Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Linus Tries Out BitKeeper 248

Flammon writes: "Linus has been overloaded with patches for a while and recently the issue started to become hot again. In an unprecedented move, Linus has started using BitKeeper, as reported by Linux Today. The benefits of BitKeeper are already showing from the large amount of detail provided in the latest unstable kernel pre-release." eirikref adds: "Read Linus' own statement and take a look at the BK web interface."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Tries Out BitKeeper

Comments Filter:
  • But surely (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 )
    Shouldn't Linus at least have tried out CVS first before moving to something exotic like Bitkeeper?
    • Re:But surely (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AndroSyn ( 89960 )
      I believe Linus was pretty against CVS from day one. He didn't like it at all, and wasn't a terribly huge fan of BitKeeper either. It almost seems like he is using moreso because he has been prodded in all directions regarding this.
    • Re:But surely (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xzzy ( 111297 )
      Wouldn't you think that, in the 10 or so years he's been maintaining the kernel, he already evaluated it? Just because there was never a press release doesn't mean he rejected CVS out of hand and has never tinkered with it in his spare time.
    • Re:But surely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tftp ( 111690 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:27AM (#2961211) Homepage
      CVS is not as powerful as BK, and definitely not as scalable. It lacks very many key features; for example, it doesn't have native changesets, and they are essential when you work on a large project and accept lots of patches from lots of people.

      I use CVS all the time, but I know its limitations. Linus was right when he decided not to use CVS, it simply is not reliable enough. But don't blame CVS, it is a good and useful tool; but every tool has its safe zone of "recommended use", and Linux kernel is way beyond that. I say, any project above 50 KLOCs and with 100 revisions on average would be pushing the limits.

      • Re:But surely (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Skuggan ( 88681 )
        I say, any project above 50 KLOCs and with 100 revisions on average would be pushing the limits.

        That is bullsh*it!
        The CVS limitation does not lie in how many KLOC or number of revisions it can handle. It handles lot more than that.
        The limitations is purely functional, like how it handles branches, merging and such stuff. There it lags behind the newer systems, like Bitkeeper, arch and others.

        • Well yeah, that's what I took the guy to mean... he never said CVS could not handle that much code functionally, just that it was not suited to projects of that size.
        • The CVS limitation does not lie in how many KLOC or number of revisions it can handle.

          The size of the code is a pretty good estimate how many people work on it, how many branches they maintain, and how much of merging they do. So if you know how large your code is, you can tell whether this or that revision control system (or any other tool, to that matter) is appropriate for the job.

      • Re:But surely (Score:3, Insightful)

        by imp ( 7585 )

        any project above 50 KLOCs and with 100 revisions on average would be pushing the limits.

        Tell that to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, XFree86,
        all of which are orders of magnitude larger than the linux kernel. All of them have been using CVS for the past 8-10 years (depending on how you count things). Sure, cvs has its limitations, but the Linux kernel with its small number of developers with write access isn't pushing the limits. FreeBSD has over 250 people committing to its tree right now, for example.
  • PPC Kernel (Score:4, Informative)

    by NewbieSpaz ( 172080 ) <nofx_punkguy.linuxmail@org> on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:06AM (#2961131) Homepage
    IIRC, the PPC Kernel is maintained through BitKeeper, and has been for quite some time.
  • I wonder if the nice people at Ask Jeeves [] are going to mind having their (presumably trademarked) logo swiped for this?
  • by Noryungi ( 70322 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:11AM (#2961145) Homepage Journal
    Isn't BitKeeper a (gasp!) closed-source commercial software?

    Shock! Horror! Has Linus Torvalds turned to the dark side of the code?!?!

    Stay tuned for the next episode of ... TUX, Episode I: The revenge of the Borg!!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:26AM (#2961208)
      Bitkeeper is available under two licenses. The commercial license costs money and comes with support. The non-commercial license does not cost money., but it has a requirement that all your ChangeLogs must be sent to a world-readable server controlled by BitMover.

      Bitkeeper source is available, but it's illegal to redistribute a version of Bitkeeper with the mandatory open logging stripped out.

