121–130 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mercurial was announced on 2005-04-19 and git on 2005-04-07, so no Mercurial was not first. Edit: Monotone is older than git though.
I think we can state they weren't copying each other.
One that I like that replaces my most frequent usage of magit is crecord: interactively select hunks for committing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either with us or against us" - but over here in the real world, things are not so black and white. That isn't in the least true. You should be very careful when trying to decode someones mindset because now you are putting words in someones mouth that never was there in the first place.
Well I Googl'ed: gnu fsf "you're either with us or against us" And it turns out that the idea shows up more than once. So it must be at least believed by some to be true. That includes this interesting post on Slashdot from 2001: http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/01/12/13/0242205/miguel... In particular, a comment by ukryule seems especially applicable: "Taken in the spirit intended. I accept that the GNU principl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> GP's point was about defaults Granted, but he then describes the difficulty of typing `hg log | less`. And defaults cut both ways, I still can't fathom why `git log HEAD` would display the whole repository history. > It does for me, with git 1.7.9.5. Doesn't for me with git 1.8.5.4. Regardless I removed that part since it's not the gist of the issue and the official documentation asserts it should. > I have never u…
> And defaults cut both ways, I still can't fathom why `git log HEAD` would display the whole repository history. I don't know why that's part of the defaults discussion, but okay. > Why is a meaningless name better than no name at all? Why is git's default behaviour of losing unnamed heads altogether better than just leaving them alone? Why would you give a meaningless name? That's a red herring. Do hg users just me…
Its not that bad if its only a couple of commits deep since you can look at the commit messages for context. And if you are using a gui like tortoiseHg then reading a commit message is basically the same amount of work as reading the bookmark name.
And if you really want to add a name you can add one, you just don't necessarily need to.
I was forced to use mercurial for a few years at work and I really hated it. Sure it has a better learning curve than git (or did) but I found it to be incredibly frustrating already knowing git. In addition, I found it to be slower, less flexible, and prone to permanent repository corruption - yes, in git you do see repo corruption but because of the cryptographic nature of git objects you know immediately. HG will…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not agreeing with the FSF's rather dogmatic stances does not make you "anti-free-software". Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". (Except in the eyes of zealots, but who cares about them?)
> Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". While true, its a bit odd of a statement. The following statements are also equally true: Having no problem with deforestation does not make you "anti-environmentalist". Having no problem with Ku Klux Klan members does not make you "anti-tolerance". Having no problem with murder and theft does not make you "anti-government". Except... if y…
Without even getting into the broken-ness of your analogies, being anti-DRM and anti-patent-abuse and so on is one thing. Calling someone evil because they don't publish the source of their app is quite another. According to their dogma, if I write a program and don't release the source code, I have perpetrated some horrible thing on the world. Regardless of any other interaction I might have with a user of my app.
Pardon my French, but that's fucking idiotic.
And even if I do release the source, I'm in the wrong if I don't release it under their pet license of choice. (Though not exactly "evil".)
What if my goal is to just see my code in use, not get embroiled in political battles? BSD is a de-facto more permissive license. What if I don't care if some corporation comes along and takes my code and releases a product based on it? Cool! I've helped the world somehow! And people who want to use my code don't have to get involved in GPL politics and drama!
My problem with the FSF is that they assume they are Right, their stance is Right, and anyone who disagrees or dissents is Wrong. Hence dogma. I know religions with more ideological tolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moreover, Mercurial's storage scheme is built on append-only files, whereas Git periodically repacks its objects, which means that Mercurial actually has fewer opportunities for cosmic rays to hit the bits while they are in motion, and so less chance of corruption.
Most bit rot isn't due to cosmic rays, but rather to decay on the disk itself.
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/gbbym/index.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't thinks words are being put into anyone's mouth, what was said was quite clear: > while Git is made by anti-GNU people who do not believe in free software As stated in above comments I would find it hard to believe Linus would not say that GNU is a valuable asset or software built strictly promoting GNU/FSF principles is bad ... but he's been labeled as anti-GNU for writing software that has a more permissible…
> but he's been labeled as anti-GNU for writing software that has a more permissible license No. he has been labeled as anti-gnu because of torvalds own statement like: "So I'm pretty well-known for not exactly being a huge fan of the FSF and Richard Stallman" "Linux from the very beginning was not about the FSF ideals." I would not directly call it anti-gnu, but neither is he friendly. He can also not be directly ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"That still doesn't wash. It is quite possible to believe that the GNU project and what's associated with it (FSF) is a net positive while disagreeing with some of the actions of its founders or boosters, or some of their ideology." A fair point. Picking licenses that explicitly forbid incorporation of your code in modern GNU projects is a little more than that, though. 'The GNU/FSF mindset is one of "You're either w…
I'd love to be proven wrong on this. Considering that their figurehead regards closed source software as unambiguously evil, I don't see many other ways to interpret their behvaior. But: >Picking licenses that explicitly forbid incorporation of your code in modern GNU projects By GNU fiat and nothing more. Some of us would rather code than get involved in tiresome political disputes. (See also the BSD class of licens…
Assuming (with confidence) that you mean RMS, he regards it as evil but my understanding is that his framework for making the assertion is more consequentialist than his detractors believe. With "evil" usually used in more deontological frameworks, I think the confusion is understandable but also understand his not wanting to give up the forcefulness implied by the term (we see time and again that people seem to underweight the risks implied by giving up their rights); I'm not sure if it's a mistake or not.
"By GNU fiat and nothing more. Some of us would rather code than get involved in tiresome political disputes. (See also the BSD class of licenses)"
No, by technicality of the licenses. It is not possible to write a license that 1) adds more restrictions, and 2) is compatible with GPLv2. 1) was deemed necessary because of what were seen as loopholes in GPLv2 - this may be construed as choice but "fiat" implies an arbitrariness that was not present. If instead Git was released under "GPLv2 or later", that code could be used more broadly - which is usually the rallying cry behind those endorsing more permissive licenses. It would still be entirely possible to move code from the work to GPLv2-only licensed projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not agreeing with the FSF's rather dogmatic stances does not make you "anti-free-software". Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". (Except in the eyes of zealots, but who cares about them?)
> Having no problem with closed source does not make you "anti-free-software". While true, its a bit odd of a statement. The following statements are also equally true: Having no problem with deforestation does not make you "anti-environmentalist". Having no problem with Ku Klux Klan members does not make you "anti-tolerance". Having no problem with murder and theft does not make you "anti-government". Except... if y…
If you agree there's a wider meaning of the term, then it's up to context whether someone's making a no true Scotsman argument or rationalizing the behavior of an antagonist.
Just pointing this out, because you might as well be arguing the meta-point about there being a cathedral of the meaning of "Free Software," or a bazaar. Hah.