Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 317 posts

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#131

Post by sophacles »

levosmetalo wrote: post #58
officemonkey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had two things going for it: * Linus was using it for the kernel, so it became mature slightly faster (because it had more people's attention.) * Github happened at the same time Sourceforge stopped being cool (this is the same time that Digg and Reddit started beating Slashdot.)

Github became popular because people wanted free Git hosting, not the other way around. Most other Github features just get in the way. Also, instant branching are really convenient feature. I remember the time when I was using Darcs that I got lost pretty quickly with 10 copies in 10 directories.

I think there was a co-evolution of the two. A lot of people started using git because Github was where the cool projects were being hosted. At the time, I recall hoping for bzr to "win". I like git these days but coming from an svn is king world - bzr was a bit gentler for transition.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#132

Post by graywh »

Skinney wrote: post #11
Aqwis wrote: post #8

Oddly, both Bazaar, Git and Mercurial were created around March/April 2005. Why the sudden appearance of popular DVCSs around that time, and why did Bazaar fall behind the other two in popularity?

I think it was due to the free version of bitkeeper (which the Linux kernel used for vcs) was taken off market. So the Linux devs would either have to pay for a DVCS or make their own... Several made their own, Git was chosen for the kernel, alot of people found uses for the others. I could be wrong, but I think that's the case.

In 2005, there were already some free, open-source DVCSs. Linus considered using Monotone for the Linux kernel project before deciding to start Git.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#133

Post by IgorPartola »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #105
blumentopf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn't paint Stallman very well as the head of a project Is this news to you? Cf. e.g. http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html

Not to mention his insistence on GNU Hurd being based on Mach, which pretty much ended up killing the project.

That's a simplistic view. First, the GNU project is very much alive: the GNU tools are used in a huge number of operating systems and are installed on a staggering number of devices. I would bet that the system you are writing this comment from is running thanks to the GNU software.

Second, it is debatable whether sticking to Hurd was a good or a bad idea technically. Imagine if Stallman and co. managed to convince a good number of developers that it was a good idea and the kernel was competitive with Linux, BSD's, etc. If you believe you have a technically superior vision for your product, should you compromise on it just because people who do not share in your vision will not join you?

In the end, I think what killed the pure GNU/Hurd OS was bad PR and absolutism. Hurd as a technical question was just a small part of that. Remember, the debate between the Free and the Open Source guys was pretty fierce. Today we use terms like FOSS to describe all open software, but when Linux and Hurd were young these were different camps with opposing philosophies, and the one that appealed to more developers won out. In simplistic terms, you can think of this as the VHS vs Betamax debate. Can you blame the Betamax backers for continuing to try to push it and "killing" it as a result?

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#134

Post by asveikau »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #105
blumentopf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn't paint Stallman very well as the head of a project Is this news to you? Cf. e.g. http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html

Not to mention his insistence on GNU Hurd being based on Mach, which pretty much ended up killing the project.

Apple still insists on building their kernel atop Mach, and it doesn't seem to stop their momentum. (Even though it's kind of a strange choice.)

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#135

Post by radioact1ve »

alok-g wrote: post #119
gizmogwai wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of them emerged due to the end of license agreement for a free license of bitkeeper for the linux kernel. Git won due mainly to Linus personnality and the rise of "social coding" via github. Bazaar failed because, at the beginning, it was painfully slow compare to git and mercurial. It speed has increase over time, but bad reputation is hard to get rid of.

>> Bazaar failed because, at the beginning, it was painfully slow compare to git and mercurial. It speed has increase over time, but bad reputation is hard to get rid of. Is this an example that goes against the common advice to launch an MVP fast to test the market (and then keep on improving)? It seems that the advice is valid only when there is nothing for the customer to compare the to-be-launched product to. If…

This is a good point. Is there more to this? As a big believer in the MVP, this is something I have to look more into.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#136

Post by vezzy-fnord »

IgorPartola wrote: post #133
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention his insistence on GNU Hurd being based on Mach, which pretty much ended up killing the project.

That's a simplistic view. First, the GNU project is very much alive: the GNU tools are used in a huge number of operating systems and are installed on a staggering number of devices. I would bet that the system you are writing this comment from is running thanks to the GNU software. Second, it is debatable whether sticking to Hurd was a good or a bad idea technically . Imagine if Stallman and co. managed to convince…

Wait. You misunderstood me. I didn't say the entire GNU Project is dead. Hell no. When I said "project", I was referring specifically to GNU Hurd.

Also my statement was going by the words of the Hurd's former project leader Thomas Bushnell:

"RMS was a very strong believer -- wrongly, I think -- in a very greedy-algorithm approach to code reuse issues. My first choice was to take the BSD 4.4-Lite release and make a kernel. I knew the code, I knew how to do it. It is now perfectly obvious to me that this would have succeeded splendidly and the world would be a very different place today.

RMS wanted to work together with people from Berkeley on such an effort. Some of them were interested, but some seem to have been deliberately dragging their feet: and the reason now seems to be that they had the goal of spinning off BSDI. A GNU based on 4.4-Lite would undercut BSDI.

So RMS said to himself, "Mach is a working kernel, 4.4-Lite is only partial, we will go with Mach." It was a decision which I strongly opposed. But ultimately it was not my decision to make, and I made the best go I could at working with Mach and doing something new from that standpoint.

This was all way before Linux; we're talking 1991 or so." [1]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050727225542530 [1]

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#138

Post by sparkie »

joelthelion wrote: post #104
mickeyp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ten (edit: even five!) years ago I'd agree with you. Back then a source control system was a piece of software you used for keeping a versioned history of your work and to enable you to collaborate with coworkers or friends. It was a tool. Now? It's A Big Deal to a lot of younger developers. It is almost totemic. If it's not Git and (ideally) Github then.. it isn't worth hacking on?

>Now? It's A Big Deal to a lot of younger developers. It is almost totemic. If it's not Git and (ideally) Github then.. it isn't worth hacking on? Do you really want those guys on your project?

I wonder if any of those guys would ever contribute to emacs anyway, unless we rewrite it in javascript.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#139

Post by gillianseed »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #105
blumentopf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn't paint Stallman very well as the head of a project Is this news to you? Cf. e.g. http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html

Not to mention his insistence on GNU Hurd being based on Mach, which pretty much ended up killing the project.

Back when the choice was made, micro-kernels was all the rage in both academia and commercial ventures, and Stallman chose Mach since he thought it would speed up development, he was hardly alone in choosing Mach at this time, Apple (MkLinux, NeXTSTEP), IBM (Workplace OS) amongst others.

He fully acknowledged that he made a mistake in going with Mach and as soon as Linux took off FSF focused on providing the necessary software to combine with Linux into an operating system and placed Hurd on 'life support', where it's been ever since.

Re: Bzr is dying; Emacs needs to move

#140

Post by gillianseed »

asveikau wrote: post #134
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention his insistence on GNU Hurd being based on Mach, which pretty much ended up killing the project.

Apple still insists on building their kernel atop Mach, and it doesn't seem to stop their momentum. (Even though it's kind of a strange choice.)

From what I understand, the Mach kernel which is now used in XNU is not the Mach micro kernel (3.0 >) but based upon the pre-micro-kernel 2.5 version of Mach.

I'm not sure where I read this originally but I just googled this source which seems to back it up:

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/0506.mk3.html

Post reply on HN