3 ms·

I’m not sure the “extra batteries included” line is very persuasive. It’s open to objections: first, Github does this already, so it’s a solved problem. Second

by dash2 5y ago

I’m not sure the “extra batteries included” line is very persuasive. It’s open to objections: first, Github does this already, so it’s a solved problem. Second, lack of focus. Why would VCS experts be good at designing a compelling forum or ticketing system? A more compelling selling point, which is buried in the docs, is the use of SQLite as storage. Apparently this makes it easy to traverse a commit’s descendants, which git struggles with.

dijit 5y ago
> It’s open to objections: first, Github does this already, so it’s a solved problem. I can buy the reasoning that it's a solved problem with additional software, but citing github specifically here is absurd. Github is a SaaS, centralised, closed source and unfederated platform. I can understand that you think they're a good service, but there's a huge difference between something like git (which is a tool and a flexible one) and SVN, vs a hosted service. You can think of it like VLC media player vs youtube.
- dash2 5y ago
  Sure. If you think everything centralized, closed source and federated should be replaced with something decentralized, federated and open source, then Github is unacceptable. Just note that these are not inherently features. They may at some point become useful features - if e.g. all closed source software eventually is exploited by monopolists - but that is a very particular viewpoint. Given the success of Github, it seems that many people don't yet share that view. So, if I were persuading people to use Fossil, I would try to focus on features that most people want. But OK, if it's going for a free software niche, then fine.
chockchocschoir 5y ago
> It’s open to objections: first, Github does this already, so it’s a solved problem No, you're misunderstanding the feature (or they don't explain it well). GitHub solves the problem on their platform yes, but not in the protocol (git) itself. Fossil embeds that data in the repository, all the data is local. Fossil works perfectly with the "local first" doctrine, something Git also does, but not for everything around Git, that Fossil embeds into the repository. Basically, Fossil is Git + GitHub but self-hosted and offline first. You pull down a Fossil repository is like pulling down the Git repository + all related GitHub data. > Why would VCS experts be good at designing a compelling forum or ticketing system? They don't have to be experts about something to make it good enough. For a lot of us with poor internet connectivity, the offline first doctrine is essential in a lot of the work we do, as internet can disappear at any notice. Fossil works much better for this, as I can still read the wiki and tickets when my internet drops, while if I were using GitHub, I'd have to results to writing my own code/use 3rd party software to get the same experience.
- dash2 5y ago
  I don't find these arguments persuasive. My point was that if I want wiki, ticketing etc., I can get it right now on an industry standard platform. Yes, I get that they embed it in the software itself. So what? Suppose someone said "our new operating system includes a web browser". But I already have a web browser? "Yes, but we embed it in the kernel itself!" Why would that be compelling? The other argument, that this is needed for offline use, is more meaningful. I don't personally think this is a big enough deal to be the USP. But sure, for some people it may be.

by dash2 5y ago

dijit 5y ago

> It’s open to objections: first, Github does this already, so it’s a solved problem. I can buy the reasoning that it's a solved problem with additional software, but citing github specifically here is absurd. Github is a SaaS, centralised, closed source and unfederated platform. I can understand that you think they're a good service, but there's a huge difference between something like git (which is a tool and a flexible one) and SVN, vs a hosted service. You can think of it like VLC media player vs youtube.

dash2 5y ago
Sure. If you think everything centralized, closed source and federated should be replaced with something decentralized, federated and open source, then Github is unacceptable. Just note that these are not inherently features. They may at some point become useful features - if e.g. all closed source software eventually is exploited by monopolists - but that is a very particular viewpoint. Given the success of Github, it seems that many people don't yet share that view. So, if I were persuading people to use Fossil, I would try to focus on features that most people want. But OK, if it's going for a free software niche, then fine.

chockchocschoir 5y ago

> It’s open to objections: first, Github does this already, so it’s a solved problem No, you're misunderstanding the feature (or they don't explain it well). GitHub solves the problem on their platform yes, but not in the protocol (git) itself. Fossil embeds that data in the repository, all the data is local. Fossil works perfectly with the "local first" doctrine, something Git also does, but not for everything around Git, that Fossil embeds into the repository. Basically, Fossil is Git + GitHub but self-hosted and offline first. You pull down a Fossil repository is like pulling down the Git repository + all related GitHub data. > Why would VCS experts be good at designing a compelling forum or ticketing system? They don't have to be experts about something to make it good enough. For a lot of us with poor internet connectivity, the offline first doctrine is essential in a lot of the work we do, as internet can disappear at any notice. Fossil works much better for this, as I can still read the wiki and tickets when my internet drops, while if I were using GitHub, I'd have to results to writing my own code/use 3rd party software to get the same experience.

dash2 5y ago
I don't find these arguments persuasive. My point was that if I want wiki, ticketing etc., I can get it right now on an industry standard platform. Yes, I get that they embed it in the software itself. So what? Suppose someone said "our new operating system includes a web browser". But I already have a web browser? "Yes, but we embed it in the kernel itself!" Why would that be compelling? The other argument, that this is needed for offline use, is more meaningful. I don't personally think this is a big enough deal to be the USP. But sure, for some people it may be.