Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Dan Davis]

To all who read this list.  I respect someone's ideology and I respect
a person's need to support his family.  I like Opensource, Linux, etc.,
but I have to work in a Microsoft world at this "present time" 
to support my family.  I have learned to respect people's right to disagree.  
Not everyone will agree with the other's conclusions and there have 
been a number of good points raised on both sides.  Please pause 
and consider them.  If you must disagree, please do it in a respectful 
and business like manner.  When you don't, you are only damaging 
your own argument.  Thanks.


Dan Davis, Sys Dev/Eng, CNA
Physical Facilities
Ohio State University
614-688-3271  Work
614-292-6751  Fax
davis.37@osu.edu

"Preparation creates confidence.  
Process leads to sound execution.  
Regimen aims effort toward perfection.  
Excellence matters."  Orel Hershiser

>>> John Jasen <jjasen1@umbc.edu> 03/07/02 05:01PM >>>
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, michael bernstein wrote:

> Get over the money issue though.  There are a lot of
> people who could benefit from bitkeeper being opensourced, so why not go
> and do it?

rent. food. clothing. basic necessities and whatnot.

Just a thought.

> Serve others, not yourself.

I begin to smell the exuberance of youthful ideology.

Does anyone have a can of Lysol I can borrow?

BK belongs to bitmover. They can do whatever they want with it. Deal.

--
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen1@umbc.edu)
-- In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise, they aren't.

_______________________________________________
Opensource mailing list
Opensource@mail.cis.ohio-state.edu 
http://mail.cis.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource

Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[The Open Source Club at The Ohio State University]

Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

We, the undersigned members and officers of the Open Source Club at
the Ohio State University, are unhappy with the advocacy of the
proprietary[1] BitKeeper software for use in maintaining the Linux
kernel.  The Linux kernel is an important symbol of Open Source and
Free Software for many people, and a project in which many thousands
have participated in active development.  It is fine if some kernel
developers choose to use BitKeeper on their own machines, but
officially endorsing proprietary software as the means of working on
the kernel is a large step backwards for Linux, and for the Open
Source and Free Software communities.

If the core Linux maintainers begin to advocate using BitKeeper, then
there will be strong pressure on these peripheral developers to use
BitKeeper too, since it would likely be easier than browsing the
web-exported changelogs or fetching the latest diff from kernel.org.

Using a closed-source, proprietary source control system for the
kernel is even worse than using other forms of proprietary software
such as source code analysis systems, because the revision control
metadata (version numbers, branches, changelog comments, etc.), would
be stored in a format defined by the proprietary software.  This
metadata is really a part of Linux, because people will want to use it
when talking about the kernel.  Those who can't[2] or don't want to
use BitKeeper are left out in the cold.  One of the most important
parts of Open Source and Free Software is that we, the community, are
in control.  But by using and advocating BitKeeper, we would lose part
of that control.

In summary, please do not advocate BitKeeper for use by the general
community.  The Linux development process seems to have worked up till
now, and we can wait a little longer until Arch[3] or Subversion[4]
are completed.  Moreover, full-featured, completely functional free 
versioning sytems are currently available, such as PRCS[5] and CVS[6].
We respect the kernel maintainer's freedom to use proprietary software 
for their own purposes.  And we ask the kernel maintainers to respect 
the community's freedom from entrapment by proprietary software.

-- The Open Source Club at The Ohio State University
Signed by:
Michael Benedict <zosima@zosima.org>
Colin Walters <walters@debian.org>
Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net>
Martin Jansche <jansche@ling.ohio-state.edu>
Balbir Thomas <thomas.1037@osu.edu>
Nicholas Hurley <hurley@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Ryan McCormack <mccormac@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Shaun Rowland <rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu>

[1] http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/user/x/i/xiphmont/Public/critique.html
[2] Perhaps they aren't connected to the internet regularly enough,
    for instance.
[3] http://www.regexps.com/#arch
[4] http://subversion.tigris.org
[5] http://prcs.sourceforge.net
[6] http://www.cvshome.org

Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Jeff V. Merkey]

All hail the non-profit nazis from Ohio State.  It's none of your 
f_cking business what we use to develop software.  I use a hardware
American Arium logic analyzer and a proprietary Linux kernel 
debugger.  Should people be boycotted when they use hardware 
analyzers to debug hardware and software with Linux.  

