Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Sunday 21 April 2002 21:06, dean gaudet wrote:
> personally i probably wouldn't be so interested in bk if it weren't for
> all the zealots telling me it's something i shouldn't even consider using.
> your approach is about as effective as the war on drugs, or minimum
> alcohol consumption age limits.  tell what i can't do and i'm damn well
> going to go investigate what it is that's supposedly so bad for me.
> 
> thanks to all of you for pointing me in the direction of a tool which
> looks to be a huge step forward in SCM.  i believe "paradigm shift" would
> be an apt term for bk.

You seem to think I'm against Bitkeeper, or its use, or that I think
Bitkeeper isn't helping linux.  You're wrong.  I am against carrying what
*appears* to be a big advertisement for Bitkeeper itself in the Linux
source tree.  This I see as akin to putting up a commercial billboard in a
public park.  Would you be comfortable with that?

If my comments have caused increased interest in Bitkeeper and spiked up
Larry's downloads, I am glad.  Now everybody is happy except a number of
those whose involvement with Linux is based on some kind of philosophical
belief in the freeness of software (or at least in the freeness of Linux)
and who have been on the butt end of numerous insults in this thread,
your insult above ("zealots") being a good example.

I have suggested carrying a URL instead.  Is it reasonable?  Who is being
extreme here?

Furthermore, who is making the vicious attacks, and why?

-- 
Daniel