On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 03:50:57PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:21:06PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote: > > And as Richard said, Linux itself is not essential anymore. It is good, but > > not essential. So if they choose the non-free way, too bad; but we have a > > bunch other free kernels. > > Just because some developers use bitkeeper doesn't make Linux non-free.
No, but reliing on non-free software and actualy developing it have something in common for me. I consider both part of the "non-free way". > Just as RMS said that Linux is not essential anymore, the same is true > for Linus' own tree. If you don't like Bitkeeper, don't pulll from it, > use another tree. There are a couple around, one of them might be pure, > dunno. I don't think anyone is going to fork Linux, so there's a dependency after all. > > egcs is dead. > > I got merged upstream, AFAIK. Indeed.. it died with honor ;) -- Robert Millan "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work." -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
