they can say 'do not do this" they can say "do not do that" neither. Whether it is reasonable from their perspective or not doesn't enter the picture: it still makes it clear that they can't use the tool totally free.
"Make Sense?"
Not really, when you look at it strictly from the viewpoint of whether or not they are delivered to the goodwill of the owners of Bitkeeper. This shows they aren't, whether Bitkeepers owners were reasonable in their demands or not.
"RMS was not necessarily right. In TFA Linus is quoted as saying "three years of using BitKeeper has made some profound improvements to the workflow""
I answered this already at th
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:4, Insightful)
Benefit the users? By restricting their freedom to create a tool like BitKeeper?
>What exactly is wrong with that? Its their software, and they don't have to let anyone use it without paying.
Granted. But they can't lie either. They can lie to politicians and the average american, but they can't lie to geeks. Geeks write things down and have long memories.
>Why should they allow someone who freeloads to reverse engineer their software?
If the guy saw the source, he's not reverse engineering, he's copying from memory. If the guy didn't see the source, he's not freeloading.
Again, tell me how a license between Corp A and Corp B can stop US Citizen C from reverse-engineering something?
Something I'm not clear on (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not familiar with BitKeeper. Can anyone comment on the possible ramifications of having all these large-scale commercial contributors using a tool that Linus & Co no longer use/have access to?
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
> be able to make a living writing software (bad).
RMS has himself never said that, in fact he says exactly the opposite. You should read the GNU philosophy pages before spouting such nonsense, in particular this particular aspect [gnu.org].
The FSF says that you should charge as much as you possibly can for Free software. Redhad in particular is demonstrating this point very well.
Presumably you know that RHEL is more expensive than Windows yet is distributed under the terms of the GPL, and therefore the freeest form of Free Software according to Stallman.
Re:Big Mistake (Score:3, Insightful)
The Linux Kernel, then, might have moved to that open source competitor. And that would look tons worse than what has actually happened.
It's like a relationship. Given the choice, you want to break up with your significant other. Such a situation (for social reasons somewhat opaque to me) is far preferable to having your significant other break up with you.
With this move, BitMover was preemptively "breaking up" with Linux, before Linux had a chance to do the same.
Jeremy
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
*Sigh* After almost two decades of Free (OS) Software, you still don't get it. Even considering the fact that most FOSS programmers (who are writing software after all) are still around and so far haven't starved to death, you, amongst so many others, still believe that it's impossible to make a living out of it.
Who do you think is most qualified to deliver (meaningful) support, fixes and enhancements to any kind of software? Right, the original developers. While everybody may look at the (open) source code, the original developers are most qualified to do anything with it in a timely fashion. This one alone opens up possibilities for revenue creation.
What about hardware drivers? IBM does pay their developers to work on (GPL'd) Linux drivers so that that it can sell it to their customers, no? Or do you really think that Big Blue tells its software engineers that they will have to work for free while hacking FOSS drivers?
Just because you are too daft to figure out a viable business model doesn't mean it can't be done.
Sorry if this sounds too harsh for you, but you made a fine example of not getting IT.
BitMover is in the right (but only legally) (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is, of course, the biggest line of bullshit ever. A company does not own its employees. While BitMover is legally in the clear here (the contract is the contract), they're morally in the wrong to have included such a line in the first place.
It's one thing to tell companies you're giving free stuff to "hey, don't develop a competing product". That's cool. But OSDL wasn't developing a competing product. Some guy who worked for them was developing stuff on his own time and OSDL didn't fire him for it. BitMover's agreement basically says "not only can't you develop a competing product, but if you pay anybody who does or offer them any assistance or do anything other than kick the hell out of them, we're through".
Making other companies into your goon squad to prevent competing products from appearing just because you're giving them some free software isn't morally sound. Competition is good, unless you're the one being competed against, right?
Expecting that relationship to actually last, especially in a world where people think software should not only be free as in beer but also free as in speech, was perhaps a bit foolish on all sides, but in no way can you make BitMover out to be the good guy here.
Larry is being a jackass, he probably knows it, and he probably doesn't much care.
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the big difference between a religious attitude towards OSS and a laid back engineering style attitude.
