×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BitMover Releases Open Source BitKeeper Client

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the bits-a-shakin dept.

Programming 255

diegocgteleline.es writes "Larry McVoy, the owner of BitKeeper (also one of the guys behind LMbench) has posted a message to linux-kernel where he announces a open source client of BitKeeper, which would only allow synching against BK trees. It looks like it's licensed under the NWL (No Whining License) that will force you to 'not whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

255 comments

No Whiners License... (5, Funny)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973366)

So.. this doesn't run under WINE then.

Re:No Whiners License... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973376)

Wineing
Is
Not
Easy
-----
It does run under WINE, just track down some obscure DLL created in 1998 and fuck with config files until a linux native version is actually released.

Re:No Whiners License... (-1, Flamebait)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973390)

What! He didn't release it under the GPL! That's appalling - waaaaaaaaaaa!

MODERATORS' POLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973397)

  • Mod me DOWN if you are utterly revolted by what
    passes for hygiene among Linux enthusiasts.

  • Mod me UP if you use Linux.

Thank you for your participation.

Re:MODERATORS' POLL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973499)

just b/c i cant remember the last time i showered doesn't mean that it wasn't today

Re:MODERATORS' POLL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973505)

ditto for sex

sounds like a load of GNAA frosty ps0t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973369)

i do however fail it.

Strange (-1, Flamebait)

anpe (217106) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973375)

It looks like it's licensed under the NWL (No Whining License) that will force you to 'not whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.'

I doubt this could qualify as an free sofware license... Several kernel developers warned Larry that this would make the software opensource but not free. It's sad that he released it in such conditions anyway.

Re:Strange (5, Informative)

sampowers (54424) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973378)

Don't be a stupid. At least read the mailing list posting:

Don't worry about the license, it's a joke. BSD license OK with everyone? /blockquote

lets make fun of our users! (0)

nietsch (112711) | more than 9 years ago | (#11974072)

Making fun of your prospective users is a good way to turn them off. Why should I care about a product that labels me 'whiner' when I am concerned about my software freedoms?

It was a good stunt that he snagged Linus/linux as a user/project, but in hindsight that was not the best move for Linux, IMHO.

The game of free software is played on merits, not restricting your users how they can use the software. a BSD client does not mean much when the server is not free too.

Indeed... (3, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973389)

Larry's entitled to license things under any license he wants to. It's HIS product. However, having said this, it's still quite understandable for people to not want Linux development being tied to a closed-source product with nasty gotchas in it's free license. That's not whining in the least.

The only thing resembling "whining" seems to be coming from Larry himself with this silly license. All it's going to do is make the acrimony WORSE, not better. Kind of childish, in my not so humble opinion.

Re:Indeed... (1)

bani (467531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973944)

larry's becoming a theo clone. eg great product, but all the social graces of a toad.

Re:Indeed... (2, Insightful)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 9 years ago | (#11974060)

However, having said this, it's still quite understandable for people to not want Linux development being tied to a closed-source product with nasty gotchas in it's free license. That's not whining in the least.
Larry's view is that it's whinning because they don't have to use BK and it not using it doesn't put them in a worse position than they were in before BK was adopted. He's kind of got a point there, though it's by no means black and white. Still the "whinning" could have been a lot worse. Just imagine if Linus had of adopted a commercial system (it's not like he's religous about using open-source tools).
The only thing resembling "whining" seems to be coming from Larry himself with this silly license. All it's going to do is make the acrimony WORSE, not better. Kind of childish, in my not so humble opinion.
You might have a point, except that license is a joke. It's under the BSD license.

Re:Indeed... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11974065)

However, having said this, it's still quite understandable for people to not want Linux development being tied to a closed-source product with nasty gotchas in it's free license. That's not whining in the least.

