Searching \ for '[OT] Why I do not use version control' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=why+not+use+version
Search entire site for: 'Why I do not use version control'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Why I do not use version control'
2011\03\08@092427 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Michael Watterson <spam_OUTmikeTakeThisOuTspamradioway.org> wrote:

> Actually the whole idea really was because AT&T claimed the UNIX
> copyright, and a lot was done in Universities. So the the folk there got
> very upset.
> Origin of GNU and BSD. The Altruism / Communism / Evangelism was added
> gradually.

I've never seen a 4 sentence history of the F/OSS movement that was so
incorrect.

>
> Later FOSS movements an attempt to rationalise and organise. Much
> nonsense written by some leading lights in it.

Right, like Richard Stallman. All utter b/s, I suppose. Nobody uses
GNU/Linux anyway, right?

>
> I've looked at some OS projects and concluded easier to start from
> scratch than figure what they did.

Maybe so, but why do you need to "figure what they did" in order to use it?

>
> Any non-trivial FOSS project is close to dead if the active developers
> abandon it.

So far much of what you said would make logical sense if any of it was true..

-- Martin K

2011\03\08@101320 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 08/03/2011 14:23, M.L. wrote:
> Richard Stallman.

FOSS would be best off if he in particular went away. Much of his views are utter nonsense.

Obviously I was over simplifying. There is much of value in the FOSS movement. But my short overview is the perception not from reading books or FOSS propaganda or Wikipedia, but from actually being there.

In essence it's all because of AT&T's arrogance about the UNIX copyrights.

Much of GNU and Linux since 1993 has been re-invention of the wheel to make it copyright free and in proportion little innovation.

I used UNIX before the Linux Kernel existed. I built my own copy of Minix too. I worked on Porting C++ from AT&T UNIX to MSDOS in late 1980s. I know what was what.

Much of the Linux/GNU and FOSS movement is born out of bitterness against AT&T and later substitution of Microsoft as the Great Satan instead. (Installing Microsoft's version of UNIX was no fun, why anyone bought it off them is a mystery).

2011\03\08@104126 by Manu Abraham

picon face
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Michael Watterson <.....mikeKILLspamspam@spam@radioway.org> wrote:
> On 08/03/2011 14:23, M.L. wrote:
>> Richard Stallman.
>
> FOSS would be best off if he in particular went away. Much of his views
> are utter nonsense.
>
> Obviously I was over simplifying. There is much of value in the FOSS
> movement. But my short overview is the perception not from reading books
> or FOSS propaganda or Wikipedia, but from actually being there.
>
> In essence it's all because of AT&T's arrogance about the UNIX copyrights..
>
> Much of GNU and Linux since 1993 has been re-invention of the wheel to
> make it copyright free and in proportion little innovation.
>
> I used UNIX before the Linux Kernel existed. I built my own copy of
> Minix too. I worked on Porting C++ from AT&T UNIX to MSDOS in late
> 1980s. I know what was what.


There was a joke around stating that a person had a Ford 75 model in
1972 or something like that.

About CPP: http://www.hitmill.com/programming/cpp/cppHistory.htm

2011\03\08@105848 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 08/03/2011 15:41, Manu Abraham wrote:
>>   I worked on Porting C++ from AT&T UNIX to MSDOS in late
>> >  1980s. I know what was what.
> There was a joke around stating that a person had a Ford 75 model in
> 1972 or something like that.
>
> About CPP:www.hitmill.com/programming/cpp/cppHistory.html
C++ was written by Bjarne Stroustrup <http://www.research.att.com/%7Ebs/homepage.html>  at Bell Labs during 1983-1985. C++ is an extension of C.  Prior to 1983, Bjarne Stroustrup added features to C and formed what he called "C with Classes". He had combined the Simula <http://www.hitmill.com/programming/cpp/simula.html>'s use of classes and object-oriented features with the power and efficiency of C. The term C++ was first used in 1983.

So?

