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

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

From: Martin Ebourne
Subject: Re: We know what you need, and we'll push it down your throat.
Date: 14:39 on 22 Dec 2006
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