The problem is that people who whined about BK being propietary should have shut their mouth up, but they didn't. When Linus switched to BK, he made clear that he would NOT force to anyone to use BK, and that's how it has been: Linux kernel.org releases are released in GNU diff format, so everybody can code and contribute. The one reason why all^Wmost of the kernel developers use BK is because they aren't stupid, BK is a great tool and can save hours of work, and it lets them to work easier between those who use BK. When someone wants to get a patch to get merged they also made the GNU diff format patch available, and even if they didn't, bkbits.net provides you a link to get a GNU diff patch for every changeset out there. Those who claim [gnu.org] that "anyone who wants to closely track patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program" to develop the kernel are just wrong because you have access to the latest [bkbits.net] kernel changes without installing a non-free tool. -mm and -ac tree are maintained using open tools, so I don't see where is BK being "required".

The one reason why people whine is because they want to have the advantages of BK, but without using a propietary tool. That's not possible, there's not a OSS tool comparable to BK, subversion arch and friends are not even close. Everybody agrees that having such tool would be great (Linus even tried to convince Larry to release BK under a open license) but there's not one.

IMHO is just like when RMS had to use propietary tools to start developing GNU - Linux developers just use BK because using a OSS SCM would mean the linux kernel development would slow down a lot, and that's not good (and again, if you are going to propose to use subversion, arch, etc, it probably means that you do not understand the frenetic kernel development needs and the power of BK)

Re:Strange (5, Insightful)

tupshin (5777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973391)

Actually he said in the email that the whining license was a joke and he's actually licensing it as BSD (and later said it could even be considered public domain), though until the source code is re-released with proper license headers, I doubt his statement to lkml is legally binding in any way.

-Tupshin

Re:Strange (3, Insightful)

M1FCJ (586251) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973429)

Thinking of his track record, I wouldn't bet on his software. First you couldn't do anything, then you couldn't even use it if you were messing with other source control systems, now he is saying it is free for anything. If someone reverse engineers a GPL/BSDL BitKeeper server clone using the client will he tolerate it or will he try to crush it? That's the crux of it.

Re:Strange (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973521)

I doubt his statement to lkml is legally binding in any way.

Wouldn't it be a perfect example of promissory estoppel" [cornell.edu] .

Why do you think the headers carry any more legal standing than lkml?

Re:Strange (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973937)

*BSD (and later said it could even be considered public domain)*

so actually he isn't giving it away under any license... merely providing a download to it. kind of dangerous thing to start using(not that it seems to be good for anything but getting the latest snapshot out of the system).

Re:Strange (4, Interesting)

Chasuk (62477) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973416)

I don't know how relevant this is, not quite getting the gist of the article, but does this sentence (linked from the word message in the article) make any difference? Or was I not supposed to follow any of the links?

Don't worry about the license, it's a joke. BSD license OK with everyone?

Open alternatives (5, Interesting)

ballermann (124688) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973428)

There are so much real open alternatives like subversion [tigris.org] , arch [gnu.org] and (my personal favourite) darcs [abridgegame.org] - just to name a few. Why bother with bitkeeper?

Re:Open alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973529)

Try it, and I think you'll see it has fewer "annoyances" than the other packages.

Darcs is extremely cool, though; and it's the one I use for my own projects (and all my own data, phone lists, resume, etc). I'm told Darcs doesn't scale as well as BitKeeper - but I never saw any problems.

Re:Open alternatives (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973597)

You never saw any problem in a one-user project.
Unfortunately you can't just multiply "zero problems times ten thousand users" and end up with 0.

- Peder

Re:Open alternatives (3, Insightful)

koko775 (617640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973600)

Because BitMover will itself be a "real open alternative". Why bother with subversion, arch, and (your personal favorite) darcs? Surely it's because you have the power of choice, and the freedom of source?

Re:Open alternatives (4, Insightful)

winchester (265873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973651)

There are so much real open alternatives like subversion, arch and (my personal favourite) darcs - just to name a few. Why bother with bitkeeper?

Gosh, get a clue, will you! Or read the lkml archives. Linus chose bitkeeper precisely because all the alternatives you mention don't cut it.

This is exactlythe attitude that keeps holding open source back. It's not about whether the source is open or not, it is about choosing the right tool for the right job. More people should understand this...

Re:Open alternatives (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973710)

No, your attitude is the one with the problem. No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own. If you don't have the skills/time to do so, encourage others who do to take it up. Just criticizing without doing anything about it helps noone.

