Yossi Kreinin <yossi.krei...@mobileye.com> wrote:
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!
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
too: it clearly divided the community. There was the Linus camp (well
I haven't got anything better) and the free software camp (but they've
got your testicles in a vice, and your source code too). Clearly the
latter camp turned out to be right, and Linus wrote something better
than bitkeeper in a few weeks anyway.
I haven't used git (nor, thankfully bitkeeper) so I shalln't attempt
to hate it, but I've been doing a good line in quietly hating
perforce(*) a lot recently.
Cheers,
Martin.
(*) perforce seems to follow the perl philosophy of "there's more than
one way to do it", but unfortunately none of the ways are really any
better than any of the other ways, so the result is that everyone ends
up doing the same thing differently which just causes havoc.
