Desktop platforms Toolkit 
Story: BitKeeper: No holds barred open source infighting
Posted by: Nick Linn (Thursday 21 April 2005, 3:35 PM)
This article would be far more insightful if the author actually attempted to get the facts rather then the hype generated around this.
It would be impossible for Andrew Tridgell to violate anyone's end of the bargain considering that he never possessed or even used bitkeeper. McVoy clearly knows this otherwise he would have made a legal case against Tirdgell rather then spitefully attacking everyone.
The real loser here will be McVoy. In one fell swoop he did three things:
1. Made commercial developers wary of using a product that whose management has a proven record of pulling contracts based on actions of those beyond their control.
2. Lost the free advertising of association with the Linux Kernel and Linus.
3. Finally and most importantly gave hundreds of highly skilled developers a vested interest in creating a free competing product.
In all it ends up being a rather foolish decision on the part of McVoy.
Full Talkback thread
Story: BitKeeper: No holds barred open source infighting
-
Actually, what the article writes is not true.
Fi... Karl Simpson -
Thanks for your comments, Karl. I have update... Ingrid Marson -
The register has an article on just how much "reve... Colin Higgs
-
Lies and misdirection from ZDNet? Why stop now.
1... John Jamieson
-
This article would be far more insightful if the a... Nick Linn -
Ingrid,
In response to your post:
“Regarding your... Nick Linn
-
"... has split the open source community down the... Paul Fardy
-
Many people only read the first page, or even the... Wayne Schlitt
-
I struggle to find an accurate description of the... Anonymous
-
First, Linus' response to Tridge's actions was unc... Richard Steven Hack