Re:Open alternatives (1)

Alex (342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973722)


No, your attitude is the one with the problem. No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own. If you don't have the skills/time to do so, encourage others who do to take it up. Just criticizing without doing anything about it helps noone.


Or just buy bitkeeper and get on with your day job.

Alex

Which is nice... (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973791)

No, your attitude is the one with the problem. No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own.

...if you're trying to do the community a service. If you're looking to put food on the table doing something completely unrelated (where this is simply a support function), it is mindnumbingly stupid. Most likely you're long out of business by the time it is working.

Sure, if all you need is some minor customization, maybe. But if it clearly isn't anywhere near being up to the task, pick something non-OSS. Earn some money, help out the projects where it is feasible to replace proprietary with OSS.

That is the way OSS projects prospers. I make a 98% solution a 100% one. That makes it a 98% solution for someone else, who'll make it a 100% solution for them. And the snowball is rolling. Not by one company breaking its back trying to bring it from 40% to 100%.

Kjella

Re:Open alternatives (1)

RedWizzard (192002) | more than 9 years ago | (#11974075)

No current open source solution adequate? Then help make one that is- either by improving an existing alternative, or starting your own.
That's fine, except most developers have no interest in writing a source control system. So given the choice of using a commercial SCS while working on the project they're interested in or working on a version control system, it's no suprise that many people choose the former and complain that there are no suitable open source solutions available.

Re:Open alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973718)

This is exactly the attitude that keeps holding open source back.

To a portion of the open source landscape there is no worry about being "held back" because of dedication to their ideology. I'm a pragmatist myself, but I understand and respect the free software movement's dedication to principles over pragmatism - don't agree with it in many cases, but I can respect it. After all, without a hardcase like Stallman OSS would not be nearly as developed as it is.

Re:Open alternatives (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973748)

Or read the lkml archives. Linus chose bitkeeper precisely because all the alternatives you mention don't cut it.

To be fair, at the time Linus moved to BK they didn't cut it. Everyone still used CVS; Subversion was still under development; I don't think Darcs, SVK or any of the implementations of Arch even existed yet.

Re:Open alternatives (2, Insightful)

ebyrob (165903) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973768)

Gosh, get a clue, will you! Or read the lkml archives. Linus chose bitkeeper precisely because all the alternatives you mention don't cut it.

Ya, somewhat smaller projects than the Linux kernel like Apache, Mozilla, the GCC and Debian just can't get off the ground since they don't use BitKeeper. Maybe if they switched they'd have better luck...

I mean really, it's Mr. Torvald's perogative to choose a source control tool he likes and sure when you're on someone else's court you play by their rules. But that hardly makes BitKeeper the holy grail of all source control tools.

Re:Open alternatives (4, Informative)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973775)

Linus made that choice two years ago, though, and both Arch and Subversion have probably improved since then (I can't talk about darcs, since I don't know that really).

That being said, it's not just about closed source, although that certainly is a factor, too (did you ever think about where those GNU tools you're (probably) using on a daily basis came from, and why they were created?); the problem with BK is not so much that it's closed-source, but that its "free" (as in beer) license does not permit you to work on any projects that could be seen as competing. That's a serious restriction of your own freedom, and it sure does overstep some ethical boundaries at least because it not only tells you what you can and cannot do with the software in question (BK), but also what you can and cannot do in the rest of your life. There is at least one kernel developer I can remember right now (Andrea Arcangeli) who got bitten by this - he already worked on Arch (I think - it may have been another system, too, though) in the past, so he simply could not use BK at all, and until now, he could not even directly access Linus' BK tree, instead having to rely on things like the bk2cvs gateway etc.

And what's also bad about the whole thing is that this is not the deal that was initially promised: initially, it was (basically) "you (the kernel developers) get to use our commercial product (BK) for free, and we get the opportunity to use the fact that you use it to advertise BK and show how it's able to efficiently handle even large projects". I can definitely understand why Andrea (and others) were upset, and while Linus had to take many things into account (and while it certainly is clear that BK did provide a substantial improvement over CVS), I think the criticism of BK is all but unjustified (and Larry's arrogant and condescending attitude which he showed in many, many lkml posts didn't exactly help, either).

