Slashdot Log In
Torvalds Unveils New Linux Control System
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Apr 21, 2005 07:49 AM
from the that-was-quick dept.
from the that-was-quick dept.
BlakeCaldwell writes "CNet reports: 'Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds has launched a new tool, called Git, to manage his software project, after a dispute led him to drop the previous system.' He will start using Git instead of BitKeeper to control the flow of updates and track changes in the kernel." We've covered this previously. Relatedly, ChocLinux writes "Jeremy Allison, who wrote Samba with Andrew 'Tridge' Tridgell, is sticking up for his friend in the row over BitKeeper. "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Git? (Score:5, Interesting)
As in "You daft git!"
Re:Git? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that's right; from the git README [ehlo.org]:
Parent
Re:Git? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Git? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Git? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Git? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Informative)
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
The Linux kernel history was being held hostage to Bitkeeper's good graces. If the business reasons for letting kernel developers do advertisement and Beta testing disappeared, the free version would inevitably disappear and kernel developers would be SOL (as they are now).
If it weren't for the foresight to mirror *some* of the BitKeeper information in CVS, the kernel developers would have no developement history other than what they can dig up in the archives.
Parent
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
telnet bitkeepermachine
HELP
--seeing the list of available commands--
clone filename.c
seeing a bunch of garbage, then shortening it to:
echo "clone filename.c" | telnet bitkeepermachine > filename.c
wow that's what I call reverse engineering!
Parent
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
Reverse-engineering for interoperability is legally fine, unless you're bound by a license not to do it. Those who've accepted the free BitKeeper client (or who bought BitKeeper) are subject to just such a license.
If Tridgell never acceted the BitKeeper license, then he's not bound by it, and there's nothing illegal about what he did. But you know, you don't have to do something illegal to piss people off. :-(
McVoy got pissed that someone did what he didn't want anyone to do, so he decided to stop maintaining the free BK client. (He's also trying to say that Tridgell should have been subject to the BitKeeper license, since he happens to be a contractor doing some work for a company that had accepted the BK license. I don't buy that one.)
Torvalds got mad that something somebody got McVoy mad, so that now his choice source control tool isn't freely available anymore. He ranted against Tridgell, but that's misplaced, I think. Torvalds isn't fully into the "Free Software" philosophy (despite his use of the GPL for Linux), and so doesn't see any value in Tridgell's work and calls it "evil."
Parent
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a reason why he reverse engineered the file format and not the source control system. BitKeeper stored the code in a proprietary data format, their IP is the only data capable of reading that format. If BitMover ever chose to revoke all licenses to use their IP to read the format it would bar the kernel developers from retrieving the kernel source code stored in the system.
Tridge was not building a source control system to mimic BitKeeper, Tridge simply reversed the file format so that the ability for kernel developers, linus, and the world; to access the kernel source code was not subject to BitMovers good graces.
Parent
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
You and Linus should get together and have a big "completely missing the fucking point" party. I have always respected Linus Torvalds greatly for his technical and societal contributions until this whole flap.
Anyway, everyone wanted a way to get ALL data in and out of the repository to make it easier to merge in third party patches. The only differences here between (say) Linus and tridge are that Linus is McVoy's buddy who is pissed off that he no longer gets to use software, and tridge is a champion of Open Source who feels that we should be in charge of our own data. Remember, Linus does not care if software is Open. He wrote Linux that way based on a pragmatic decision.
Now, I actually pride myself on being a creative asshole, but sir, you take the prize. Tridge was trying to do one thing: INTEROPERATE WITH BITKEEPER. He was NOT writing a replacement. How could he be, he was only writing a client? This cannot possibly hurt bitkeeper; they sell a service, and there are already other clients. He was trying to develop functionality that did not exist, and that bitmover does not want to provide.
Why do they not want to provide this functionality? Why do they want to hold the interface to YOUR DATA hostage? So that they can lock you in to bitkeeper. In other words what you and Linus are both completely missing in your ire is the fact that bitmover is entirely microsoftian in this regard. They want to lock down the standards and prevent people from using them (McVoy threatened to repeatedly change the protocol in order to stay a step ahead of tridge - I'm sure that's going to provide a lot of benefit to bitmover's customers!) so that it is extremely inconvenient to move to another SCMS. This is 100% the same as Microsoft's file format strategies; hell, if they open DOC, in some ways they'd be LESS restrictive than bitmover - fact not fiction.
Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is a time-honored tradition, and protected at least here in the U.S. by federal law including the oft-reviled DMCA. Perhaps you should adjust your attitude, I think it's poking out of your ass.
Parent
You missed some of the viewpoints. (Score:5, Insightful)
#2. Linus chose to use BitKeeper knowing all of that. He still chose it because it seemed to be the best product around that would meet his needs. Linus did not seem overly concerned about the potential for losing the "free" client.
#3. Tridge did not break any laws when he started to reverse engineer the packets.
So
Where's the problem?
Well, Tridge should have known that his work would piss off McVoy and that it could result in the loss of the "free" client. Yet he did it anyway WITHOUT writing a SCM that was as good or better than BitKeeper.
So, the only thing that Tridge is guilty of is not having a replacement ready for when everything blew up.
McVoy decided that he didn't want to deal with Tridge's work and just pulled the "free" client to stop what he viewed as a threat to BitKeeper.
So the only thing McVoy is guilty of is attempting to protect his own project.
Which leaves Linus suddenly without an SCM and he blames Tridge for wreaking a working situation without having a replacement ready.
So, the only thing Linus is guilty of is venting publicly.
So why is everyone picking sides? That comes down to each person's values.
A.) Those who value Open'ness more than functionality support Tridge because they believe Linus was wrong to push a proprietary product.
B.) Those who value functionality more than Open'ness support Linus because the system was working and it was helping development and there isn't an equivalent system to replace it yet.
But those are simply judgement calls based upon each individual's value set. Neither is more "right" or "wrong" than the other, except in your opinion.
Parent
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Larry is an insane person. Let me draw up an analogy for you.
Let's say there is a park close to your house and you like to walk your dog there.
Larry one day calls your boss and says that you are ugly, your dog is ugly, and he wants your boss to fire you unless you stop walking your dog when you get home.
OF course both of you are a little bewildered because a) you are doing something on your own time and b) what you are doing is perfectly legal. So your boss tells him that no he is not going to fire or rebuke you in any way.
Larry then calls back and says that if you don't stop walking your dog he will beat of on his friend linus. You know linus and think he is a good guy but you figure linus can take care himself and indeed is a pretty good jodo expert so you tell him no again.
Larry then lashes out at his friend and his friend is now mad at you!.
This is what happened. Larry stabbed his friend in the back in order to make tridge stop doing something he had legal right to do.
Larry is an immoral insane person and linus had no right to yell at tridge for larry's actions.
Parent
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:zdnet.co.uk (Score:5, Insightful)
Tridge reversed engineered [groklaw.net] BitKeeper in the same way I "reversed engineered" SMTP:
There are a bunch of developers saying "I told you so" to Linus; BitKeeper may have been a wonderful product, but it was a train wreck waiting to happen. If Tridge had done nothing, the result would have been the same except that Linus would have to find another scapegoat to take his frustration out on.
Parent
Git? (Score:5, Funny)
git 'er done! (Score:4, Funny)
Blue Collar Linux Development (Score:5, Funny)
"There's damn bug som'er in mem.c, can you see if you squish that son'va'bitch?"
"Public? I made it a private construct. Torvalds threw it in public."
"If you construct your own low level CMS when the other one runs away,you just might be a redDevneck."
Parent
wow, that has some rough edges alright (Score:4, Interesting)
More tridge news here.... (Score:5, Informative)
Tridge tells what he did (Score:4, Informative)
Based on Monotone it seems (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Based on Monotone it seems (Score:5, Interesting)
So git, which had to be written because of something Tridge did, uses one of Tridge's programs. Whee!
Parent
Based on the screenshot of the visualization... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I think Larry just stepped in a hornet's nest here- my only complaint about the whole thing is Linus' going on and on about bad ideas, etc. The only bad idea that was going on was his use of BitKeeper in the first place.