      Bitmover Inc. wants to avoid the situation where people use bitkeeper like gcc, taking free software tools but not giving anything back. You can pay Bitmover money, or you can use a free-as-in-beer version that is suitable for software libre and unsuitable for closed-source software.
      • Sorry about the headline, I couldn't think of a short-enough one that'd fit.

        BitMover also has a clause to help free software developers in the event of the company going out of business, located here [] (Correct me if I am wrong).

        It says, '5. CONVERSION TO THE GPL
        The BitKeeper Software will be made available under the terms of the GPL in the event that all Open Logging servers cease to function for a continuous period of 180 days starting on or after June 1st 2000.'

        This looks to be applicable to the free-as-in-beer version only, as far as I can tell, but still, it's not exactly a big problem.

    • by mons ( 124270 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:28AM (#2961216)
      If it is comercial, what is Jeeves doing on their web interface, he programmed it or something?

      Maybe I should just ask him.
    • by Komodo ( 7029 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:44AM (#2961270) Homepage

      Well, Bitkeeper's license isn't GPL, nor do I think that it's been certified as an 'Open Source' license by Eric Raymond's definition. However, it's got some interesting features that are as interesting and powerful as the GPL, and that even work in the public interest.

      You can get it for free (as in beer) and it says that it will revert to GPL if they go out of business (eg, their OpenLogging servers go down for more than 180 days)... which is an interesting clause that ensures that 'abandonware' becomes a public resource.

      The one scary part is that you MUST submit metadata to their OpenLogging system, or pay money for a 'closed use' license. Now before you hurl, consider... all open source projects already have all their metadata (and all their source too!) out in the open!

      Is this really so bad? People who don't want to share, have to pay... it sounds like it's punishing institutions that don't produce open source with Bitkeeper (individual use is exempt). Richard Stallman might be pleased!

      Apart from that, the only other funny part of the license that I see, is you lose your license if you sue BitMover over intellectual property rights. I'm not sure what to make of that, I guess it's a way to cover their own butts. I'd be upset if Microsoft had it in their license, but here, it seems appropriate.

      So while they aren't using the GPL or a BSD license or the Artistic license or any other common, popular OSS license, they ARE going out of their way to work with developers and users instead of exploiting them. That's a far cry from Microsoft or even 'linux-friendly' software companies like Oracle. They've found (even more) ways to write software and work with the public, without giving away the shop.

      I'd say, on the whole, two thumbs up.
    • Haha, we always hear 'Linus is turning to dark side' whenever he has any connection to commercial, including his current job.

      I'd suggest you read his bio(sorta) book "Just for Fun", and you can see he isn't much of a hardcore philosopher like RMS. Well, I'm not in position to give review to his book, but my impression is that his philosophy is like "I don't care, I'm just doing it for fun"

      (Just my personal opinion). :)
  • by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:11AM (#2961146) Homepage
    Methinks that it wouldn't be trivial to continue to pipe the results in a terse format as well.

    For L-K and releases a terse format is appropriate, but I think that keeping the longer ones around somewhere can help some of us newbies understand what the heck is going on in there.
  • It's high time he told the community to screw off for a bit.

    It's his friggin' hobby, after all. If people don't like the way he deals with it, maybe they ought to go work for a more personable coder on another OS, like, say, Theo De Raadt.

    Scary thought, hey?
    • Which OS is Theo de Raadt's?
    • by Stochi ( 114270 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:25AM (#2961203) Homepage
      personable? Theo? Good God! he's like a living godzilla spewing white hot embers of death everywhere...

      not that i don't love the OpenBSD project (i have several machines running it), but to say that Theo is personable is like saying everyone needs a porcupine to snuggle up with at night.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      It's not a hobby when you get paid to do it. It's part of his job, and I'm glad to see he's finally realizing that his old method of patching doesn't work anymore. Thanks Linus!

      posting anonymously because slashdot editors have made it clear they don't tolerate dissent.

    • As soon as Linux started getting used by as many people as it is now, and started gaining momentum and more developers writing drivers, features, patches, etc -- Linux ceased having the luxury of it being just a hobby -- now he has dependants.

      I agree, he deserves respect, however the linux user and open source community cant afford to just wait until Linux gets around to reviewing everything and decides to put it in at his leasure anymore. The patches, new features, and demand is too great.