It's pretty clear that the alumni of Ohio State University have the
finest sinsemilla weed around, and have been smoking it.  I guess
you guys will decide who we get to sleep with next, marry, and 
which type of cereal we get to eat. 

The motto behind open source was "freedom of choice".  So much for
progress.  Let's bring back slavery while we are at at.  I'll move 
back to the Indian reservation in New Mexico where I grew up since 
freedom is going away.

How about sending me some of the killer weed you guys have been smoking.
You can pass the crack pipe around while you're at it.

:-)

Jeff


On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 04:52:34PM -0500, The Open Source Club at The Ohio State University wrote:
> Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers
> 
> We, the undersigned members and officers of the Open Source Club at
> the Ohio State University, are unhappy with the advocacy of the
> proprietary[1] BitKeeper software for use in maintaining the Linux
> kernel.  The Linux kernel is an important symbol of Open Source and
> Free Software for many people, and a project in which many thousands
> have participated in active development.  It is fine if some kernel
> developers choose to use BitKeeper on their own machines, but
> officially endorsing proprietary software as the means of working on
> the kernel is a large step backwards for Linux, and for the Open
> Source and Free Software communities.
> 
> If the core Linux maintainers begin to advocate using BitKeeper, then
> there will be strong pressure on these peripheral developers to use
> BitKeeper too, since it would likely be easier than browsing the
> web-exported changelogs or fetching the latest diff from kernel.org.
> 
> Using a closed-source, proprietary source control system for the
> kernel is even worse than using other forms of proprietary software
> such as source code analysis systems, because the revision control
> metadata (version numbers, branches, changelog comments, etc.), would
> be stored in a format defined by the proprietary software.  This
> metadata is really a part of Linux, because people will want to use it
> when talking about the kernel.  Those who can't[2] or don't want to
> use BitKeeper are left out in the cold.  One of the most important
> parts of Open Source and Free Software is that we, the community, are
> in control.  But by using and advocating BitKeeper, we would lose part
> of that control.
> 
> In summary, please do not advocate BitKeeper for use by the general
> community.  The Linux development process seems to have worked up till
> now, and we can wait a little longer until Arch[3] or Subversion[4]
> are completed.  Moreover, full-featured, completely functional free 
> versioning sytems are currently available, such as PRCS[5] and CVS[6].
> We respect the kernel maintainer's freedom to use proprietary software 
> for their own purposes.  And we ask the kernel maintainers to respect 
> the community's freedom from entrapment by proprietary software.
> 
> -- The Open Source Club at The Ohio State University
> Signed by:
> Michael Benedict <zosima@zosima.org>
> Colin Walters <walters@debian.org>
> Matt Curtin <cmcurtin@interhack.net>
> Martin Jansche <jansche@ling.ohio-state.edu>
> Balbir Thomas <thomas.1037@osu.edu>
> Nicholas Hurley <hurley@cis.ohio-state.edu>
> Ryan McCormack <mccormac@cis.ohio-state.edu>
> Shaun Rowland <rowland@cis.ohio-state.edu>
> 
> [1] http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/user/x/i/xiphmont/Public/critique.html
> [2] Perhaps they aren't connected to the internet regularly enough,
>     for instance.
> [3] http://www.regexps.com/#arch
> [4] http://subversion.tigris.org
> [5] http://prcs.sourceforge.net
> [6] http://www.cvshome.org
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 17:41, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> 
> All hail the non-profit nazis from Ohio State.  

The petition came from a group of people in the OSU Open Source club,
not from the whole school (obviously) or even the whole club.

> It's none of your 
> f_cking business what we use to develop software.  I use a hardware
> American Arium logic analyzer and a proprietary Linux kernel 
> debugger.  Should people be boycotted when they use hardware 
> analyzers to debug hardware and software with Linux.  

You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
*use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
software by the kernel maintainers.

> It's pretty clear that the alumni of Ohio State University 

The petition has nothing to do with the alumni of the Ohio State
University.

The rest of your message isn't worth responding to, so I won't.