Use the best tool for the job and do not let religion get in the way of that decision! Sure the kernel developers has to find another tool now, but as the parent said: it was good while it lasted.
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. If companies have licensed their software, they are probably under some contract. And they have probably had enough time to transition all their code into it. Transitioning out is much harder. BitMover already has the signed deals, it doesn't MATTER the reasoning WHY companies signed the deals. If someone signed up based solely on the fact that Linus used it, then they are fools in the business world. But without fools, there would be no business world as we know it.
The real question is, if they are able to, will it be worth it for these companies to move off of BitKeeper now? I am guessing for a large enough percentage, the answer is no - and THAT is how BitMover wins. That is how business works for the most part, like it or not.
let's use a better analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
It is dangerous to take a relation as a causality.
But, say it did boost the development. A more appropriate anaology would be some machinery that is used to build a building. The building being Linux (which lacks in your comparison, because when driving a car, you are not working on something collectively). Now, say you have the choice of free machinery, which would be at your disposal forever, but work more slowely, and unfree ones, which work faster.
After a copple of years, you get the finger with the unfree machinery. By then, everyone is used to the machinery, everything is managed according to it, and their is invariably a big cost (and considerable learning curve) in changing to any other machinery. Do you doubt that productivity will suffer because of it? I don't. Will it be worthwile, to have used the other macinery after all? That will depend on various factors, but it sure as hell isn't as clear-cut as in your analogy.
At the end, it might well be that you're indeed better of by using the slow-but-steady machines instead of the fast-but-unreliable ones. As is known already in the IT business, changing to a new platform or whatever - especially when you're users are used to it, applications are build on it, etc. can be prohibitive expensive. Also, you don't actually *know* when or for what reason you will get the finger, do you? So all this is talk 'in hindsight'. If that dude backengineered Bitkeeper much sooner, they might have say 'njet' much sooner too. In that case, say after 6 months, would you still be saying the same thing?
In cases like this, you do *not* know how long it will take to be allowed to use it, or if it is going to be worth the trouble. As with free alternatives, at least you know it will always remain free.
So, in fact, if someone offered me a car that drives 1000 km in a month, but which can be taken away at their will, or I can chose a car that only drives 500 km/month, but remains mine indefinately, I'll chose the latter - as would most sensible people, me thinks.
From a Jan 2003 LW article on McVoy (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a kernel developer, but it seems to me Perens and RMS were right from the start. Good riddance and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Re:Take aim at foot, Fire! (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies (specifically Nestlé) give free infant formula to mothers in third world countries, marketing it as better than the free alternative. The mother uses the free milk, and her natural supply dries up. Then suddenly the rules change, and Nestlé demands cash for more milk. To add to the problem, she has to find a supply of clean water to mix the formula with, which can be problematic.
Even though Nestlé never say up front that they are offering an ongoing free supply of milk, they still get boycotted by many people who find their behavior immoral in the extreme.
So your attempt to show by analogy that BitKeeper have done nothing wrong, in fact fails to convince.
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
What consequences? Having the kernel be way better than it would have been if Linus had listened to you people and not used BitKeeper?
The pace of kernel development did improve. Some may have been BK's superior performance, but much was attributed to the increased delegation of responsibility (eg, RTFA)
The "consequence" is that now, this improved speed can not continue much longer, until some other replacement is developed.
Sure, BitKeeper might be going away--but the things Linus accomplished while it was here will NOT go way.
But the improved speed may go away.
Worse yet, the pace of kernel development might even slow for some time, as developers all migrate to another tool. Consider that changeset data is locked in a proprietary format that needs to be reverse engineered.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just writing software - writing it better and more efficiently because they don't have to constantly re-invent the wheel nor worry about violating patents they aren't even aware of.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I do not get the religous thing, but as the simple business person I am struck at the audacity of the free software communitity sometimes. This was an individual and company that doubled the output of main-line Linux development over a couple year span and the only thing asked was not to try to reverse the product.
Personally, I do not think that was too much to ask. At this point, the way I read yours and other responses is that the Linux faithful have NO trust in the mores and motivations of anyone. After reading the argument its sounds like there was a very symbiotic relationship to quote the book "Getting to Yes", a win-win for each side. I think you and others in this group should take a very good look in the mirror because it was decisions made by individuals that share your viewpoint that ended this relationship because you cannot and do not trust anyone to do the right thing.
