4 ms·

The point being that the author isn't looking for solutions, but rather just wants to bitch?

• Qz 16y ago
  The point being that the solutions are problematic.
  • itistoday 16y ago
    And the problems shouldn't exist in the first place.
    • MikeTaylor 16y ago
      But, yes, I do also like to bitch about them :-)
      • ableal 16y ago
        Watch out for the flying door-knobs. ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1272779 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1272779 ) Seems that the peasants who have binaries should use rsync manually, instead of expecting tools to do the job.
    • donaq 16y ago
      Linus didn't write git for you. He wrote it for himself. Git works exactly the way Linus (and his merry band of kernel hackers (and others, who thought DVCS was a cool idea when they heard about it and were prepared to relearn SCM to use it)) wants it to work. If you want to learn to use it, cool, welcome to the party. If you aren't prepared to invest the time, that's cool too. But don't try it for like a day expecting it to be svn++ and then complain that it isn't. That's like a Windows user declaring that Linux sucks because it isn't Windows. It wasn't meant to be. Although, complaining about Ubuntu not doing things the way they "should" is more valid, since Ubuntu is targeted at everyone. :)
      • viraptor 16y ago
        Git is gaining a lot of attention lately. It's becoming "the dvcs" now. And that means, if you start using it for your project, you should consider what does it mean for contributors / users. If it creates an additional step where someone will say - "it will take me more time to learn, than creating the patch itself", you've lost. If many people start using git, we can start expecting things from git. It's just not about an abstract "you" anymore.
        • donaq 16y ago
          If many people start using git, we can start expecting things from git. Why? The author of a piece of software is under no obligation to satisfy the expectations of its incidental users, especially if he's not selling it to them.
          • viraptor 16y ago
            If they get big enough... no they don't have an obligation, but the idea of many people depending on them should be enough. It's like MS had no obligation to satisfy expectations of IE5 users (not sold directly) - sure they didn't - but many got very annoyed because of that and because of the market share, we had internet-wide consequences for standard-compliant websites. Still - they had no obligation.
            • donaq 16y ago
              That is just wrong on so many levels. Firstly, Microsoft marketed the hell out of IE. The bundling of IE with Windows was their way of getting people to use IE instead of Netscape Navigator. Since their stand (in court, no less!) was that IE was an integral part of Windows, which they sold to users, they did have an obligation to satisfy users' expectations of it. Did anyone force you to use git by bundling it with some other piece of software you were using? Nope. Secondly, in what crazy alternate universe can git, which is given to you free as in libre as well as beer, be compared with IE? If you think git sucks, but still want to use it for some crazy reason, go ahead and modify it to suit your needs. Lastly, I cannot imagine a world where anyone would be forced to have to cater for a VCS the way we have to for browsers. They're simply too different in function. It's not like you're in danger of being forced into the business of implementing a service supporting commits and checkouts for two different types of repositories on the same source files... unless you work at GitHub. Heh.