[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/22]
Yossi Kreinin <yossi.kreinin@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > I do think BitKeeper would end up in the gutter where it belongs if =20 > BitMover didn't make it appealing to Linux fans, exploiting the =20 > well-known fundamentalism of people believing in Un*x. For instance, =20 > my sysadmin refers to Windows as "Must Die": "This box runs Must Die =20 > 98". This is as close to physically launching a terror attack on the =20 > infidels as words get. > > For a secular programmer, it's easy to notice that BitKeeper SUCKS =20 > in all caps, but hey - that's the program that hosts the Linux =20 > Kernel Source Code! It Is The Best! In case you didn't notice, that's not been true for rather a while. And the assertion that all linux fans were into bitkeeper was wrong =20 too: it clearly divided the community. There was the Linus camp (well =20 I haven't got anything better) and the free software camp (but they've =20 got your testicles in a vice, and your source code too). Clearly the =20 latter camp turned out to be right, and Linus wrote something better =20 than bitkeeper in a few weeks anyway. I haven't used git (nor, thankfully bitkeeper) so I shalln't attempt =20 to hate it, but I've been doing a good line in quietly hating =20 perforce(*) a lot recently. Cheers, Martin. (*) perforce seems to follow the perl philosophy of "there's more than =20 one way to do it", but unfortunately none of the ways are really any =20 better than any of the other ways, so the result is that everyone ends =20 up doing the same thing differently which just causes havoc.There's stuff above here
Generated at 03:02 on 01 Jan 2007 by mariachi 0.52