Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from Pavel Machek <[email protected]> -----
To: Dave Jones <[email protected]>, Daniel Phillips <[email protected]>,
Anton Altaparmakov <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16ybpZ-0000V4-00@starship> <[email protected]>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health.
Hi!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain is proprietary?
Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux.
Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as it
Standford checker was proprietary?
Quoted 1 line
was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?
That's another case; doing development on proprietary CPU is okay, so doing development on emulator (== CPU equivalent) should be okay, too.
Pavel
Signature · 8 lines
(about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa ----- End forwarded message ----- -- (about SSSCA) "I don't say this lightly. However, I really think that the U.S. no longer is classifiable as a democracy, but rather as a plutocracy." --hpa