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Jeff Garzik]

Colin Walters wrote:
> You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
> *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
> that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
> petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
> software by the kernel maintainers.

How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?

That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

	Jeff



-- 
Jeff Garzik      |
Building 1024    |
MandrakeSoft     | Choose life.

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[William Lee Irwin III]

Colin Walters wrote:
>> You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
>> *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
>> that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
>> petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
>> software by the kernel maintainers.

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 05:54:12PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?
> That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.


This doesn't sound like kernel hacking to me.
May we now resume our reguarly scheduled kernel programming?

...my .procmailrc overfloweth, as does /dev/null...

Bill

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Jeff V. Merkey]

Jeff Garzik wrote:


SCORE:

Jeff Garzik                  100 points

Ohio State Nazis       -10 points

Zig Heil !

Jeff


> Colin Walters wrote:
> > You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
> > *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
> > that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
> > petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
> > software by the kernel maintainers.
>
> How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?
>
> That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.
>
>         Jeff
>
> --
> Jeff Garzik      |
> Building 1024    |
> MandrakeSoft     | Choose life.

RE: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Karl]

>How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?

>That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

>	Jeff


   A petition is a statement from a group of people who feel affected by
what you do, they are then requesting that you do something different. That
IS freedom of speech. Your decision to follow it or ignore it IS your
freedom. To try and crush out their desire to make petitions is IMHO
CENSORSHIP... I doubt many share my opinion (and yes it is just that) but I
throw it out as food for thought.

Karl

PS though it may sound sarcastic, it isn't actually meant to.

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[michael bernstein]

I totally and utterly agree with you.  They have every right to ignore 
the petition, but those we signed it were acting out their right of 
freedom of speech.  I know all the people who signed it, and none of 
them likely would force ANYTHING on anyone.  Rather then looking at this 
as an ultimatum, look at it as a request.  Negative responses only lead 
to more negatives responses back, and nothing EVER comes out of flame 
wars, ever.  Except worthless air being wasted by the likes of some.

cheers,

Michael Bernstein
bernstein.46@osu.edu



On Tuesday, March 5, 2002, at 09:23 PM, Karl wrote:

>    A petition is a statement from a group of people who feel affected by
> what you do, they are then requesting that you do something different. 
> That
> IS freedom of speech. Your decision to follow it or ignore it IS your
> freedom. To try and crush out their desire to make petitions is IMHO
> CENSORSHIP... I doubt many share my opinion (and yes it is just that) 
> but I
> throw it out as food for thought.
>
> Karl
>
> PS though it may sound sarcastic, it isn't actually meant to.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensource mailing list
> Opensource@mail.cis.ohio-state.edu
> http://mail.cis.ohio-state.edu/mailman/listinfo/opensource
>

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[David Schwartz]

On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:54:12 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:

>Colin Walters wrote:

>>You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
>>*use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
>>that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
>>petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
>>software by the kernel maintainers.

>How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?

	There is no difference between advocating something and advocating 
advocating something. So if you ask how they have any business telling you 
what to advocate, you ask how they have any business engaging in any advocacy 
at all.

	So what's your position? Do you believe that only you have the right to 
advocate?

>That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

	So when someone says something you don't agree with, that's not free speech? 
If someone expresses a thought you don't agree with, that's not free thought? 
Nobody is trying to compel you to do anything, they're just advocating what 
they believe in and explaining the reasons why.

	DS

Re: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement ofBitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, 2002-03-05 at 17:54, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Colin Walters wrote:
> > You apparently missed the fact that the the petition was not against the
> > *use* of proprietary software at all.  In fact, we explicitly mentioned
> > that everyone is free to make that choice individually.  What the
> > petition is against is the *advocacy* of the proprietary BitKeeper
> > software by the kernel maintainers.
> 
> How do they have any business telling me what to advocate?
> 
> That doesn't sound like free speech nor free thought to me.

The nature of a petition is that it's a request.  We (obviously) can't
force the kernel maintainers not to use BitKeeper, and I personally
wouldn't if I could.

So, the kernel maintainers can ignore the petition if they want to.  The
whole point of the petition is to let them know that there are people
who aren't happy with their choices.