Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:41, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Oh, my.  A couple of thoughts:
> 
> a) if it would ease the incredible silent (?) seething anguish of Daniel and
>    others, I'd be happy to post a copy of Jeff's docs on the bitkeeper.com
>    website someplace and you could replace the patch with a pointer to that.
>    Seems silly but if it makes the uproar go away...
> 
> b) To all of the "silently seething" folks, build a better answer for 
>    free and the kernel team will switch in a heartbeat.  How about you
>    think of BitKeeper as a stepping stone, a temporary thing until a 
>    better answer appears?  It doesn't even have to be better, just good
>    enough.

There ya go, now this is reasonable.  Personally, I do not want to step on
your stones.

> We built BK to make the key people more efficient.  To some extent, it
> is doing that.  We'll keep trying to make it help make those people more
> efficient.  That's *good* for the kernel.  Which was always the goal.

Yes, but not *entirely* good, because it is driving some developers into
isolation, or at the best, quiet resentment.  This does not qualify as 'best
for the kernel'.  A slight dose of moderation here would strike that happy
medium that seems to be slipping away.  No, not you, Larry, this is one of
your moderate moments, I think I am going to bronze this email.

> I'm terribly sorry that this product space doesn't generate enough
> consulting business that it can support itself in a politically correct
> way, but it doesn't.  Get over it.  You either get crap tools or you get
> tools that have a business model.  In this space, the GPL doesn't work,
> you need some other way to pay for the work.

Um, no Larry, but that is something we can discuss at our leisure.
Executive summary: life does not consist of business models alone.  Much
great art has nothing to do with business models.  Oh for sure, some
artists are fine businessmen but it's rare.  Usually they just get by,
enough to satisfy their immediate needs and produce immortal works for
your - our - pleasure.  Indeed, there is more to life that business models.

> If you don't agree, by all means, feel free to *prove* me wrong by
> designing, implementing, and supporting a better (or as good)
> answer.  That is what Linus has said, and I agree, and the "silently
> seething" folks need to either put up or go back to being silent.

You don't *really* want me to do that.  I thought you had a business model.
Surely it does not consist of 'goad the open source community into replacing
my product with a better, free one, so I can retire in poverty'.

> BitKeeper seems to make that second group more productive.  And it happily
> allows for the license haters to keep on working the way they used to,
> at the same speed as they used to.  Daniel raised the point that BK has
> created the "ins" and the "outs".  That's not quite right, it's a question
> of "efficient" versus "not quite so efficient".  Yeah, it has the effect
> of creating an "in" group, but that is because it is easier to work that
> way, not because of any evil plan to take over the world with BK.
> 
> To repeat: if http://www.bitkeeper.com/kernel-howto.html or something
> like that makes you happier, I'll do that immediately.  

It would be most excellent, and you will get a case of good Berlin lager
out of it.  Err, maybe life is about business after all...

-- 
Daniel