Re: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...

[Anton Altaparmakov]

At 21:42 21/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>On Monday 22 April 2002 22:18, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 08:05:25PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > On Monday 22 April 2002 19:52, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > > Should we remove all advertisements from the kernel?  A Big Penguin
> > > > would probably object to the removal of this printk advertisement
> > > > for Swansea:
> > > >
> > > >   Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4
> > > >   Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
> > > >
> > > > If the answer is no, then you are targetting BitKeeper specifically...
> > >
> > > Excellent point.  If the BitKeeper advertising in the kernel source were
> > > held to that level, I would be satisfied.
> >
> > <chuckle> -- and if that occurred, _I_ would fight to remove it as a
> > pointless advertisement.
>
>You'd want to get rid of the url that points at your docs?

I think you misunderstood Jeff. I would also not be happy if I suddenly saw 
a bitkeeper advertisement during kernel bootup, which is what is quoted above.

It is not a piece of the kernel so it shouldn't be advertised as such. It 
is a tool that is used in combination with the kernel and the docs for such 
tool are rightfully in the kernel. docs != advertising. How many people 
will read the docs? Not many. And certainly not many who would be 
purchasing bitkeeper. How many people will see the above show copyright 
messages on boot? A LOT. Anyone booting Linux in fact...

Best regards,

Anton