      Its about time Linus got some kind of source control - however I DID note that the only one who has access to it is Linux himself, which doesnt exactly make it helpful ... however I'm hoping that will eventually change, and we might actually end up with a group of people 'blessed' enough to review patches and put them in (ie. the 'all-stars' you see in every changelog), and a much faster moving patch and update scheme.

      Heres hoping ...
    • by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:08AM (#2961363)
      "It's his friggin' hobby, after all. If people don't like the way he deals with it, maybe they ought to go work for a more personable coder on another OS, like, say, Theo De Raadt."

      Um, except that NOBODY WORKS FOR LINUS! Linux isn't Linus's ball anymore to take away when he doesn't like how people are playing the game. That said, I think he's been a wonderful leader and manager, and is obviously opening up to suggestions. But it is stupid and insulting to say that people who aren't satisfied with Linus's management should just suck it and pick another OS. Linus himself would tell you that Linux is more the community's than his.
    • There's a point where a kernel development becomes a little more than a hobby. I would have to say Linus has crossed that line long ago. He may or may not recieve DIRECT monetary incentives to keep up the good work, but regardless, the line is crossed. It's now a profession. Linus is a professional Linux developer. Until he takes a professional position that does not allow him to spend as much time on kernel development, it's his profession, and as such no longer a hobby.
  • BitKeeper??? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why would somebody choose BitKeeper over Perforce? Perforce offers free licenses for Open Source software and is IMHO 1000% better and more powerful than CVS. Anybody wants to clarify what makes BitKeeper the tool of choice?
    • by Otis_INF ( 130595 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:40AM (#2961258) Homepage .html []

      Allthough this is marketing poop so it should be taken with a fine grain of salt, it might answer your question.
    • I've used Perforce and CVS extensively, and played around alot with BK. Perforce, while definetely nicer that CVS, is IMHO inferior to BK. Some of this are inherent limitation of the strongly server-client architecture of perforce, others has to do with some bad design decisions.

      Some examples (some of these don't apply to the open source world):

      Perforce does not solve the number 1 complaint about CVS, file renaming. They talk about a workaround that is to branch the file so as to not lose file history, but that does not help when you do a source reorg on a major revision, and want to be able to patch fixes from the previous revisions.

      Perforce forces you to use their (limited) server based diffs when comparing versions against each other.

      Disconnected operations is a real pain with Perforce. It just needs to have the server around all the time.

      Perforce does not have a good failover solution. You only have to your last backup, add the IP based server license to that, and the disconnected operation problems, and you will end up having some downtime if you server machine goes down. BK, to be fair, also does not seem to have a true failover system either, but it seems like you can pretty easily have a secondary system that does pulls very often, that will be ready to go at a moments notice. Also since it is built to be disconnected, having the top level repository around is not essential.

      Perforces protection systems is awfully kludgey, I mean there is no seperation of administration operations to data operations, and any complex tree will have ugly ass permissions (and you can't even comment the protections file, because it's stored in some server form and recreated every time you change it, blech). Again BK also doesn't really have protections built into it, but by its design you could at least limit access to repositories through the OS level (which arguably is better anyway).
  • by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:21AM (#2961185) Homepage Journal

    Now I'm confused!

    I've been using CVS [] for years and read with great interest the recent Linux Journal article [] about the Subversion [] project to created a CVS replacement that is better than CVS.

    Then I see a Slashdot story []about arch [].

    Now, my FearLessLeader starts using Bitkeeper [].

    Should I move from CVS and, if so, which is best?

    • Re:Which is Best? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by banky ( 9941 )
      There is no need to be confused.

      If CVS works for you, and you have no complaints or issues, then don't switch.

      If you find yourself 1)wanting features, 2)overwhelmed by inadequacies, or 3)working too hard to accomplish default behavior in other systems (ex scripting what is handled automagically in others), then investigate changing.
      • Re:Which is Best? (Score:3, Informative)

        by krokodil ( 110356 )
        > If CVS works for you, and you have no complaints or
        > issues, then don't switch.

        I really hate this kind of attitude. Along with "Use what you are most comfortable with". It kills any desire to learn and use new stuff and to impove.

