3 ms·
Well, then I wish Mercurial nothing but luck in winning the lucrative free version control client market. Edit: sarcasm aside, you're right in saying that ther
by ethomson 9y ago
Well, then I wish Mercurial nothing but luck in winning the lucrative free version control client market.
Edit: sarcasm aside, you're right in saying that there is competition here. And competition is healthy, it's what drives us to solve problems in different ways and _allows_ us to collaborate. But to suggest that we shouldn't use each others technologies feels short sighted and like the wrong kind of competition.
- gmueckl 9y agoGithub is proof that the market is lucrative. There is no sarcasm here. You have to be careful what you use other technology for. If you don't show that you're relying on your own product when you clearly have a chance to do so, you immediately lose trust. First impressions matter a ton there.
- rattray 9y agoGithub isn't git; if hg takes off, github (the company) can just add support for it. SCM hosting is very different than SCM software; the latter is usually... not lucrative. Eg; I'm sure MSFT hopes to make money from their GVFS effort, but not by selling it – simply by using it as a marketing tool to establish credibility (eg; for Team Foundation Server and other developer products). Even if nobody _used_ GVFS, it could still be a profitable project for MSFT if it made everyone think MSFT an expert in source control. (To be clear, I love this incentive structure, and it's working on me – my respect for Microsoft is growing, thanks in part to GVFS).