My question is where is the outrage at the OSDL for going back on its word. All I hear is bad-mouthing saying "I told you so." The reason everyone is saying I told you so is because the community broke the rules of the game is now going to pay for it. Either grow-up, trust others to do the right thing, and invite commerical enterprises into Linux passed just the shops that develop the big iron or doom yourselves to an existence where Linux only runs on servers and has no commercial packages avaliable.
These sorts of actions by the community always trouble me because I will be creating software as a commercial enterprise one day but when certain factions within the community can't respect the agreement well that makes you less likely to write for Linux. Unlike most arguments the community does not hold the moral high-ground on this one.
Re:Something I'm not clear on (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. It doesn't matter, and we don't care.
This is a great day for Linux, and Linus for that matter. Oh, and me.
Freedom or not, that was to be expected (Score:3, Insightful)
This is like the scene with a bunch of cops and a bunch of mafia guys in the same room pointing guns at each other (a-la True Romance): it's a question of when, not whether, someone will wink first.
Re:Viable FOSS business models (Score:1, Insightful)
RMS only cares about the users' ability to improve and redistribute the software they have.
Personally, I have worked as a programmer for 18 years and have seen a constant cycle of external applications brought in, only for bugs to be found and not fixed, and companies drop products. Large commercial products like JDE or Insure90 come with source to prevent this very issue.
Not idiots, but self defeating (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
After almost two decades of Free Software, a few people make a living writing free software for people who sell something else, generally support or hardware. Despite constant assurances from RMS, no significant number of people make money from writing the software.
"Who do you think is most qualified to deliver (meaningful) support,"
A well-organized support organization. Employing the original developers might be a small advantage, but less so if the code is well written and documented.
"... fixes and enhancements to any kind of software? "
The need for fixes, and the advantage of the original developers in making fixes and enhancements are inversely proportional to the quality of the code. Certainly they'll have some advantage, since no code is perfect, but it's hard to ask people to strive to eliminate their market advantage. That said, I actually have paid people for enhancements to their BSDish licensed code. Where'd I get the money? Selling proprietary software.
Certainly there are ways to fund some software development that aren't dependent on the code being closed. But for a lot of software, there is a much more effective and direct way to fund it if it is not open source: You can just charge for the actual product.
"Just because you are too daft to figure out a viable business model doesn't mean it can't be done."
I've got a viable business model. I spend a lot of money writing software that a bunch of people will pay a significantly smaller amount of money for. Then I sell it to them. I make money, they get the software without any one of them paying for all the development. I fail to see the problem.
Re:I cant wait (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sorry, but I do not see that our current software economy is at all sustainable with the GPL. I firmly believe that the GPL will and is putting programmers out of jobs everywhere.
If GPL software ever reaches a critical mass and destroys 'for pay' software, I predict that we will see our software industry completely stagnate. I'll be here to say 'I told you so' at that point, but by then it will be too late.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
If BitMover did not state those conditions up front, then they are being evil and manipulative in yanking licenses from unrelated parties in a fit of pique over what one person is doing in his own time.
Is that balanced enough for you?
Personally, I'm struck by the audacity of a software company trying to control what someone uses a piece of software for, after giving it to him. If Microsoft said you were prohibited from using Windows to write articles critical of Microsoft and contrary to their interests, you would presumably have no problem with that?
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, if all you do is rewrite things that already exist, you deserve to lose your job.
The rest of us will be glad we're not wasting our time, and have a large pool of code to draw from to, you know, solve problems
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry you feel that way about commercial ventures on Linux. I must say, that expecting that no one will try to duplicate the feature set of a successful program is unrealistic, in any market. Closed or Open source, it makes no difference. If your competitor has a feature that makes it successful, you better have that feature in your own product, or you start falling behind. If you think that closed source competitors won't do this to you, then you are just naive.
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
I fully understand and appreciate that my salary is paid for from the public largess. I would argue that my co-workers understand the same. I do everything I can to responsibly spend those dollars to do the task that Congress has tasked my Lab to do. Your comment about "parasites" argues more toward your belief about the value of that task. That's not up to me or even my Lab to decide. Take it up with your representatives and senators who fund us with the budget they vote for.
