no more BK for the kernel

[Martin Pool]

On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 17:21 +0200, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> I'm sure you have all seen this.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966 

I suppose the other side(s) of the story will come out soon.

Much of what I would say about it is already said  by other people in
the kerneltrap or slashdot comments.

There is copious documentation of where the bazaar-ng design ideas came
from.  Almost all are from places other than bitkeeper; where bitkeeper
has had an influence it is through things people have said about it e.g.
in the kernel BK usage docs.

I have heard from some kernel maintainers that even before this they
weren't using bk except to sync from Linus.

I'd really like bazaar-ng to be a great kernel development system, and I
think the performance will be good, but it's going to take a while to
get enough features in place for even early adopters, maybe 2-3 months.

I suspect Larry understands that if he cut them off in 2006, no one
would care so much, because the open systems would be good enough.
Perhaps that's why it's been done now.

It's a great demonstration of the risks of putting critical data in a
system whose licence can be revoked at any time.

I was rather amused by Larry's notion that it's unacceptable for a
platform vendor to compete with their application vendors.  Microsoft or
Apple would never do that, oh no. 

The fact is that any successful product is going to attract competition.
It's a predictable outcome of a free market, and not any kind of moral
failing of the open source community.  There is no point whining about
it.

-- 
Martin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050407/a1ff3c39/attachment.pgp