Re:Open alternatives (1)

bani (467531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973963)

disclaimer: i use subversion and cvs.

subversion still has its warts, there are places where cvs is still more convenient than subversion, and bugs/issues with properties where subversion will eat your repository for breakfast. some aspects of subversion do not scale yet.

overall subversion is much more convenient to use (especially when digging out old commits from history), you just have to be careful. cvs is more cumbersome to use, but it's rock solid -- there's never any question if it's going to eat itself.

Re:Open alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973831)

> Gosh, get a clue, will you! Or read the lkml archives. Linus chose bitkeeper precisely because all the alternatives you mention don't cut it.

Get a clue yourself.

1/ The alternative DIDN'T cut it.
2/ Linus is hardly a source-control guru (before using bitkeeper, he used... nothing). So, of course, bitkeeper made him two time more productive.

> This is exactlythe attitude that keeps holding open source back. It's not about whether the source is open or not, it is about choosing the right tool for the right job.

You are in serious need for a clue, too.

If that was it, then linus would NOT have developped linux. After all, he had minix.

Last, bk is not Free. You can't use bk if you work on a source code control system.

The fact it is not a problem for you is *exactly* the attitude that keeps holding free software back.

Open alternatives-Best nail for the job. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973841)

"This is exactlythe attitude that keeps holding open source back. It's not about whether the source is open or not, it is about choosing the right tool for the right job. More people should understand this..."

They work at Microsoft now.

Re:Open alternatives (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11974044)

There are so much real open alternatives like subversion, arch and (my personal favourite) darcs - just to name a few. Why bother with bitkeeper?

Subversion has a centralised repository design. It's totally inappropriate for Linux kernel development.

Arch is distributed but is difficult to work with. Not a very friendly interface, to say the least.

Also I think at the time Linus was migrating away from the "patch and diff" system, Bitkeeper was the only distributed tool that was sane and worked. The open-source distributed tools didn't exist until fairly recently.

Re:Strange (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973511)

oi no whining!

Re:Strange (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973666)

Actually; unless the parent Accepts the No Whining License - he is perfectly free to whine about the product in any way he/she desiresw

Bazaar-NG (5, Interesting)

Cronopios (313338) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973381)

Too late.

Right know, I put my expectations on Bazaar-NG [bazaar-ng.org] : all the goodies of GNU Arch and the simple interface of Subversion. Developed by Canonical (of Ubuntu fame).

Re:Bazaar-NG (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973406)

It is just sad that it's written i Python. I like Python for scripting, but production software should not be written in dynamically typed scripting languages. The fact that the use of Python is listed as one of the top features indicates that the programmers behind this project are either immature, untalented, or both. The fact that they have apparently convinced the Canonical management into taking this approach seems to indicate a sad state of things at said company.

Re:Bazaar-NG (4, Insightful)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973430)

The original implementation of GNU Arch was done in bourne shell. Pyhton is a big step up from that.

In any case, I think it is a fine combination when the core functionality of a program is written in a statically typed language, and UI binding it together is written in a dynamically typed language.

Re:Bazaar-NG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973976)

And only after it was rewritten i C did it become successful. Proves the whole point, thanks.

Re:Bazaar-NG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973432)

You don't know what you are talking about. Period.

Re:Bazaar-NG (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973471)

I manage several large Subversion and CVS repositories. There is no way I would even entertain the idea of running a Python based SCM platform for repositories of a similiar size unless you could convince me, without a shadow of a doubt, that it would scale. SCM is critical to most software houses; very few people would take the risk.

Re:Bazaar-NG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973767)

Yes, asking someone to show me that a Python SCM platform would scale is such a troll. Troll is me.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go troll around on my Subversion server now. Hi ho!

Oh wait, those were dwarves..

Re:Bazaar-NG (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973852)

The mere thought that you're using SVN and yet are so seemingly anal about scalability brings a smile to my face.

Keep it up, funny man.

Re:Bazaar-NG (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973889)

Hmm yes, 'cos no one has proven SVN scalable.

Apart from the thousands of sites that have already deployed SVN to replace large CVS repositories. Those guys don't count, because then you wouldn't have a point.

