On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Chris Ison wrote:
>
> > The philosophy has _never_ been "screw you Billy Goat". That's Sun and
> > Oracle.
>
> lol, I expected this, I should of said the "older linux fanatics", as
> linux was "sold" to me as a way to screw bill gates, and was the feeling
> at the time of many of the users I associated with.
Yes. Almost all the press has been about "Linux vs M$", so it's obviously
been seen that way. I have very consciously tried to fight that picture,
though. I just do not think people make good judgements when they base
their decisions on trying to screw somebody else over. I have always seen
Linux not as "anti-xxxx", but as "pro-yyyy".
This is a hot button with me, btw. Just to explain my heated response.
I'm not personally a big believer in the "religious fanatics" kind of
people or motivations. From what I've seen, that just leads to people who
are bitter and start trying to enforce their bitterness on others.
It also seems to make for a ripe breeding ground of excuses for technical
problems: it results in a mentality of "we may be inferior, but you should
use us for religious reasons". And that just makes my shackles rise.
Don't get me wrong: I'm obviously a big fan of open source development. I
much prefer open source things myself, just because I believe that in the
long run it ends up being technically better and more flexible.
And more importantly, I just think it's a lot more fun to be around and
play with.
> Anyways, its anoncvs at sourceforge thats the problem, not CVS itself
Yes, for the DRI issues today, sourceforge is the main problem.
But CVS _is_ a problem. CVS is a classic case of "it's free, so it's ok if
it is worse than the competition". That just gives free software a bad
name.
It's obviusly perfectly ok to be worse than the competition if you're
working on it, and are trying to actively improve on it, and expect (or at
least hope) to some day surpass it. That's life - that's how things get
done.
But CVS isn't that. CVS is a dead end, withfundamental design flaws and
the competition isn't just ahead, it's getting more so. And nobody doing
any work on it. It will never be better than _anything_ else than RCS.
People have spent the last fifteen years writing wrappers around it to
work around some of it, but "It's dead Jim".
And to me that just means that people who advocate CVS for religious
reasons are CRAZY PEOPLE. They're holding back progress. They're nuts,
and they are trying to drag others down with their crazy talk.
We should embrace technical superiority. If your goal isn't to be the best
(or at least playing with them), why bother?
I'm not saying that BK is the only alternative. But I do believe, for
example, that SVN as-is is just a "better CVS" and from what I've seen,
the people involved aren't even trying to work on the real improvements
like BK. There are other projects that try to tackle those: "arch" and
"OpenCM" seem to be the ones that are trying.
I'm not a disinterested party, of course. I like spreading the word on BK,
just because I think CVS should _die_. Argh. I used it for six years, and
I still wake up sweating and crying into my pillow about branches.
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