Parent
What GIT Means. (Score:4, Informative)
ARCH embraces GIT too (Score:5, Informative)
Darcs embraces GIT too (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing is to remember: The terms of Linus' use of BK was noncommercial which is poison to a commercial entity. The combination of closed-source + no charge == noncommercial. If it was OSS, with a GPL-like license, at least the OSS community could give something back to BK that wasn't money, but it wasn't, and BK had no opportunity to profit in ANY WAY from this move.
I'm not surprised this didn't work out well.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well, after looking it over, we've decided to buy a Bitkeeper liscence. it seems more robust than the competition, plus linus uses it!"
Parent
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact I think BK got a bargain and they've gone and thrown it away.
Parent
Tridge Speaks (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw's stevem heard Tridge's speech today at the LCA 2005 conference, Australia's national Linux conference, and he has a report for us:
This was taken from my memory of Dr. Andrew Tridgell's keynote at this years LCA2005 Conference.
Essentially Tridge did *NOT* do anything that anyone could ever possibly ever take as breaking a BitKeeper licence, as far as I can see. How was it done? He, like any good sysadmin would, first off telnetted to the BitKeeper port on a BitKeeper server.
$ telnet thunk.org 5000
WhooHoo! Connection! So, next obvious step that we *all* do is type in the obvious:
help
Back came a list of commands to manipulate the BitKeeper server and ask things of it. Well, according to Tridge, a bit of reading of the LKML (Linux Kernel Email List) shows that the "clone" command is the way to checkout someones source code repository.
So Tridge's massive "reverse engineering" project came down to a single line of shell script:
$ echo clone | nc thunk.org 5000 > e2fsprogs.dat
Hey presto, Tridge has just checked out from a BitKeeper repository into the file e2fsprogs.dat.
The audience was laughing and cheering Tridge on as he explained just what a Mountain had been made of this Molehill. And I mean made by both sides of the issue -- those who he said he was some Uber Reverse Engineering Wizard and those who claimed that he MUST have used a BK client.
Funny report, isn't it? Anyway, now you know Tridge's side of the story.
Re:Tridge Speaks (Score:5, Informative)
nc is netcat, and it's a very useful tool. It does way more than telnet.
I wrote an introduction to netcat [debian-adm...ration.org] if you're interested in exploring it.
Parent
The ZDNet article gets it wrong (Score:5, Informative)
1) BitKeeper's "free" license does not say that you can't use BK to work on a competing product - it says that you cannot work on a competing product AT ALL, no matter whether you use BK for it or not.
2) It's not true that Tridge hasn't "kept up their end of the bargain". He never used BK at all, so why would he be bound by BK's license? McVoy may not like what Tridge did, but let's face it, reverse engineering for compatibility is perfectly acceptable - even the much-maligned DMCA explicitely allows it, because lawmakers realized that it's important.
So, McVoy can rant and rave all he wants - the fact remains that HE is the one who did not keep up his end of the "bargain". The bargain was that kernel developers get to use BK for free, and BitMover gets free advertising - now that the company has established itself, it doesn't need that sort of advertising anymore, so they're just looking for a convenient excuse to pull the plug on the "free" BK.
The fact that McVoy doesn't admit that is probably to be expected, but still, it doesn't change the fact that he spreads just as much FUD and lies as Darl McBride, Laura DiDio, Maureen O'Gara, Steve Balmer and so on.
I, for one, sure hope he gets what he deserves.
Re:The ZDNet article gets it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Only when you have to circumvent authentification (i.e. pretend to be someone else) it gets nasty.
If you connected to my system and got some stuff off my webserver it would be perfectly fine. If you used a rootkit to get a shell you would be in trouble.
Jeroen
Parent
Re:The ZDNet article gets it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the agreement that Tridge had to sign to use it? The port's open to the public. After all, the BitKeeper server could've "closed the door". It didn't. It could've required authentication. It could've been encrypted. It wasn't.
I don't have to sign an agreement to telnet to www.slashdot.org, port 80. If they suddenly put up something on the web that said "You have to sign this license and agree to these terms in order to do this", and I never see that license, how can I be bound by it? Given that there's a thousand ways to prevent unlicensed access, and they did't do any of them, how can it be negligence on my part, and not theirs?
