What do to about BitKeeper and the Linux Kernel

[M E Leypold @ labnet]

Jeroen Dekkers writes:

 > > useful state. However it is not as urgent anymore as there are
 > > some free software kernels. 
 > 
 > The Hurd is technically better and it also promotes free software and
 > GNU better. The claims of microsoft saying that free software isn't
 > innovative would just be void, for example.

Oh really? Make me laugh! Not that I doubt the technical superiority
of the kernel Hurd, but it won't stop MS from claiming to have
invented -- well -- everything (starting with Bits+Bytes, Math etc.).

 > 
 > > Thus there are areas, where we do not have Free Software at all.
 > > To conquer these might be more important than to develop another kernel.
 > 
 > The Hurd isn't just another kernel. It isn't even a kernel, it is a
 > multiserver system running on a microkernel (gnumach). Also Linux
 > isn't really going good IMHO (just look at the 2.4 versions). IMHO
 > GNU/Hurd also has the potential to be the world leading operating
 > system.


Hi Jeroen,

I'd just wish, you'd cut that out. I -- in example -- am looking
forward to the HURD, since I hope ist will solve some of the problems
I have with the current 'state-of-the-practice' systems, like, I'd
like to see a real process local, user controllable + virtual
operating environment (like the fs in plan9). The Unix philosphy is a
bit outdated here (just look at the difference between networking and
file system, it makes me shudder), but wether Hurd can contribute to a
solution here remains still to be evaluated.

In the meantime I have the wish to work on a stable + free (as
freedom) system, so Linux is indispensable. I do not think, that
another OS war in the free sw camp is helpful now. 

 > That's basically the reason why I write mails promoting the
 > Hurd. Especially because we lack manpower.

Promotion is not like the press gangs, when they where looking for
sailors 200 years ago. I think you'll have to accept other peoples
needs and preferences.


Regards -- Markus