What do to about BitKeeper and the Linux Kernel (was: BitKeeper licence critic)

[Jeroen Dekkers]

On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 11:31:27PM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
> 
> Now I'm going to be a little bad, sorry for that:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 12:19:24AM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > Isn't libc5 dead? I looked at uclibc but I really prefer glibc and I
> > don't think uclibc will support everything glibc supports.
> uclibc is a library for embedded systems. It's *supposed* to not support
> everything glibc does.

Why is Felix bashing glibc then for being bloated? They don't even
have the same purpose.
 
> And speaking of prefering glibc over uclibc just for what it supports,
> couldn't I say the samething about Hurd Vs Linux?

I know a lot of things Linux doesn't support and the Hurd
does. Running your own ext2 server as a normal user, ftp in the
filesystem, etc. ;-))

Jeroen Dekkers
-- 
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers at jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen at openprojects
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20020309/91875ff0/attachment.sig>