Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> No I do not.  Read the post.  I suggested placing the documentation on
> kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs.

That was not what your patch did.

> (And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me.  However, it
> is not me I'm worried about.  It is the other kernel developers who are
> silently seething at this situation.  Yes they are, use your ears.)

I would suggest that if you are silently seething about the fact that a 
commercial product can do something better than a free one, how about 
_doing_ something about it?

Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.  
I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".

Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions on it for 
kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool exists, and since I'm 
personally not very interested in writing one, _and_ since I don't have 
any hangups about using the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.

As to why the docs are in the kernel sources rather than on any web-sites:
it's simply because I don't even _have_ a web page of my own (I've long
since forgotten the password to my old helsinki.fi account ;), and I have
absolutely no interest in web page design. So when I got tired of
explaining how to use BK, I asked Jeff to just send me a patch so that I
could point people to the only thing I _do_ care about, ie the kernel
sources.

		Linus