Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree (fwd)

Pavel Machek (pavel@suse.cz)
Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:49:19 +0200


----- Forwarded message from Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> -----

To: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>, Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>,
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
References: <E16ybpZ-0000V4-00@starship> <20020420191940.D856@suse.de>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020420191940.D856@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health.

Hi!

> > Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
> > existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain
> > is proprietary?
>
> Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux.
> Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with
> their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as
> it

Standford checker was proprietary?

> was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?

That's another case; doing development on proprietary CPU is okay, so
doing development on emulator (== CPU equivalent) should be okay, too.
Pavel

-- 
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly.  However, I really think that the U.S.
no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly.  However, I really think that the U.S.
no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/