6 ms·
I am a cranky old contrarian. I do not like huge monopolies or monoliths. Github in itself is fine, but it rubs me the wrong way how huge and all-pervading it h
by interfixus 9y ago
I am a cranky old contrarian. I do not like huge monopolies or monoliths. Github in itself is fine, but it rubs me the wrong way how huge and all-pervading it has become - a sort of Facebook for coders.
Fossil avoids all that, and is, of course, orders of magnitude more manageable than Git. For years, I have been using it for all sorts of personal record-keeping. All sorts - code, yes, but also notes and manuscripts and sketches and what have you. Super-handy tool, with baked-in wiki and ticketing, and everything neatly packed in a single SQLite-file.
Mind you, the new encrypted Git-service in Keybase is sitting there, calling my name.
- frabert 9y agoThe only issue I have with keybase's git service is performance, right now. Otherwise, it's a godsend for personal projects you don't want to make publicly available.
- blauditore 9y agoI have the impression that in many people's head, Git == GitHub. There are other hosted git services, and it also not super hard to set up a repo manually, on a server or even locally. I agree Git may be too complex for some people or projects, and Fossil can fit better there. But Github is not the issue, as it can easily be avoided.
- hota_mazi 9y agoLook, our lives (not just software lives, our entire lives) are dominated by crappy de facto standards. They are everywhere. They imposed themselves through inertia, laziness and by virtue of being just a tad more useful than anything else at a time where everything else was terrible. Cable companies, Internet providers, social networks, foods, they surround us. But once in a while, we get stuck with a de facto standard that's actually quite good in its category. I happen to thing git is one of those. It took a while to get there, we had to suffer through decades of crappy source control systems until we eventually stumbled upon a good one. I'm happy with git. It has a terrible UI but beyond that, it's been an incredible force for progress not just in the open source world but increasingly inside companies as well. It fosters team work, encourages external contributions and once you've gotten used to its arcane flow, it enables all these aspects in pretty efficient ways. I'm happy with git. You should be too. And you should also be wary of making claims such as "Fossil is orders of magnitude more manageable than git". The burden of proof is on Fossil and beating git is a tall order.
- aerique 9y agoAlso it feels like the OP is conflating Git and GitHub.
- interfixus 9y agoOP is not :)
- aerique 9y agoApologies :-)
- makapuf 9y agoIt seems that the one responding to You, the op, is. Be careful guthub is nice but a proprietary monolith -> but git is nice. Hm ok but gitlab.
- eesmith 9y agoWhile I find Mercurial to be equally capable and easier to use.
- develop7 9y agoMercurial is actually more capable (see "phases" and "changeset evolution"). From the standpoint of the end user, that is.
- gmueckl 9y agoThe sad part about Mercurial is that it is losing the battle against git because it was the better tool at the outset. The well-documented shittyness of the git user experience was the key to its success because it forced the creation of shiny wrappers and integrations to hide the abomination within. And this combination of gloss and peer pressure now manages to convince people that git is "good". Worse is better indeed...
- jgh 9y agoGithub may be what you say, but I definitely prefer it over the bad old days of sourceforge.