        I say try it out and see if it worth switching to new CM.
        • Re:Which is Best? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by tsprad ( 160992 )
          I hate this attitude! Life is too short to evaluate everything that's announced on Freshmeat. Why can't you honestly share your experience?
    • Re:Which is Best? (Score:2, Informative)

      by eli173 ( 125690 )
      > Should I move from CVS and, if so, which is best?

      That depends, of course. ;)
      But for me, the answer is Subversion (, once it is done. Its design goal is to be a replacement for CVS... and to do that, they are releasing it under a BSD-style license.
      And that decision will make it useful in the *BSD's, Debian, and any other OS.
      They aren't breaking new ground, just making a better CVS--and that is exactly what I need.

    • If you're happy with CVS, stay with it at least until Subversion is finished -- svn is designed to be a replacement for CVS which fixes all the annoying oddities.

      If you're not happy with CVS, or have been wondering why CVS doesn't do some specific things, check out some of the really different alternatives (but be prepared for some differences):

      - "Aegis" supports TestFirstProgramming. In order to submit a change, you must provide a test which passes with the change, and fails to pass without the change. Furthermore, your change must not break any of the old tests. Extremely powerful for group programming, and useful for single-person programming.
      - "BitKeeper" provides an attractive GUI and powerful tools, designed by a professional community. It provides very powerful support for branches, and allows you to use all the convenience of the full version-controlled repository without having to have all your checked-in changes messing up the main repository.
      - "arch" may have a simpler interface right now, but it makes up for it with a very impressive model of distributed repositories. Like BitKeeper, you can make a local repository in order to make changes you want to see; unlike BitKeeper, that local repository is a full repository in its own right, and can be served independantly. It supports very sophisticated merging, so that you can merge your local repo with someone else who happened to start up their own local repo based on the same master repo; you can, of course, also merge with the master, and the master can choose to merge with your work.

      I am impressed with the variety of version control systems which are now coming into their own. Very nice to see.

  • ChangeLog detail (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mattygfunk ( 517948 )
    It's interesting to note that Linus feels the ChangeLog for the 2.5.4-pre1 kernel is too detailed.

    Can it really be a bad thing to have too much information about any changes?

    • "yes", probably.

      However, it should offer a taste of what he actually does to those who haven't a clue and yet feel free to explain at great length to the world how he could do it better.

    • by rlowe69 ( 74867 )
      Can it really be a bad thing to have too much information about any changes?

      Yes, when the information is so detailed that you can't cut through the BS to find the meat. Some people just want a brief list to skim in order to decide if it's worth downloading or not.
    • Actually, he feels the Changelog is too detailed for posting to linux-kernel. It's generally best to keep announcements relatively brief. Additionally, prepatch Changelogs are since the last real release, which means that -pre10 would be 10 times as big, and contain 90% old information. A much smaller changelog would be preferable for putting in announcements, with the full changelog available on the web for those who are interested.

      Also, there's a lot of cruft in the changelog that just isn't relevant: changeset ids and so forth. All the details of how the changes came to be in the kernel aren't that important.
  • Linux uses pine! Look at the selm tag!


  • How much time does Linus have to dedicate to all these patches that get submitted ?

    Would a seperate fork, with sections maintained by indiviudal groups be best ? 4 or 5 guys in charge of VM, 4 or 5 guys in charge of Hardware, they would only be responsible for review and merging.

    I know ill get blasted for fork speak, but sometimes its a good thing, (While youre at it optimize for the

    Linus is the all benevolent creator and Linux god granted, respect is due, We however are the users, the ones in need, Linux was intended to fill this need, if it reaches a point because of whatever reason, perhaps a branching, is best for it as a whole. I dont think anyone actually asked Linus if he wanted the development to consume his life (Maybe he does, I dont know, it dosent matter)

    All this is an awful lot to ask of any one man, mortal or not. Perhaps Linus would welcome this as an oppurtunity to do other things.

