[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Savannah-hackers] Fighting BitKeeper: There is no such thing as a F
|
From: |
Jaime E. Villate |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Savannah-hackers] Fighting BitKeeper: There is no such thing as a Free Lunch |
|
Date: |
Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:04:26 +0000 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:35:11PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> At the moment the situation in the free software world is that two
> alternatives with public hosting exist:
>
> 1. CVS - old, reliable but a pain to work with. Fully Free.
>
> 2. BitKeeper - very good, and a joy to work with. Distributed under a very
> restrictive license.
BitKeeper is not free software, therefore it is not an alternative.
> You need to make some effort in raising a Subversion
> server, if you want people to ditch BitKeeper for good (and for the
> Subversion development to accelerate - more users = more development[1])
getting people "to ditch BitKeeper for good" is not one of our aims.
Our target audience are not the users of BitKeeper or any other proprietary
software.
> If you OTOH reject Subversion because it is not straightforward to install
> on your Debian Stable (%-)) systems, then it will take much longer time
> for it to develop, and meanwhile innocent developers will be lured into
> the BitKeeper and bkbits.net service (which are excellent except for the
> bad licensing).
Savannah users value free software for the ideals it defends and not for its
technical superiority. I'm sure they will not mind waiting a few more days
until subversion leaves its alpha state and it can be recommended for
day-to-day use without any risk of loosing their data.
> Note that Aegis and Arch do not give a sufficient answer to CVS, BitKeeper
> or Subversion.
But a lot of Savannah users have requested them and since they seem to be
stable enough, we will proceed to install them in Savannah.
Regards,
Jaime