BitKeeper licence critic

Jeroen Dekkers jeroen at
Sun Mar 17 02:54:53 UTC 2002

On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 05:52:57PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >From jeroen at Sat Mar 16 17:22:42 2002
> >On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> >From jeroen at Sat Mar 16 15:41:29 2002
> >> >Nice. Do you also fix the bugs in solaris if you find them?
> >>=20
> >> There are much much less bug then in Linux. If I find a bug, I report it.
> >And if they don't fix your reported bug? Or if it takes a month and
> >you want to get something done which triggers that bug?
> Well if it ets fixed in months on Solaris this is much much faster than 
> on Linux or even other GNU tools.

For me it's just how long it takes to fix the bug.

> Many of the important Linux bugs that create headakes for me are not fixed 
> within years.

I never liked Linux anyway.
> GNU make bugs are not fixed in years too. GNU make is still handling 
> 'include' statements wrong although I posted a bug report more than
> 3 years ago :-(

Did you include a patch? AFAIK I see you didn't. Reading the archives,
I think
explains why it isn't fixed. If it bothers you, why don't you write a
patch? Or convince/pay somebody to write the patch for you? It's free

> >> >Nobody force you. You've the freedom to do what you want, you don't
> >> >*have to port*. If those people don't do the job well and those people
> >> >want to run your software, they could a) fix there own things b)
> >> >port your software so you only have to apply the patch.
> >>=20
> >> People like you try to force me.=20
> >I would write a patch, send it to you and try to convince to include
> >it. I would not force you with a gun to apply the patch.
> You tell me that it is bad habbit to use software that is not really free
> and like to force me this way to spend more time to develop e.g. cdrecord.

I don't _force_ you.

> Make Linux POSIX compliant enough and give me a useable debugger and
> it may make sense to develop on Linux. As long as GDB only helps me with
> things that don't need a debugger and does not support basic adb 
> features it is useless.

I try to make the Hurd POSIX compliant. I don't develop Linux nor
GDB. If you want to see anything, you can always pay somebody to
implement it. It might be a better use of your money then buying
solaris licenses.

> >Convincing !=3D forcing.
> If you have arguments, you can convince me....

I have arguments, but having arguments doesn't mean that you convince

> >I shouldn't? Does your program build and function correctly if
> >PATH_MAX isn't defined? To give you an example: if the current working
> >directory is bigger than 1024 the last part will be removed in
> >mkisofs.
> If you found a bug, comment it and send a usable and repeatable bug report.

To do that it needs to be ported to GNU/Hurd first.
> >> also:
> >> Did you already switch to star because GNUtar is nonstandard?
> >I don't like the star interface and like the GNU tar one. I have never
> >problems with the nonstandard format of GNU tar. Why should I switch
> >to star if I don't like the program and don't have any problem with
> >GNU tar?
> Tht GNUtar command line systax is not POSIX compliant _and_ it is much
> worse than the one from star. 

POSIX compliant command line syntax sucks and isn't compatible with
the GNU Coding Standards. A nice free standard has a higher priority
for me than some crappy non-free standard.

> Nobody forces you to stay with the 
> worse program but it seems that you don't like to read manual pages
> and even try why star is easier to use than GNU tar.

I read a big part of the GNU tar manual, a little bit of the star
manual and some source code of both GNU tar and star.

> I am usng star on a dayly base since 1984 (long before GNUtar exists).

I use GNU tar since I've started using tar. I never had any problems
with it other than that it doesn't support translators and or GNU
extensions to the filesystem.

> >> You are jumping with your mind frequently in order to express your wishes.
> >> If you have a standpoint, you should be consequent.
> >I am consequent. I like compatibility, but it's not the most important
> >thing.
> If compatibility is less important for you then you don't take care 
> of portability. 

I think care, after taking care of the other problems first.

> Most GNU tools have initially been developed on SunOS
> and have been used because they have been better than the tools
> on SunOS. Now the maintainers in many cases dod loose contact to reality
> because they are working on Linux only. For an evolving world you need
> competition.....

I don't see a reason to support any non-free OS. Also GNU tar doesn't
have a maintainer AFAIK.

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - Jabber ID: jdekkers at
Debian GNU supporter -
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: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list