BK scales, Bitmover doesn't [was Re: BK stuff ]

[Troy Benjegerdes]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 01:39:51PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> My apologies to the list if this is considered off topic.  I changed the 
> subject so you can kill this thread if you like.  I know how popular BK
> discussions are :-)

(I'm quite sure this is off-topic, but oh well :-/ )

I want to make a note about something that concerns me, and I haven't 
really seen discussed much..

BK is quite nice, and from it's design, could probably scale to haveing 
every linux developer on the planet using the same 'base' linux kernel 
tree with no problem. (Please don't argue with this point, it's not what 
I'm concerned about)

However, the real problem I see is that althought Bitkeeper (the product)  
scales very well, Bitmover (the company) does NOT. Bitmover needs income 
to scale, and I'm worried that if BK takes off for kernel development, 
the demands on Bitmover from kernel developers will far outstrip the 
increase in income they get from 'commercial' developers. If this happens, 
it's only going to end in everyone getting pissed off. 

I can't think of any 'win/win' solutions for this, problem only 
'lose/lose' ones. Is anyone else worried about this, or am I just a 
pessimist? 

-- 
Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' |  [e-mail]
-----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me -----
"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it
because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's 
why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Schulz