3 ms·
It's because 10 years ago there weren't really any distributed version control systems, and the original aim of Subversion was to fix everything that was horrib
by henrikschroder 16y ago
It's because 10 years ago there weren't really any distributed version control systems, and the original aim of Subversion was to fix everything that was horribly broken in CVS. They definitely succeded with that design goal, but since they're stuck in a centralized design, there's nothing they can do to move it to a distributed model, and it's not something that could have been foreseen 10 years ago.
They're simply the last technology before a paradigm shift, and that's never a good position to be in.
- selectnull 16y agoI think that's the best position (in case of svn) to be in. Subversion is, imho, the best of centralized scm-s. There are many companies that, for some reason or other, will not switch to dvcs. It really doesn't matter that distributed model is better than centralized, some people will not switch over. And svn is great choice for them.
- btucker 16y agoI agree that's what happened. But I'm still trying to think of whether there are any other cases of this in the last decade. There certainly have been other paradigm shifts. Yet i'm having a hard time thinking of anything which both gained significant prominence and then was left behind. Maybe OpenID?