Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on April 26, 2005 08:37 PM
I have read the article, and a lot of similar articles, making the same unfounded claims. The use of BK has not been shown to be a detriment to Linux. RMS *claiming* that it is so is not proof of anything.
Compare where the kernel is today and try to assess where it would have been, has Linus not used BK in the interim period. If you can *show* (i.e. not just *claim*) that the kernel would have been better off without BK, then you have a case. If you can *show* that the kernel development has actively suffered as a result of Linus using BK, then you have a case.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Dilemma -- is RMS right?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 26, 2005 08:37 PMCompare where the kernel is today and try to assess where it would have been, has Linus not used BK in the interim period. If you can *show* (i.e. not just *claim*) that the kernel would have been better off without BK, then you have a case. If you can *show* that the kernel development has actively suffered as a result of Linus using BK, then you have a case.
But you cannot do that, can you?
#