    I hope this will make Linus's life easier, Sometimes people continue on a path out of a feeling of obligation, does Linus do this now because, 1 He wants to, 2 He feels like he has to
    3 Nobody else has stepped up to offer a solution.
  • by leshert ( 40509 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @10:40AM (#2961260) Homepage
    In other news, demons all over Hell were seen lacing up their skates for the upcoming hockey match against the U.S. National team.
  • So soon we'll start hearing that BitKeeper doesn't scale, right?8-)
  • Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)

    by L3WKW4RM ( 228924 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:06AM (#2961355) Homepage
    Hopefully they don't keep the repository on the same machine that hosts their website...

    We may have /.'ed the kernel!
  • by srealm ( 157581 ) <prez.goth@net> on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:14AM (#2961380) Homepage
    I must say, I *LIKE* all the detail in the changelog now. For a LONG time, I've thought the changelogs for linux have been too understated.

    'More bug fixes for PCMCIA' or 'Patches for USB'. Doesnt really tell me if theres any hope a particular problem I am experiencing with either has been fixed -- nor does it tell me why something that used to work no longer works, and how to re-enable the 'old style' code -- or where I should look for the diff to say to the author "This used to work, since this change, it doesnt anymore ... X hardware, X version, etc"

    More detail means, for example, I can see from the changelog, when the USB sleep (ie. usb does not come back online automatically when you put your computer sleep, you must either do some fancy footwork beforehand (which doesnt always work), or reboot). Its a known problem, but "More USB bugfixes" doesnt tell me its fixed, or even that that part of the code has been worked on.

    I'm sure theres many others out there who experience problems in specific parts of the code, (which are known problems), and have been frustrated by the changelog's lack of detail -- and dont want to upgrade your kernel to 2.5, or 2.4-pre's or even another stable 2.4, unless you know your problem is fixed, because what you got now works for everything ELSE, and you never know what a new kernel will break. I myself havnt started using 2.5 kernels, but I would probably start IF I could tell by the changelog, that my problem was solved there, so there was some benefit for me.
    • You fool... (Score:2, Troll)

      by rho ( 6063 )
      /* you are not expected to understand this */
    • by rgmoore ( 133276 )

      One other potential advantage is that it clearly presents what kind of changes Linus is interested in accepting. One reported big problem in the past is that Linus has a tendency to drop patches that change too much or have an insufficient explanation of what they do. By making it obvious what kind of changes he does accept and how the messages describing them should be written, it will make it easier for people to learn how to write a change the Linus will accept.

  • Signing up for the mailing list in order to gain access to the bitkeeper download can be a bitch.
  • by Lumpish Scholar ( 17107 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:25AM (#2961436) Homepage Journal
    The Free Software movement says, "Use the software that's the most free. If you still have a choice, use the best software."

    The Open Source Software movement says, "Use the best software. That will often be Free / Open Source software."
  • by buckrogers ( 136562 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:41AM (#2961502) Homepage
    I am very thankful that Linus finally "saw the light" and started using a source code control system.

    I really like the new change logs, I have always hated the old change logs as being too uninformative. One of the really interesting things for me about a source code control system is that it preserves a lot more of the history of the source code than the tar balls do.

    It is also really cool how it branches the source for every patch and checks in the code with the users name as the one who checked it in and the body of the email as the comment. If Linus can find a way to also check in his rejected comments on a patch then that will also be very useful. It would be interesting to capture a little bit of the why instead of just the how in the kernel development process.

    To apply a patch you just have to merge the branch that contains the patch back into the main development branch, fix any conflicts, compile, fix it so it works right and then commit. :)

    And Linus will never lose another patch again, they will be saved for all time in the source tree under a seperate branch.

    Once Linux lets his inner sanctum of kernel developers all start merging approved patches into his main branch then we will see the kernel development really speed up.

  • by markj02 ( 544487 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:52AM (#2961548)
    The problem with Linus getting overloaded is not a problem with SCM, it's a problem with the Linux kernel itself: too many kernel enhancements and bug fixes (apparently) require patches all over the kernel. What we really need is a more flexible way for extensions to hook into the kernel and override existing kernel functionality.

    There are lots of ways of providing such hooks. Perhaps the most compatible with the Linux kernel mindset would be something similar to Emacs-hooks: replace most kernel functions with variables holding function pointers to the actual code and provide APIs for manipulating those hooks.

