Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]

Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:27 +0200, Yossi Kreinin wrote:
> 
>>SourceSafe is worse than BitKeeper,
> 
> 
> That is understating matters somewhat. Sourcesafe is worse than, well
> anything really, and only marginally better than not having revision
> control at all. Actually that last might be open for debate.
> 
> 

SourceSafe makes your source safe by preventing you from developing it. AFAIK 
Microsoft projects are managed by a source control system they won't sell, which 
makes me think they distribute SourceSafe as one way to prevent competition.

I only mentioned it to avoid "...and Microsoft's products are worse!" kind of 
argument. CVS would be a closer match if I wanted to stress the virtues BitKeeper.

I do think BitKeeper would end up in the gutter where it belongs if BitMover 
didn't make it appealing to Linux fans, exploiting the well-known fundamentalism 
of people believing in Un*x. For instance, my sysadmin refers to Windows as 
"Must Die": "This box runs Must Die 98". This is as close to physically 
launching a terror attack on the infidels as words get.

For a secular programmer, it's easy to notice that BitKeeper SUCKS in all caps, 
but hey - that's the program that hosts the Linux Kernel Source Code! It Is The 
Best!

• Jonathan Stowe 13:57 on 22 Dec 2006
  • Yossi Kreinin 14:14 on 22 Dec 2006
    • Martin Ebourne 14:39 on 22 Dec 2006
      • too deep to show
    • A. Pagaltzis 19:31 on 22 Dec 2006
      • too deep to show
  • Peter da Silva 15:10 on 22 Dec 2006
• Peter da Silva 16:22 on 22 Dec 2006
  • Juerd 16:37 on 22 Dec 2006

Generated at 03:02 on 01 Jan 2007 by mariachi 0.52