But all of that is somewhat irrelevant to the point.
I am giving counter argument to the idea that open source developers are not paid. The funding source is not germane to the argument. I gave four examples where we directly paid people to produce open source software. I'm sure you will be able to find other examples.
Re:Bitkeeper (Score:3, Insightful)
Larry's comments seem not to disagree with this reasoning. From TFA:
It will also be nice if their future features will eventually become available in the form of an equally compelling open-source RCS, but if the past five years are any indication, we can expect not to see truly innovative features on the FLOSS side for a long time. And that is really unfortunate, but hopefully the monotone people will pick up the slack.
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
They fix it. That's our way.
Are the monotone developers going to walk out of their day-jobs and support the kernel SCM for nothing ?
They will support it as well as they can without leaving their day jobs. That's pretty much how the kernel got far enough along that the kernel developers were finally able to get paid to work on it.
Of course what might happen is one of the big corporations such as RH or IBM will generously fund an engineer to work on one of these SCM systems
This was already going on, anyway - there are several folks funding various sorts of Open Source version control. But the point is that whether or not the help is coming from a corporation, the software will be under an Open Source license and thus we can walk away from the corporation if we wish, and keep the software going on our own.
Before you have sympathy for the BK "people", go back and look at how Larry has comported himself. He created this latest incident, and could have kept the world's most publicized programmer endorsing his product just by keeping his mouth closed.
Bruce
GO TO HELL (Score:3, Insightful)
Did your grocery store ever offer you free bread and milk? Did they imply that this would be an ongoing offer? Was there ever a concern that your household was becoming dependant on that free bread and milk? And once you did become dependant on that free bread and milk, did your grocery store now demand the 4 bucks because they discovered one of your household members was learning how to bake bread?
If I decided to make my own bread and milk for free from scratch, no store in the world - or decent human being would threaten me for making a copy of theres with lawsuits for copyright infringement or charge me for copying - but this is exactly what BitKeeper is doing today. It's bullshit morality, and it not only stupidly treats something that is tangable like something that isn't, but it treats it in a way that is even MORE restrictive than physical things.
Since free (not as in beer) software has started, it must be behind over 100Bln in economic activity alone - yet people still can't pull their head out and see who'se being pro business and commerce, and who'se being pro cartel, monopoly, and anti free makret. God dammit, information has no natural limit in supply and demand, it's the services, support, and things that go with it that do. Bottom line, people who can't provide these seem to want to controll the information, people who can don't. The former simply doesn't belong in the information age.
Re:I cant wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, open source project rewrite the same thing over and over far more than closed source companies, ironically. Seriously, how many shitty audioplayers, xml editors, text editors, and the like are there in open source? Open source is terrible that way, despite having usable code already written, people scratching itches decide that 'oh, I don't like the way they did it, I'm going to do it AGAIN, my way'.
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy is a terribly poor.
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:Free software and open source are not the same. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:5, Insightful)
BitMover received an immense marketing boost from Linus' adoption of BitKeeper. The company founded by Larry McVoy would probably not be viable today without Linus' implied endorsement of their product. So please don't pretend that BitMover was doing Linus a favor -- the reality was very much the other way around.
When BitMover was just getting started, nobody knew what BitKeeper was, and nobody had any idea whether it was a reliable program. Because an archive of source code is the repository of the corporate jewels, reliability is crucial. Cautious sysadmins want a revision control system to have a long track record for dependability, and they would not have touched a newbie program like BitKeeper with a ten foot pole. So BitMover's survival in a crowded market was very uncertain from the start.
Linus' adoption of BitKeeper lent it enormous credibility, and is probably the most important reason why Larry McVoy's company continues to exist today. Linus benefited somewhat from BitKeeper, but BitKeeper benefited vastly more from Linus.
Re:I cant wait (Score:4, Insightful)
And MS said that's ok, because really, the employee is doing... "other" work for us, and only doing the Cherry-OS-thing on his "own-time".
Do you really expect the GPL folks who's code it was based on to buy that, and think MS might not have had some bit in it? And don't you think they'd quickly deny MS all rights to use the GPL code for any reason based on their employees breaking their license?
