Re: BK is *evil* corporate software

• Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Linux v2.5.41"
• Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: BK is *evil* corporate software"
• Next in thread: Roman Zippel: "Re: BK is *evil* corporate software"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi!

> > (as it stands you want $5000 for any bk-using developer inside
> > RedHat and SuSE).
> >
> > Stop spreading crap and fud. I, and nobody else at Red Hat, give or
> > need to give Larry one dime to use BK for kernel work.

> We do fix cvs things. Oh wait Larry has publically said CVS is no
> competition 8)

And what happens when you will want to include subversion in
distribution? You'll surely want to do some fixing before including
it...
                                                                Pavel

-- 
Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building,
cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic.
-
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/

• Next message: Vojtech Pavlik: "Re: Linux v2.5.41"
• Previous message: Andrew Morton: "Re: The reason to call it 3.0 is the desktop (was Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (NUMA))"
• In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: BK is *evil* corporate software"
• Next in thread: Roman Zippel: "Re: BK is *evil* corporate software"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:01:00 EST