Slashdot Mirror
Subversion 1.0 Released
Phil John writes "Subversion 1.0 has finally been released. The people who maintain CVS have given us a viable replacement for our de-facto (and aged) versioning system. If you're new to Subversion its feature list looks like fixes for everything that is wrong in CVS, renaming, directory structure and metadata version tracking, file deletion, proper management of binary files and it's pretty portable to boot." According to the download page, binaries may take a few days to appear.
Why? It's not like it's licensed under the new Apache/BSD license, is it?
I agree the BSD licence alows people to take the code and wrongfully place it in closed source software. It takes the comunity aspect away form software. I think that the discription and the function have great potential as software the it is the community aspect that is missing and that is why i choose not to use this.
Get paid to read spam
So when does it replace Bitkeeper for the kernel?
...there will not be a Slashdot story posted on every project released on the Freshmeat. That would be disastrous.
There you are, staring at me again.
Arch is crap. Only people who have never used it or the 3 brain dead people who try to use it claim its any good. Feel free to download the source yourself if you doubt my words.
Aren't you working in the stone age. Always shocking when I go into development places and find they're not using any form of version control. CVS isn't hard, neither is subversion, nor Bitkeeper (ok Bitkeeper's probably a bit harder relative to the other 2). And most people on Windows use SourceSafe for version control, not WinServer/SMB. Saying that makes you sound like a newb.
Man, you are lazy. It would have taken you 20 seconds to find the information you wanted (google for "cvs"; go to the first link; click on "manual"; read the overview). Unbelievable.
Arch suffers from the common GNU problem of assuming that a Unix system with a Unixy filesystem is the only environment worth paying attention to, and despite what Richard Stallman might think, that _is_ a problem.
No, you got it backwards. Writing open source software as if it has to run on both Windows and Linux is a problem. Commercial software vendors aren't dragged down by that kind of cross-platform boat anchor--they just write for Windows.
Trying to achieve cross-platform availability is corrupting major open source projects; for example, Mozilla and KDE are both as inefficient, bloated, and flickering because their toolkits try to make some sort of compromise between Windows and X11.
Open source simply won't be fully competitive this way; it's amazing it's as good as it is given this millstone.
Arch seems not only less useful but also depressingly backward-looking in philosophy.
The "depressingly backwards looking philosophy" is the philosophy that tries to bring us to a lowest common denominator of all operating systems.
and despite what Richard Stallman might think, that _is_ a problem.
It's not just Stallman that's saying it. I'm tired of missed releases and poor functionality due to attempts by developers to accomodate Windows. Windows has enough software; don't waste time on adding more to it for free.