3 ms·

Which would have failed had it been developed by someone else, without being a requirement for Linux kernel development.

by pjmlp 4mo ago

rtpg 4mo ago
Maybe? But this is an argument you can make about most technology adoption (silly recent example: USB-C adoption obviously buffetted by Apple showing up and saying "it's all this now" and having a bunch of people willing to swap everything out for it)
- ChrisMarshallNY 4mo ago
  Agreed. The thing about an SCM, though, is that it needs to be rock-solid reliable and trustworthy. No "YOLO, Bro!" or "Move Fast and Break Things." Git is that. I believe that this is exactly because of who wrote it. Torvalds has plenty of detractors (and they aren't necessarily wrong), but he is one hell of a C programmer. I'd trust stuff he wrote, over about 95% of what modern devs, do, these days.
- pjmlp 4mo ago
  The same Apple that was forced by EU regulators to actually adopt it across their devices?
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4mo ago
    Yup. That doesn’t change the effect, though. That kind of thing has happened before. When HP adopted IEE-488, it became the standard test equipment interface for a couple of decades. USBC has arrived.
    - pjmlp 4mo ago
      Yes it does, otherwise people in Europe would still not use USB C on their Apple gear for the most part.
zorked 4mo ago
The Linux kernel adopted Bitkeeper before git and it never spread out from there. It's not that many people working on the kernel. git growth was very symbiotic with GitHub growth. I don't remember why GitHub became popular in the first place. I think it was the Ruby community? GitHub was one of their own during an explosion of Ruby on Rails and successful startups using it.
- cataphract 4mo ago
  Yeah, for a while it was not clear that git would win over mercurial. GitHub was decisive.
- pjmlp 4mo ago
  Sure, if we ignore Bit keeper was commercial, always a hot topic, and not developed by Linus.
- redsocksfan45 4mo ago
  [dead]

Which would have failed had it been developed by someone else, without being a requirement for Linux kernel development.

by pjmlp 4mo ago

Which would have failed had it been developed by someone else, without being a requirement for Linux kernel development.

rtpg 4mo ago

Maybe? But this is an argument you can make about most technology adoption (silly recent example: USB-C adoption obviously buffetted by Apple showing up and saying "it's all this now" and having a bunch of people willing to swap everything out for it)

ChrisMarshallNY 4mo ago
Agreed. The thing about an SCM, though, is that it needs to be rock-solid reliable and trustworthy. No "YOLO, Bro!" or "Move Fast and Break Things." Git is that. I believe that this is exactly because of who wrote it. Torvalds has plenty of detractors (and they aren't necessarily wrong), but he is one hell of a C programmer. I'd trust stuff he wrote, over about 95% of what modern devs, do, these days.
pjmlp 4mo ago
The same Apple that was forced by EU regulators to actually adopt it across their devices?
- ChrisMarshallNY 4mo ago
  Yup. That doesn’t change the effect, though. That kind of thing has happened before. When HP adopted IEE-488, it became the standard test equipment interface for a couple of decades. USBC has arrived.
  - pjmlp 4mo ago
    Yes it does, otherwise people in Europe would still not use USB C on their Apple gear for the most part.

zorked 4mo ago

The Linux kernel adopted Bitkeeper before git and it never spread out from there. It's not that many people working on the kernel. git growth was very symbiotic with GitHub growth. I don't remember why GitHub became popular in the first place. I think it was the Ruby community? GitHub was one of their own during an explosion of Ruby on Rails and successful startups using it.

cataphract 4mo ago
Yeah, for a while it was not clear that git would win over mercurial. GitHub was decisive.
pjmlp 4mo ago
Sure, if we ignore Bit keeper was commercial, always a hot topic, and not developed by Linus.
redsocksfan45 4mo ago
[dead]