4 ms·

If git was simply too hard an easier (probably centralised) alternative would have taken over by now. Ergo git may be hard to it's clearly not hard enough for

by jpgvm 3y ago

If git was simply too hard an easier (probably centralised) alternative would have taken over by now. Ergo git may be hard to it's clearly not hard enough for market forces to displace it.

agumonkey 3y ago
There's a lot of space for improvement though, mostly at the dx/ui layer but maybe a bit below too.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Network effects explain this just fine, it's not an indicator against the point of the article.
- morelisp 3y ago
  Network effects for distributed VC are quite weak, it's one of the reasons git was able to displace alternatives relatively quietly, and why mercurial is able to soldier on despite git's visible dominance.
- jonnycomputer 3y ago
  didn't save svn
  - BryanLegend 3y ago
    SVN is doing just fine
    - jonnycomputer 3y ago
      I'm sure it is. For the few people who use it. Once upon a time, it was the dominant versioning system out there. But it was supplanted by git. And it was supplanted for a reason. And network effects didn't protect it from being replaced by git. What is your point exactly?
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        It's unfair to consider network effects when it comes to SVN because it was a very different time on the internet with no major centralized code hosting SaaS like GitHub. Nowadays even companies (that would in the past self-host) rely on SaaS and are thus swayed by network effects of whatever is popular.
      - thunderbong 3y ago
        It was not supplanted by git, but by Github
        jonnycomputer 3y ago
        That's objectively false.
- MikusR 3y ago
  I am going to write a Myspace post submit the link to Digg and ask people on Windows Live Messenger to upvote.
jhbadger 3y ago
Things take time. And nobody wants to get into some dead end for something that doesn't take off. But people did move from cvs/svn to git, so making the leap to something new can happen, even if it hasn't happened yet.
markrages 3y ago
The centralized alternative is called 'github' and while it has not entirely taken over, it has certainly made some inroads.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 3y ago
What world do you live in where easy and simple software always wins?
- jpgvm 3y ago
  That is actually my entire point. Easier alternatives to git already exist. However for a confluence of other factors (network effects/inertia, etc) git remains dominant. All this means is git isn't "too hard". It's hard but that hardness isn't great enough to invite a competitor to displace it. Replacing git won't come through offering something easier, likely some other major paradigm shift will be necessary.
  - necovek 3y ago
    That's an interesting take. Having been in the midst of this, it wasn't at all clear Git would have won (against Mercurial and Bazaar, at least in the free software world). There were two main factors contributing to it: Linux Kernel switching to Git, so open source people had to deal with it anyway, and an even bigger factor, GitHub offering a (free) streamlined UI for those most common GitHub operations (basically, making it not-hard). If you compare GitHub to Mercurial hosting web sites of the time, one was decidedly 90s/MySpace like, and another was modern, Facebook-like. IMHO, without GitHub, git does not become the dominant VCS it is today.
    - jpgvm 3y ago
      Yeah that is certainly possible. We could have ended up in a world where GitHub was actually MercurialHub and git probably would have remained the VCS of the kernel and probably many C and C++ projects as a result but much of FOSS (especially the new at the time JS movement) could have ended up on Mercurial instead.
tasuki 3y ago
Git is very simple. It is also hard.
- jpgvm 3y ago
  Good point, edited to say "easier" as git is very simple indeed.
Tommstein 3y ago
People in this industry think they're super duper extra rational instead of largely a bunch of cargo culters. "This tool meets the Linux kernel's hyperspecific needs that have approximately zero applicability to my piddly little centralized project, looks like I have found the tool for me!"
- theamk 3y ago
  centralized or not, just give me "amend". I am still using svn for some projects (due to large file/subdirectory handling) and this is a pain every single day.

by jpgvm 3y ago

If git was simply too hard an easier (probably centralised) alternative would have taken over by now. Ergo git may be hard to it's clearly not hard enough for market forces to displace it.

agumonkey 3y ago

There's a lot of space for improvement though, mostly at the dx/ui layer but maybe a bit below too.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

Network effects explain this just fine, it's not an indicator against the point of the article.

morelisp 3y ago
Network effects for distributed VC are quite weak, it's one of the reasons git was able to displace alternatives relatively quietly, and why mercurial is able to soldier on despite git's visible dominance.
jonnycomputer 3y ago
didn't save svn
- BryanLegend 3y ago
  SVN is doing just fine
  - jonnycomputer 3y ago
    I'm sure it is. For the few people who use it. Once upon a time, it was the dominant versioning system out there. But it was supplanted by git. And it was supplanted for a reason. And network effects didn't protect it from being replaced by git. What is your point exactly?
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      It's unfair to consider network effects when it comes to SVN because it was a very different time on the internet with no major centralized code hosting SaaS like GitHub. Nowadays even companies (that would in the past self-host) rely on SaaS and are thus swayed by network effects of whatever is popular.
    - thunderbong 3y ago
      It was not supplanted by git, but by Github
      - jonnycomputer 3y ago
        That's objectively false.
MikusR 3y ago
I am going to write a Myspace post submit the link to Digg and ask people on Windows Live Messenger to upvote.

jhbadger 3y ago

Things take time. And nobody wants to get into some dead end for something that doesn't take off. But people did move from cvs/svn to git, so making the leap to something new can happen, even if it hasn't happened yet.

markrages 3y ago

The centralized alternative is called 'github' and while it has not entirely taken over, it has certainly made some inroads.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

enraged_camel 3y ago

What world do you live in where easy and simple software always wins?

jpgvm 3y ago
That is actually my entire point. Easier alternatives to git already exist. However for a confluence of other factors (network effects/inertia, etc) git remains dominant. All this means is git isn't "too hard". It's hard but that hardness isn't great enough to invite a competitor to displace it. Replacing git won't come through offering something easier, likely some other major paradigm shift will be necessary.
- necovek 3y ago
  That's an interesting take. Having been in the midst of this, it wasn't at all clear Git would have won (against Mercurial and Bazaar, at least in the free software world). There were two main factors contributing to it: Linux Kernel switching to Git, so open source people had to deal with it anyway, and an even bigger factor, GitHub offering a (free) streamlined UI for those most common GitHub operations (basically, making it not-hard). If you compare GitHub to Mercurial hosting web sites of the time, one was decidedly 90s/MySpace like, and another was modern, Facebook-like. IMHO, without GitHub, git does not become the dominant VCS it is today.
  - jpgvm 3y ago
    Yeah that is certainly possible. We could have ended up in a world where GitHub was actually MercurialHub and git probably would have remained the VCS of the kernel and probably many C and C++ projects as a result but much of FOSS (especially the new at the time JS movement) could have ended up on Mercurial instead.

tasuki 3y ago

Git is very simple. It is also hard.

jpgvm 3y ago
Good point, edited to say "easier" as git is very simple indeed.

Tommstein 3y ago

People in this industry think they're super duper extra rational instead of largely a bunch of cargo culters. "This tool meets the Linux kernel's hyperspecific needs that have approximately zero applicability to my piddly little centralized project, looks like I have found the tool for me!"

theamk 3y ago
centralized or not, just give me "amend". I am still using svn for some projects (due to large file/subdirectory handling) and this is a pain every single day.