Linus is EVIL

[Aloone_Jonez]

Kintaro, I find your long flaming rants very entertaining.

If you're so against hate than why do you post a hateful reply flaming everyone whos posted in the thread?

If you're so against hate then why are you a member of a Micorsoft hate site?

Peace man, chill out, keep it real, keep it cool man, phat respect. :cool:

[muzzy]

QDOS ripped off CP/M.  In fact, QDOS contained one of Gary Kildall's easter eggs.  Microsoft removed this later, obviously.

I tried to do some research on the easter egg, and apparently this bit of info only started to spread in 1996, two years after Kildall died. There doesn't seem to be any evidence about it.

[muzzy]

How about I go document all your fucking flaws, you lot of morons.

This isn't about documenting all flaws. This is about Linus's public attack against someone who did nothing wrong (IMO).

Maybe because doing it to Samba, didn't screw it up for the developers, this has screwed it up for the developers. Tridgel violated a licence he very well knew about, which caused a major problem for Linux Kernel development.

How exactly did this screw anything for the developers? Ohyea, by reversing a proprietary protocol, just like was done with Samba. The exact same thing didn't screw in case of Samba, but did in case of BitKeeper?

What license, exactly? He wasn't disassembling the software, he was reversing over-the-wire data, without touching the actual software at all. This is what I've heard, anyway, and it's the exact same way he did it with Samba.

Also, I fail to see how Tridgell's actions caused the problems for linux kernel development. Linus had chosen to use a proprietary tool which a lot of the developers didn't use, and Tridgell wanted to make the stuff easier to use for the developers. I'd say that using a proprietary tool for linux development was what caused this major problem in the first place.

If you want to argue about cause and effect not working in my above statement, please explain why, in a way that doesn't also invalidate how the (incorrect) claim of license breach supposedly caused the problems.

[Kintaro]

It screwed the developers because they don't have bitkeeper.

NOW.

argh i give up

[Kintaro]

Kintaro, I find your long flaming rants very entertaining.

If you're so against hate than why do you post a hateful reply flaming everyone whos posted in the thread?

If you're so against hate then why are you a member of a Micorsoft hate site?

Peace man, chill out, keep it real, keep it cool man, phat respect. :cool:

Sie sind das gr

[Refalm]

Sie sind das gr

[Kintaro]

Halt die klappe, du bl

[Refalm]

Ich bildete s

[KernelPanic]

hehehe

[Kintaro]

Schei

[Kintaro]

Ich bildete ein Prostituiertees aus Ihrer Sprungkopfmutter heraus.

[muzzy]

hmppppphhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[muzzy]

It screwed the developers because they don't have bitkeeper.

This kind of logic is flawed. The decision wasn't Tridgell's to make, it isn't his fault. The bitkeeper guys were naive if they thought nobody would reverse the protocols, and their business plan definitely sucks if it really causes significant damage to them. Screw them and their bad business plan, this is why free software is valued in the first place, nobody can take it away from you. The bitkeeper move was a business decision, if protocol reversing was really such a serios thing, that move would've been done sooner or later anyway. As of such, it was shortsightedness from their part, not Tridgell's fault in any way.

[skyman8081]

Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

[Refalm]

Ich bildete ein Prostituiertees aus Ihrer Sprungkopfmutter heraus.

Dein geile mutti, schwull :p