3 ms·
> The first mistake was for a free software project to require a proprietary one to participate in development. This isn't true at all. Anyone could download
by geezerjay 10y ago
> The first mistake was for a free software project to require a proprietary one to participate in development.
This isn't true at all. Anyone could download the source code, tweak it, and submit patches. You can even use your own version control system to track your changes.
The project managers may have used bitkeeper, but to everyone else the only thing that bitkeeper provided was, at best, convenience.
- gcp 10y agoIt's detrimental to the openness of a project if the maintainers and core contributors have other, better tooling than the rest of the world.
- geezerjay 10y agoThe tooling wasn't better. It was just different. It's also entirely irrelevant if people use different tools to do their job. No one was hindered by anyone else's personal choice of tools. Anyone in the world was free to download the source code, change it, and contribute patches if they seed fit. Bitkeeper did not hindered this, nor did the linux development process changed once bitkeeper was replaced.
- gcp 10y agoThe tooling wasn't better. It was just different. BitKeeper was better than the alternatives. This was literally Linus' rationale for using it. Nothing what you say in the second paragraph contradicts what I said, but it also doesn't address the point at all. Do you understand why a difference in tooling and ease of working reduces openness?
- michaelmrose 10y agoThis is extremely disingenuous. Pretending that the primary workflow of a group and metadata about its work amounts to convenience seems poorly thought out on your part.