I'll go deploy some rinky dink Python script to replace my non-scallable SVN repositories right away, no-real-answers Mr. Software Engineer. No doubt a bit of interpreted script will easily outscale Subversion. I'll just believe that in my heart, without any proof from any of you.

Re:Bazaar-NG (4, Interesting)

millette (56354) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973472)

Maybe you'd prefer a haskell implementation ? Darcs [abridgegame.org] is decentralized, based on a "theory of patches" with roots in quantum mechanics.

Written in Haskell, darcs [abridgegame.org] is used on many operating systems including Linux, MacOS X, FreeBSD, and Windows. Darcs includes a CGI script to browse your repository from the web.

Re:Bazaar-NG (4, Insightful)

shish (588640) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973433)

How do I use bazaar, arch or subversion to check out the kernel's bitkeeper repositories?

The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel; you can use the open source client instead.

Re:Bazaar-NG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973581)

Dunno about all those others, but the is a svnbk gateway for the kernel.

You can easily get the kernel sources using subversion.

Re:Bazaar-NG (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973866)

The point of this article is that you no longer need to use the "we own your soul" closed source BK client just to download the kernel

Of course, you never did anyway. There have been numerous ways to get at the up to date kernel source for a long time without requiring bitkeeper (e.g., bk2cvs).

Re:Bazaar-NG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973965)

Of course, you never did anyway. There have been numerous ways to get at the up to date kernel source for a long time without requiring bitkeeper (e.g., bk2cvs).

Assuming they're working at the moment.

Did you RTFA? The title of the linked mail is "Re: BKCVS broken ?".

Re:Bazaar-NG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973544)

How does it compare to Darcs? IMHO Darcs is the easiest to use distributed source control system out there; and subversion the easiest centralized one.

The fact that Bazaar(non-NG) was a fork of of Arch is not a vote of confidence in my mind. Darcs is far far cleaner than Arch.

Re:Bazaar-NG (2, Informative)

cakoose (460295) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973693)

Dude, read the Bazaar webpage. Just the front page. It's clearly not a fork. They want to have some level of interoperability, but that's about it. They wrote it in Python and have a totally different user interface.

Wishful thinking (-1, Flamebait)

stor (146442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973386)

It looks like it's licensed under the NWL (No Whining License) that will force you to 'not whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.'"

Let the whining begin! Far out, even the licence itself gives us something to whine about.

Larry seems like a reasonably smart guy but I think we could all do without his trollish antics.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Wishful thinking (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973415)

Trollish antics? Just because he doesn't want you Gonad Pilfering License (GPL) monkeys bitching? K.

Re:Wishful thinking (1)

stor (146442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973516)

Nothing is going to stop people bitching and BK has some restrcitions in it's licence that some people with a personal stake in Linux are uncomfortable with (to say the least).

Me? I don't really care. The relentless flamewars are tiresome though.

Cheers
Stor

FTFA... (5, Informative)

FireballX301 (766274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973443)

Don't worry about the license, it's a joke. BSD license OK with everyone?

Re:FTFA... (2, Insightful)

stor (146442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973492)

Argh. Yes I should have RTFA and not posted somehting so inflammatory.

I actually meant it in the nicest possible way ;)

I like reading LKML and I like Larry and appreciate his gift but he seems to get sucked into the relentless BK flamewars and catalyse them sometimes which I think is unfortunate. He'd do himself a great service avoiding getting too involved imnsho.

I guess I didn't help just then. Ahh well. Sorry Larry et al.

Cheers
Stor

Wishful thinking-Just one of the guys. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973601)

"Larry seems like a reasonably smart guy but I think we could all do without his trollish antics."

He'd fit right in here.

Great licensing scheme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973395)

It looks like it's licensed under the NWL (No Whining License) that will force you to 'not whine about this product or any other products from BitMover, Inc.'

Seems comparable with Microsoft licenses. But in the case of Microsoft, it's No Whining about our license.

NWL (No Whining License) (5, Funny)

MatthewNewberg (519685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973407)

I wonder if someone could extend said license to other things in life such as Family, Jobs and Girlfriends..

Re:NWL (No Whining License) (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973669)

I wonder if someone could extend said license to other things in life such as Family, Jobs and Girlfriends...