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case there's the set of people that stated that they wouldn't contribute to the linux kernel because of the Bitkeeper decision. There's also the set of people capable of contributing to the linux kernel. The intersection of these two groups is the impact on kernel development and it's offset by increased productivity due to Bitkeeper. I don't know if it's a net positive or a net negative, but neither do you.
Re:Maybe using BK *wasn't* a mistake. (Score:3, Insightful)
That entirely depends on how much productivity we gained, versus how much was (and will be) lost due to the transitions, whether or not that same (or a similar) productivity gain would have been realized if Linus had chosen an open-source SCCM from the beginning.
Re:I cant wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and that makes it OK? So if I hate the GPL because it doesn't let me do what I want with the software, and I refuse to use GPL products, then it's OK to flame Richard Stallman, boycot the Free Software Foundation, and criticize anyone who uses GPL software?
Wouldn't my time be better spent creating a proprietary solution?
Re:So develop software that NEEDS support (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an instant "-1 Flamebait" target if ever I saw one.
Listen up. Software doesn't need support, ever. Users need support, to varying degrees. So your fundamental premise is a misleading straw man.
Free Software neither eliminates or increases the need for user support. Good software, regardless of how it's licensed, is easier for the user to use without hand-holding. Free Software increases the options available to the user, and eventually market Darwinism will tend to narrow the field to the packages which best meet the users' needs. Not the market monopolist's need, mind you: the true needs of the real users. Niche minority software packages will continue as long as someone is interested in it, even if it's just the solitary unwashed hippy developer.
In short, developers should develop what the damn hell they feel like, and the users should use whatever they feel comfortable with.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:2, Insightful)
While this is certainly true, there's no shortage of shitty closed-source (commercial or shareware) audio
Ah, but _that_ is why this is such Good News. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever project Torvalds settles on is going to receive a tremendous boost in attention. Attention of the best sort, hordes of very tech-savvy open source developers.
The result will be a massive bout of stabilization and filling in of gaps for that project.
The Bottom Line, Cosmic Goodness for the whole world.
Personally I'll be watching this story _very_ closely. We need to shift of CVS soonish, and you can bet whatever Linus chooses will immediately become top candidate.
Re:Viable FOSS business models (Score:2, Insightful)
And remember back when we employed people to clean our ovens? Who the hell decided it was a good idea to start selling self-cleaning ovens? Or dishwashers! That used to be a profession, now it's a machine.
And barcodes with electronic inventory management systems. We used to pay people to keep track of inventory. It was an honored profession, and now a few swipes of a laser every time something arrives or is sold and, no more profession.
You, my friend, have fallen victim to the 'broken window fallacy'. Doing makework is not good for the economy. Operating unneeded companies is makework.
The 10% of the software that everyone uses does not need to be sold. By defination, 'everyone' includes 'people capable of writing the software', so we can just let them do it, and there's less makework. (You can question why they want to do it for free, but, they obviously are doing it for free, so the question is rather moot.)
Anyway, while your point would be silly in any normal software enviroment, it's incredibly stupid in our MS-dominated world. Either you work at MS, or you'll be out of a job anyway.
Re:I cant wait (Score:1, Insightful)
Your last statement is completely non-sequitir. Bitkeeper could arguably the be all end all and best source code control system to ever exist, now and forever. That does not change a fucking thing about how it does in the market.
That Larry, who is clearly a megalomaniac and mentally unstable individual, could design a SCCS doesn't really matter if it can't me marketed properly. Whether Larry knows it or not, the use of Bitkeeper by Linux has been one of its best sources of advertising.
I have consulted for numerous companies that would never even have heard of Bitkeeper if it weren't for the publicity generated by Linux.
I get the impression that Bitmover is not a terribly well run company.. There is no excuse why they haven't displaced a lot of the competition.
Re:You missed the point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I cant wait (Score:3, Insightful)
This is surprising because you'd think they actually generate *more* patches, being on a non-Linux platform and all. And indeed if you look at their source you find they actually did make lots of changes, they just didn't feed them back, which as we know is not really optimal.
Just my experience, ymmv, etc.
Not that this makes Apple evil, they just aren't as experienced in how to make open source work as folks at other companies. But they are learning, and trying to learn.
And I care, why? (Score:2, Insightful)