On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Ely Levy wrote:
>
> > there is no kernel of any OS that I know that only one person decide
> > usualy there are few people and a voting involved.
> > not mention that not EVERY patch goes to the that person
>
> 1. Linus's linux is just a kernel, not a complete OS (as oppsed to the
> BSDs . Hurd seems to focus on kernel development and applications
> porting, and reply on the debian repository)
>
> 2. Linus has the final word on what goes into the official kernel tree.
> But the kernel is distributed under the GPL, and this means that
> anybody is free to fork it.
> Practically most linux distros have their own forks, which sometimes
> include substaintial changes to the linus tree.
>
> I avoid getting into more technical arguments. This topic has been
> discussed in many places lately.
>
> BTW: there is a little "non-free" license issue with BitKeeper. From what
> I understand, the license of BitKeeper is basicaly a free license, but
> requires that you preserve one feature: logging to a certain main
> reposirtory. I wasn't able to figure out what happens if your system is
> not connected to the internet (or, OTOH, if it is maliciously tricked to
> believe that this main server is unavailable).
>
> Anyway, kernel people use it, so people probably don't care.
>
I am not an open-source zealot as such, and from what I know Linus isn't
either. He admitted that he sometimes use programs like PowerPoint which
are Windows-based. In some Changelog/LWN interviews I read, Linus was
defined as an "in for free beer" hacker. It is possible some of the other
kernel hackers will not favour using BitKeeper due to the fact that it
deviates a bit from the OS/FS definition, but we'll have to see about what
comes out of it.
My point was that:
1. The kernel developers should use a good source control mechanism. CVS
is good for most purposes, and BitKeeper should be superior to CVS in any
way, so I have nothing to complain.
2. Not all the patches should be approved by Linus before they are
commited into the tree. If the VM maintainer for example, applies a bug
fix there, he need not pass it to Linus for approval. (refer to my Moses
and the people of Israel analogy I used)
There were several other more minor points, but these are the main ones.
#1 was resolved, and we'll have to see what the Patch Penguin mutiny will
make of the second. I still stand by them, because they are
common-knowledge ways to manage a multi-developer project, regardless of
how it is organized, whether it is top-down or bottom-up, and other
estoric details.
Best Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> For more information:
> http://lwn.net/1999/features/BitKeeper.php3
> http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Overview.html
>
> --
> Tzafrir Cohen /"\
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> Taub 229, 972-4-829-3942, X Against HTML Mail
> http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir / \
>
>
>
>
> =================================================================
> To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
> echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
