Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:00:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:00:29 -0500 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:2695 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:00:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:00:13 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Tom Lord Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm@bitmover.com, hozer@drgw.net, davej@suse.de Subject: Re: Why not an arch mirror for the kernel? Message-ID: <20020307080013.B26028@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Tom Lord , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lm@bitmover.com, hozer@drgw.net, davej@suse.de In-Reply-To: <200203071425.GAA06679@morrowfield.home> <20020306190419.E31751@work.bitmover.com> <20020306225652.Q1682@altus.drgw.net> <20020306213238.D3240@work.bitmover.com> <200203072147.NAA08182@morrowfield.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200203072147.NAA08182@morrowfield.home>; from lord@regexps.com on Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:47:07PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:47:07PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote: > More than a year ago, we had some research done to see what it > would cost to reproduce BitKeeper from scratch. At that point, > it was estimated to be about $12,000,000 and at least 3.5 > years from the time a good team started. > > That sounds to me like the kind of research you'd want to include in a > proposal to potential investors: to prove that you have a unique > strength in the market being addressed (a "barrier to entry"). I find > the apparent urgency and hysteria with which you defame arch on this > list to be pretty funny. Hmm, maybe I am urgent, I'm packing for a long weekend. Anyway, you're missing my points, and I don't see why, it's in your best interest to get it. Let's try it as a question, and see if that works. Suppose all the kernel people started using your tool today. On your web page, you have a long list of things which need to be done to Arch and your best case scenario is that it will take about year to do them (your words, not mine). So suppose the kernel people start using your tool right now, bury you in requests for changes, and you can't keep up. They leave because it doesn't work. End result: big negative endorsement from the kernel team. Obviously, you don't want that, and equally obviously, you understand the probability of that (read your own website), so maybe with all that, you'll understand why I said that if you want to succeed you should pick a small group and work with them closely until Arch is ready. OK, let's address your other point. It sounds like you think we're trying to convince VC's of something and somehow doing so means that I need to be badmouthing Arch. Or maybe you think we have VC's leaning on us and they are telling us that we'd better kill Arch. Or some such thing, the implication being that investors (or lack of them, or desire for them) are causing me to go after Arch. That's not true, we are not now and were not then in discussions with VC's, the only investment BitMover has is from engineers who work here on the code. We're self supporting through sales of the product and we are not dependent on or subject to the whims of any VC. And we've declined offers to be bought so we could stay that way. Go read the ArsDigita archives and you will understand why. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/