Linux creator Linus Torvalds made the decision a year and a half ago on February 5, 2002 to use BitKeeper to manage the distributed development of the Linux kernel source tree. Over the course of the next year, this led to many lengthy flame wars on the lkml [story], though in recent months things have been mostly quiet on this front... until recently, when a couple of threads threatened to return to the fiery depths.

Fortunately, the threads have also led to some interesting comments by Linus. For example, he explains his incentive for improving the Linux kernel:

"I'm ok with other people using NT. When it's better for them, that's their choice. I work hard to make sure that the Linux kernel is technically superior, and if I feel it isn't I want to fix it. Because I do _not_ want people using Linux for religious reasons. I want people to use Linux because it is _better_ for them, [or] because they truly believe that they can make it so (or at least have fun trying)."

No matter which side of the debate you're on, the following emails are usually interesting, often rather humorous, and always brashly to the point. Toward the end of the thread, Linus sarcastically refers to earlier more topical threads, pleading, "Now can we get back to complaining about the scheduler behaviour and xmms? Please?"

Jasper Spaans recently submitted a patch to the lkml that "changes all occurrences of 'flavour' to 'flavor' in the complete [2.6 development kernel] tree". This quickly led into a lengthy and frequently humorous discussion about the which spelling is better, and if it even matters.

Linux creator Linus Torvalds aknowledged that there are times when such consistency is beneficial, but that overall it was of little importance to him. Regarding the emails that were threatening to quickly grow into a full-fledged flame war, he noted, "I think you guys who care should have a huge free-for-all, an electronic mud-wrestling thing if you will. But not on [the] linux-kernel [mailing list]." In mock newscaster tone, he went on to describe what might happen, "I can see it now:"

".. Alan Cox gets up, and tackles Zwane, who goes down in the mud. Oops. They were on the same side. I guess Alan got caught up in the rush. Jasper tries to take advantage of the situation, but slips in the mud, and goes down in a heap with Alexander..."

Much of the discussion follows.

Pavel Machek recently announced a new project on the lkml called BitBucket. This project aims to provide read only access (at least for now) to a BitKeeper repository.

There have been numerous flame wars and discussions on the lkml regarding the use of BitKeeper in Linux kernel development [story] [story] [story] [story] [story]. During one of these earlier wars, Linux creator Linus Torvalds explained his position, "Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions on it for kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool exists, and since I'm personally not very interested in writing one, _and_ since I don't have any hangups about using the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper."

BitKeeper is a source management tool provided under any of three licenses, one of which - the BKL - can make BitKeeper available for free (as in free beer). Tom Gall posted a question to the lkml when he noticed a clause in the BKL intended to prevent an individual or organization from using BitKeeper under this free license if they or their employer develops, produces, sells or resells a competing product. Yet another lengthy discussion followed.

Some contributers to this discussion seem to overlook two simple facts: First, that BitKeeper is also available under commercial (non-free) licensing, and second, that BitKeeper is and always has been primarily a commercial product (hence the sarcastic title of this article). Granted, the wording of any legal verbiage is open to interpretation, but as BitMover founder Larry McVoy [interview] has publicly interpreted this clause as "if you make or sell a competing product, you don't get to use ours for free", there seems little risk it can be used to attain other ends. In any case, for now Linus and many other Linux kernel developers have chosen to utilize BitKeeper in their efforts, and it is still possible to view the latest code (within 3 hours) without using BitKeeper via archives such as this one set up by Rik van Riel [interview].

That said, there are many interesting points raised during this discussion. Read on for the full thread...

Update (October 6 @ 9am EST): Hourly snapshots of the latest 2.5 development tree can also be found here on ftp.kernel.org. Linus sarcastically summarized complaints, "Big boo-hoo, bitkeeper is evil, and Linus doesn't manually do any more what BK plus a few scripts does better for us automatically."

Andreas Schuldei asked in lkml if there was an easy a way for BitKeeper to backport stuff from the 2.5 to the 2.4 repositories. Like so many discussions, this rapidly veered off; from keeping separate BK repositories in sync, to the limitations of BitKeeper.

Much of the resulting discussion follows.

When Linux creator Linus Torvalds began using the BitKeeper (BK) source control tool for managing the 2.5 Linux development kernel [earlier story], one of the big fears people put forward was that all Linux kernel developers would eventually be forced to use this tool. (The BK license is a major source of contention.

Earlier this year, Linus agreed to test out BitKeeper, Larry McVoy's source management tool. Its non-open-source licensing has lead to a fury of protest and discussion.

James Simmons announced innocently enough on the lkml, "Just to let you know I created a bitkeeper repository for the framebuffer layer." M. R. Brown replied a couple hours later, "Please tell us that primary framebuffer/input/console development will continue in the CVS drop-in tree on SourceForge? "

Linus' earlier decision to test the BitKeeper source management tool with the 2.5 kernel tree has continued to create wakes of dissent. One group went so far as to start a petition against the usage of the tool, saying "We, the undersigned members and officers of the Open Source Club at the Ohio State University, are unhappy with the advocacy of the proprietary[1] BitKeeper software for use in maintaining the Linux kernel." Details on the BitKeeper licenses that so many are opposed to can be found here.

The posting of this petition led to a frenzy of replies, in a thread that continues to grow. Many pointed out that the time spent protesting this tool could be much more productively invested into writing an open source alternative of at least equal caliber. All seem to agree that such an alternative does not currently exist.

Towards the end of the many samples from this thread that follow is a reply from Linus, making it clear that he is content using BK himself, but will in no way force it upon anyone else. In his email, he says, "And I personally refuse to use inferior tools because of ideology. In fact, I will go as far as saying that making excuses for bad tools due to ideology is _stupid_, and people who do that think with their gonads, not their brains".