Andrew: > Put bluntly, I think that the heavy politicalisation of the revision > control field, with widespread territorialism and a few financial > heavyweights trying to achieve market dominance, is too hostile an > environment to support practical free software development. The > antics of companies like Canonical, BitMover and Tigris have > effectively nuked the field and it will take years before the > radiation decays enough to support life.
Bruce: > Really? I don't know why Stellation (which used to be in the Eclipse > family of projects) died (or appears to have), but it wouldn't > surprise me if they felt too much pressure from subversion. (Not that > the two were intended to be similar, but maybe people lost interest as > it became clear that subversion would be good enough at what it was > intended to do.) I think you're mistaken about the source of demise of stellation although svn may have made a convenient excuse at some point or other. There was a "last gasp" from stellation folk on one of the svn lists for a while. But, yes, Andrew left the antics of Collabnet off his list which would be a mistake other than that he said "comapanies *like*" [emph. added]. It's a nice piece, Andrew, given the circumstances. -t _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
