Re: [Groff] mom: Some follow-up questions

[Alejandro López-Valencia]

Larry McVoy wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:51:48AM -0500, Alejandro L?pez-Valencia wrote:
>  
>
> > IMO, CVS and Subversion are better choices. Have you read 
> > <http://better-scm.berlios.de/>?
> >    
>
> That's a religious argument, not a technical one.  Show me one example of
> someone saying that CVS or Subversion are better technical choices.
>
> We've made an open source client available so even the religious arguments
> are moot.
>  
I agree that the arguments against btikeeper at that site are emotional, 
but the technical evaluation is good and even-handed.  You may discount 
the arguments as "religious" but the man has several points, outside the 
licensing rigmarole and tantrums displayed (that I have *actually* read) 
in several developer and user lists in the last couple of  years. These 
arguments cannot be discarded lightly by someone who has bought 
technology on taxpayer's money, such as myself. One has to consider all 
sides before making a decision.

On the other hand, you are being religious and emotional trying to put 
in my mouth words I didn't say, by the way. I never said CVS or 
Subverson were better technical choices, you just imposed your fears and 
biases upon my words. I merely said *better choices*. Each tool has its 
use and I don't see the need to kill a flea with an A-Bomb. Heck, paper, 
pencil and a rubber eraser still have their uses, on the same token, 
the  UTP book is not the Linux kernel.

From the standpoint of  such technology buyer and adopter that has to 
consider the needs of the many above the pockets of the few, I would ask:

1. Where is the open source *source code* at the website?  There is the 
obvious "evaluation binaries 
after-you-tell-us-enough-data-to-bring-you-out-of-bed-at-midnight-if-needed-download-page", 
but no source code download.

2. Where is the open source license? A page telling me that "Type bk 
-blah -blah" to read the license is not good enough. What good is an 
open source licence that cannot be read *openly*?

As Thomas the Apostle, I need to put my finger in the wound. And as we 
are not dealing with the divine but the human, I believe my expectations 
are not out of place.