3 ms·

That's a very bike-shedding take. Just because something is better than its competitors does not make it a mono-culture. There's no "nefarious plot" behind git

That's a very bike-shedding take. Just because something is better than its competitors does not make it a mono-culture. There's no "nefarious plot" behind git adoption any more than "Linux is causing a UNIX mono-culture"

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
selcuka 2y ago
Tangential, but I'm pretty sure bike-shedding is not the right term here.
sbuttgereit 2y ago
> Just because something is better than its competitors does not make it a mono-culture. "Because something is more popular than its competitors" I'd agree with.... but better, I'm not sold: better on what terms? Personally, I had found Mercurial more pleasant to work with and more aligned with my philosophy of change control. In some sense that's "better" from my perspective. Git I find to be a complex hodge-podge that requires monk-like dedication to come to terms with... in some sense that's definitely not better. I always recommend Git to clients. Not because I think it's better, but because I think it's popular enough that random developer-types are likely to have at least passing familiarity with it. Call it network effects. But attribution to "better" may be misplaced.
- MBCook 2y ago
  The best doesn’t always win. Sometimes good enough plus an early lead is all it takes. Git did what it needed and through large exposure to open source developers via the kernel community it took off and nothing else ever caught it. I like it myself. Others prefer HG or even SVN. But unlike choosing a text editor, network effects are very important for source control. It doesn’t surprise me too much that the majority of people would centralize on the same tool.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  Git is actually better than Mercurial, though they both have a lot of the same features. It's way faster and actually simpler than Mercurial. There are some rough edges for new users compared to Mercurial, but Git is still the better system.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

selcuka 2y ago

Tangential, but I'm pretty sure bike-shedding is not the right term here.

sbuttgereit 2y ago

> Just because something is better than its competitors does not make it a mono-culture. "Because something is more popular than its competitors" I'd agree with.... but better, I'm not sold: better on what terms? Personally, I had found Mercurial more pleasant to work with and more aligned with my philosophy of change control. In some sense that's "better" from my perspective. Git I find to be a complex hodge-podge that requires monk-like dedication to come to terms with... in some sense that's definitely not better. I always recommend Git to clients. Not because I think it's better, but because I think it's popular enough that random developer-types are likely to have at least passing familiarity with it. Call it network effects. But attribution to "better" may be misplaced.

MBCook 2y ago
The best doesn’t always win. Sometimes good enough plus an early lead is all it takes. Git did what it needed and through large exposure to open source developers via the kernel community it took off and nothing else ever caught it. I like it myself. Others prefer HG or even SVN. But unlike choosing a text editor, network effects are very important for source control. It doesn’t surprise me too much that the majority of people would centralize on the same tool.
wakawaka28 2y ago
Git is actually better than Mercurial, though they both have a lot of the same features. It's way faster and actually simpler than Mercurial. There are some rough edges for new users compared to Mercurial, but Git is still the better system.