On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote: > >>Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and > >>biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. > > > >Yes, you say that but you don't say why. As far as I can tell this is just > >FUD. > > > FUD?
Yeah, FUD. What's the problem? > 1. Where is the open source client *source code* at the website? I can't > find it. http://www.bitmover.com/bk-client.shar > 2. Where is the open source license? In the source files. It's basically a BSD license. > As on why I think CVS or Subversion are better choices for an open > source project such as the UTP book that's a discussion for another day. > I'll just leave this small thought up in the air for whoever is reading > this: "price of entry, cost of ownership". Yeah, like I said, FUD. I don't mind people who have legit problems with BK or anything else. But saying "it's the wrong answer" and replying to "why" with "that's a discussion for another day. And here's some more FUD" pretty much makes my point. FUD. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