What are these "Jobs and Girlfriends" things of which you speak?

Re:NWL (No Whining License) (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973869)

..but where exactly is this license found to be read?

(does it include "no compete" clause?)

it sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973464)

i wish it were better

NWL applications outside of software (-1, Offtopic)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973490)

to all the ladies: by enlisting my sexual services, you agree: - to not whine about my sexual performance - to make no unflattering remarks about the size, shape, or occasional discoloring of my genitalia - to make no complaints regarding my stamina(or lack thereof) - that there is no guarantee that you will be sexually satisfied - and that there is also no guarantee that i will call you the next day

Any recent LMBench output (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973502)

(Since the article mentioned LMBench, I hope this isn't off-topic)

The LMBench results shown on that link ( http://www.bitmover.com/lmbench/lmbench-summary ) are very interesting, but very old (Linux 1.3.57 vs IRIX 6.2 vs AIX 3.x vs SunOS5.5)

Anyone have more recent results anywhere?

Bitkeeper website (5, Informative)

kihjin (866070) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973514)

"BitKeeper has made me more than twice as productive, and its fundamentally distributed nature allows me to work the way I prefer to work - with many different groups working independently, yet allowing for easy merging between them."
-- Linus Torvalds, February 2004

Linus did it. I can too! *jumps on the bandwagon*

Re:Bitkeeper website (3, Interesting)

greppling (601175) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973912)

This has been quoted so many times, I still think it is a silly exaggeration. A couple of things changed when Linus switched to BK:

1. He wrote scripts so that he didn't have to jump between applying patches and reading e-mail, instead he is now reading a batch of patches, queuing them, and then starts a script to apply them.
2. Developers have instant access to Linus' tree. Any source control system would have provided this.
3. The comments to the patches in the e-mails sent to Linus now actually make it to the public. Just about any GNU project does this via ChangeLog under any revision control system.
4. A script was written to automatically extract release notes from the changelog comments.
5. Merging with subsystems maintainer is easier if they pile up the patches in bitkeeper repositories.

Maybe all of the above together yielded a factor of two. But only with respect to 5. is BK at all relevant. And even there -- by a HUGE amount the largest merge point is Andrew Morton, who uses quilt instead of BK to manage his tree with some hundred patches per week throughput to Linus. And I haven't read any complaints from Linus that he isn't using BK.

bitkeeper is not on my radar (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973623)

I don't keep my beer in my neighbor's fridge, I don't keep my money in my accountant's saving account, and I don't keep my source code in closed-source revision control systems.

Re:bitkeeper is not on my radar (3, Insightful)

dave420 (699308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11974113)

But you keep your beer in your own fridge, which you don't have the schematics for, so your analogy is somewhat lacking ;)

I admire your ideology-before-productivity attitude, though... inspiring.

well there link for there licence is broken (0)

tuxmaster (851910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973645)

Whatever there licence was at the time I gess it is noegzistance now. At the time I went in to there site to read there licence and see what it was all about the link to the licence was broken. I wonder if too many pepole from here looked for that link. I think I acculy might create a NwL. I think it would be useful from the buisness side of things. For example a project you are offering for free and do not have the time to support it. So you do not get a million emails a day of how anoying your product is.

Re:well there link for there licence is broken (0)

Sneeka2 (782894) | more than 9 years ago | (#11974110)

Though I usually ain't no grammar nazi, I wonder whether they know the difference between their, there and they're where you come from. Just because it makes reading so much easier.

I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares (4, Interesting)

melted (227442) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973655)

I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares to the state of the art, Perforce. Perforce charges $700 per seat, and after working with it for years, I can say it's worth it. Everything is just the way it should be. I wish someone would reimplement the damn thing under GPL license. After using Perforce at work, all other systems look like a joke.

Re:Perforce Licensing (4, Informative)

hashinclude (192717) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973723)

Yeah, I love perforce too. The good thing is (if you RTF Licensing terms from the website [perforce.com] ) is that GPL/BSD and other open source projects can get a P4 license for free.

