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!