  • by CondeZer0 ( 158969 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @11:59AM (#2961586) Homepage
    I found very interesting a document from Jack Moffitt (of [] fame,
    one of the main Ogg developers and one of the Icecast Core Developers []),
    about some problems he had with the BK license when he was using it
    for hosting Icecast:

    "A Critique of the BitKeeper License" [] blic/critique.html

    You might also find interesting his post on the matter to the
    "Icecast Developer Discussion List": []

    I hope that he will post here his his experience using BK
    in an Open/Free-source project...

    Best regards


    P.S.: Yea, I know I'm karma whoring, but I'm sure many people will find this interesting,
    specially in casse Jack dont post to this history latter
    • quote from conclusion that sums up the essay (and told me everything I needed to know about the license/product):

      Sometimes it is tempting to sacrifice our rights and freedoms for convinience, but we should not do so. There are many problems with CVS and other Free source management packages, and it would be nice to move to a more robust and more well-designed tool. We are better off to repair or fix the tools which are free, or if that is not acceptable to create new free tools that preserve the the rights and freedoms we enjoy.

      I encourage BitMover to adopt the minimum requirements for freedom or openness that this community has defined, but at the same time I respect their wish to preserve the business model of their choice. At the very least I would like to see the rights the BitKeeper license does grant preserved and not subject to arbitrary revocation. I do hope that they will find some way to provide the community a truly free version of their tools and still meet their business goals.

      I also encourage Free Software hackers to not use or stop using BitKeeper in their own projects. It might not be as convinient to use other tools, but in the long term we should be more concerned with preserving those rights and freedoms we currently exercise and enjoy daily. I personally have stopped using BitKeeper for all projects and have moved these projects back into CVS repositories. I hope that if you or your team is considering using or currently using BitKeeper that you will think about the implications of doing so and reconsider.

      I encourage the entire community to support the efforts of Free and Open Source projects in this area. Source management is complex, and the efforts of the community to support Free and Open Source projects (CVS and Subversion are two such projects) are the best way we have to improve our development infrastructure.

      source: Jack Moffitt's "A Critique of the BitKeeper License" []
  • by leandrod ( 17766 ) <`l' `at' `'> on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @12:17PM (#2961661) Homepage Journal

    I did a superficial investigation on source control systems, and found some very interesting really free ones, like Aægis [].

    Does someone know if free alternatives to BK were considered, and if so why a semi-free one was choosen? If BK was better, specifically how it compared to Aægis and other alternatives?

  • Security? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @12:42PM (#2961774) Homepage Journal
    From Linus' email, mentioned above:
    Basically, I'm aiming to be able to accept patches directly from email,

    Does Linus use PGP sigs (for example) to verify the senders of these patches? I hope he does (being Linus and all that).
    • I assume that he would _read_ the email first. Otherwise, how will he screen the PGP-signed "Cum_To_My_WebSite.diff" messages that are likely already flooding his inbox?
  • by Z4rd0Z ( 211373 ) <joseph at mammalia dot net> on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @02:27PM (#2962432) Homepage
    What does it matter if Linus is using a source control system if no one else has access to it? I think that's really the whole point of using such a system, isn't it? So that multiple developers can check their code in manageably? As it stands now, everything still goes through Linus' inbox. It doesn't appear that the situation has changed very much.

    Will there be public read-only access to Linus' branch so people can keep up with the latest?

  • Bought damn time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 06, 2002 @02:34PM (#2962466)
    Linus has finally moved from chaos to order. One of the major complaints about the Linux VS BSD development model (a lack of a control system) has been fixed.

    Now, to address what this means for Bitkeeper.....its death. Yes. Bitkeeper is now doomed. Why? Simple. The "keep this in the GPL family" movement will have someone clone the Bitkeeper method of software management, and a GPLed Bitkeeper clone will be created, it will catch up to Bitkeeper, pass it, and then Bitkeeper will have its oxygen cut off, and they will die.
  • I used this for a couple of years at my last job and it's an excellent product. I used to hate source control systems - especially CVS, but Bitkeeper works excellently.

If graphics hackers are so smart, why can't they get the bugs out of fresh paint?