If that isn't either illegal or in violation of a license, then be a man and post your IP. I'll "reverse engineer" your machine and see what interesting thing I can do.
If you think that's illegal, you're out of your mind. You don't have to sign a license agreement to "use" a server just because the server exists. He wasn't presented with a license, he didn't agree to a license. The fact that you're trying to claim someone toying around with a random port is 'illegal' or 'in violation of a license' is just ludicrous.
Parent
What is bad with copying funcionality?? (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not what Tridge did... He didn't create something new and impressive. He just tore down something new (and impressive) because he could, and rather than helping others, he screwed people over. And you expect me to respect that kind of behaviour?" wrote Torvalds
Come on!, so what if someone makes a program that implements a cool funcionality from another?? I see it in every game that has been developed in the last 20 years!, thats why whe have genres!, also, that would mean that OpenOffice is bad! or what about the same Linux (Unix clone??) or all the BSD's.
I think Linus went to far with that, so also to do SAMBA was a "non respectable behaviour" to him? wtf without SAMBA I bet they would be a really, REALLY big amount of people (and companies) not using Linux these days.
If he does not want to use it, then do not do it, but do not flame the author for doing it, and tell that is not a respectable behaviour! it seems that the most notable figure of Open Source has acquired a Not-So-Open State of Mind.
my 2C
Re:What is bad with copying funcionality?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, where exactly has Microsoft been accused of stealing when they copied functionality?
They've been accused of stealing when they've actually used other people's code. They've been accused of embrace-and-extend when they've copied functionality and modified it so the original product they copied no longer interoperates with them. Stealing ideas? Sure, everyone gets accused of that, but nobody in the OSS community with any credibility is going to use that kind of phrase except in jest. And when Microsoft "steals" ideas and they're good ones they often get praised and encouraged for it... all the way back to hierarchical file systems and UNIX style system calls in DOS 2.11...
So you can keep your "double standard" banner under your hat today, it's not happening.
Parent
Bitkeeper was a great descision (Score:4, Insightful)
Very simply that time has passed, and NO-ONE other than Linus himself knows what works best for HIM and his direct team
The flaming is useless hes "The Man" and what he wants for us in Linux land is pretty much Law, besides, how many of YOU psting all these nasty comments about his original BitKeeper descision actually were granted access to it directly, NONE.
Linus is a pragmatist not a rabid OS advocate but willing to use closed source tools if its a winning situation for him.
Re:Bitkeeper was a great descision (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
So is most of the world. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, well, so is nearly all the world, except for Linus and Larry McVoy. I'm sorry, Linus' actions are just plain hypocritical here. I can understand how he was pissed at losing a useful tool. I can't understand how he can promote McVoy at the expense of our freedoms, especially to reverse Engineer.
Mod me down, but Linus has too big of a head on his shoulders. He is NOT indespensible, thanks to the GPL. What does go around, comes around. And this action won't be forgotten. With all due respect to him, I think it's one of his biggest blunders in the history of Linux.
Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did I miss something? I saw some comments to that effect in the stories, mostly as a joke except for the usual random nutcases that see conspiracies in everything that happens. Terrible journalism from zdnet here.
The rest of the article wasn't any better, being the most heavily biased piece of crap I've read since the last TCO study by Microsoft. Linus and Tridge both have valid points but the article paints Tridge as a villain breaking BitKeeper copyright (which he didn't) and terms of service (which he didn't agree to).
Re:Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
This has been a public service announcement from the Geek Nation Communication Explanation Foundation.
Parent
Up and running! (Score:5, Informative)
Complete message here [mail-archive.com]
Erm, name change... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a good tool, which basically monitors source-built programs and creates an uninstallation script for them.
Won't this mean Linus' new tool will have to have a name change?
Re:Erm, name change... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The CalvinBall License (Score:5, Insightful)
NAME CLASH !!!!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.gnu.org/software/git/git.html
Think at it as a combination on Midnight Commander with emacs keybindings & config. Me and a lot of people use this usefull shell.
So please change the name of this source versioning package.
Re:how come (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nice Timing! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent