Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:37:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:37:02 -0400 Received: from twinlark.arctic.org ([208.44.199.239]:7812 "EHLO twinlark.arctic.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:37:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:37:00 -0700 (PDT) From: dean gaudet To: Daniel Phillips cc: Larry McVoy , Jeff Garzik , Subject: double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-comment: visit http://arctic.org/~dean/legal for information regarding copyright and disclaimer. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > 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? part of what i'm reacting to in this debate is what i perceive as a different set of standards which people apply to software versus, say, hardware. linux-kernel (and the kernel itself, and the zillions of websites out there with supporting documentation) are chock full of "advertisements" for hardware. pro and con. i've made many hardware purchase decisions based on stuff i read here, and stuff i find when searching for linux documentation. maybe someday we'll get scifi technology such as nanotech or replicators (and "limitless" fusion energy) which can move us into a new economy in which even open hardware is possible... but that's not the case today -- and i doubt many of you are using anything that could be considered open hardware... almost certainly nobody is able to build an open hardware platform with the same performance and quality standards as proprietary hardware can achieve. isn't there a bit of a double standard in place here? i happen to put food on my table working at a hardware company; larry puts food on his working at a software company. i happen to work at the same hardware company as linus does: transmeta. every kernel for the past, uh, 6 or 7 years, has included an advertisement for transmeta. could we possibly conceive of removing all references to transmeta from the kernel, mailing lists and archives? (oh i know if i go back that far in the archives there was probably a big uproar when linus changed his email address :) -dean - 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/