Blockquoth the site:

Organizations developing software that is licensed or otherwise distributed exclusively under an Open Source license may be eligible to obtain Perforce licenses gratis. This includes upgrades but not support. Perforce Software reserves the right to approve the Open Source license; those fitting The Open Source Definition, including the GNU and FreeBSD licenses, are good candidates. Execution of a End User License Agreement for Open Source Software Development (PDF) is required. For more information, please see the Perforce and Open Source FAQ or contact opensource [at] perforce [dot] com

Re:Perforce Licensing (1)

schlick (73861) | more than 9 years ago | (#11974068)

I like this because usually when I start something it is just me and one other person anyway. I've used it in the past with good results.


Licensing
You may use software downloaded from Perforce for any purpose you want and for as long as you like. The Perforce Server supports only two users and two client workspaces unless used with a Perforce License.

Re:I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares (2, Insightful)

leshert (40509) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973815)

To quote The Princess Bride, "I do not think it means what you think it means."

"State of the art" doesn't mean "best overall implementation". It means that it implements the most recent advances in the field. Perforce is actually quite conventional (being originally based on either RCS or SCCS--I can't recall which). It uses the "single authoritative repository" model of version control.

The "state of the art" in version control is exploring the model of distributed and decentralized repositories. BK, darcs, arch, etc. are implementations of this model.

That being said, I like Perforce--a lot. In fact, just this year I helped successfully push for its adoption at work (beating out StarTeam and ClearCase). Perforce is fast, reliable, and not exceedingly complex for end users.

I'm not yet convinced that the distributed repository model is the best model for all purposes, but it's certainly closer to the usual meaning of "state of the art" than Perforce.

Re:I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares (1)

psp (7269) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973862)

What makes Perforce superior to for example CVS? Is it reliability/performance or is it extra features?

Re:I wonder how this bitkeeper thing compares (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973873)

It compares much better than perforce.

With Bitkeeper it's very easy for every organization - and even every developer - to have his own "fork" of the tree which acts as a "master repository" for others to create branches off of.

For example, within RedHat, they can have one (or many) child branches from Linus's branch (or any other developer's branches); and "reparent" the branches as needed to merge in the various pieces they need. Other employes' repositories may point to one inside RedHat; or they may point to Linus's; and of course they can "reparent" their repository to switch between the two as needed.

Similarly, any company or group of developers can have similar structures.

Also; it's important to note that not everyone needs access to a "master repository"; and that indeed no-one needs access to a "master repository" except when they're merging with that master.

Bitkeeper works perfectly on my laptop in disconnected mode - and I have the full power of the source control system on my laptop even with no net access - I can create branches, merge branches, etc. If I'm traveling with someone else from the company I can merge my branches with his merely with a cable between the laptops - no connection to the home office is needed.


We used perforce at a previous company I was at with offices in China, Taiwan,Romania, and California and it was a horrible experience. Connecting to oversees repositories was painful; and merging changes between the oversees repositories sucked even worse.

Try BitKeeper. I'm sure you'll switch.

WHY /.sucks pasword protected? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973656)

i am a whiner 'n i wanna whine!
so i go 2 the url
with my whining pearl
'n i find it locked
my wisdom rudely blocked
then i no! they're hiding a crime!

No news here, move along... (1)

vidarlo (134906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11973663)

I found a mention [lkml.org] from 2003 about this. Albeit only a extension, it seems like this have long roots.

Any SCCS based replacements with repositories? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973739)

When all is said and done, dispite the licencing issues with BitKeeper, it is still a very good product. I have yet to hear of any decent opensource revision control products that are SCCS based with a concept of change-sets to a repository. Such a product would be very useful to those held hostage by the BitKeeper licencing, but need an opensource alternative with similar features to migrate to.

The other opensource revision control products mentioned above do not appear to be SCCS based with a concept of change-sets to a repository, and hence would not very useful to current bitkeeper users. If I am mistaken, then I would love to be proven wrong.

Re:Any SCCS based replacements with repositories? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973777)

Why is SCCS such a big deal? The important feature is surely atomic commits (Changesets). Certainly Subversion does changesets, in a very elegant way I might add. I'm pretty sure Arch implements them too. I don't know about the others (E.g. darcs)

Right (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11973847)

A No Weener License. Long pending.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...