What's the problem with me working on it in late 1980s (likely 1987)

In 1984, John Carolan founded Glockenspiel.
See http://www.theheart.ie/Glockenspiel/index.htm

I worked for John Carolan, maybe 1987, on C++

2011\03\08@125057 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Michael Watterson <mikespamKILLspamradioway.org> wrote:

>
> I'm not against FOSS or Version control packages.
>
> But it's patent nonsense to claim that BECAUSE something is a FOSS
> project it's automatically immune from getting "lost".
>

You keep changing the point, and telling everyone they're missing the point..

The ORIGINAL argument was that RCS can cause your files to be locked
up in some old format that nobody can read anymore.

People said: "not with F/OSS RCS because it's always going to be available"

NOW the infamous "point" you think people are trying to prove is that
because ANY package is F/OSS means that it's immune from being lost.
That's not what we were talking about. If you want to sidestep "the
point", at least say so.

Commonly used F/OSS RCS is going to be locatable 25 years from now.
This isn't some obscure package that you (for whatever reason) think
is hosted on Geocities or an ISP in Tripoli. There are literally
millions of hard copies of every major RCS available. Unless the world
blows up in a fireball, you will be able to locate a copy of it 25
years from now and read your repository.

You are making the following assumptions:
1. You were too stupid to make your own copy of the RCS
2. You didn't make archives of your files independent of the RCS
3. You actually need to see 25 year old code
4. You couldn't possibly figure out how to reverse engineer poorly
documented formats, should they happen to be.
5. You can't rewrite software that can implement the openly documented
repository formats (as they are).
6. You haven't cared about that code for 25 years; you haven't UPDATED
the RCS in 25 years
7. You're still alive in 25 years.

That's a lot of assumptions for this 1 in a billion case that is quite
pointless to argue any further.

-- Martin K

2011\03\11@161628 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
M.L. wrote:

> Commonly used F/OSS RCS is going to be locatable 25 years from now.

Whenever people make predictions that far into the future, I try to
think that far back -- and it always ends the same way: what people
thought 25 ago about what would happen 25 years later isn't necessarily
a good match with what is happening today. I extrapolate this to today
and think that what we'll have in 25 years won't necessarily be what
people (including me) today think it will be.

>From that, I derive the simple rule: When you have archives that you
want to be able to read in the future, keep around what you need to read
them -- be that FOSS, OSS, CSS, FS, OSes, drives, whole computers,
whatever. And do try to read it in regular intervals to make sure it all
still works.

Gerhar

2011\03\11@170955 by peter green

flavicon
face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> M.L. wrote:
>
>  
>> Commonly used F/OSS RCS is going to be locatable 25 years from now.
>>    
>
> Whenever people make predictions that far into the future, I try to
> think that far back -- and it always ends the same way: what people
> thought 25 ago about what would happen 25 years later isn't necessarily
> a good match with what is happening today. I extrapolate this to today
> and think that what we'll have in 25 years won't necessarily be what
> people (including me) today think it will be.
>   That is true, OTOH we can still run software for BBC micros in emulation.
> >From that, I derive the simple rule: When you have archives that you
> want to be able to read in the future, keep around what you need to read
> them -- be that FOSS, OSS, CSS, FS, OSes, drives, whole computers,
> whatever. And do try to read it in regular intervals to make sure it all
> still works.
>   IMO if a digital archive is important you should have a "state of the archive" session at least every few years where you

1: check that all copies of the media (you did make multiple copies right,,,) are still readable and make more copies and/or copies on newer media or filing systems if appropriate.
2: check that the systems you have in place for reading/wokring with the individual files are still functional and likely to continue functioning. In particular reliance on old hardware should be avoided if at all possible since it can die at any time and may be difficult to fix/replace.

By doing this every few years you should hopefully be able to fix issues before they become too serious to deal with.

> Gerhard
>

2011\03\11@184614 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 11/3/2011 18:16, Gerhard Fiedler escreveu:
> M.L. wrote:
>
>> Commonly used F/OSS RCS is going to be locatable 25 years from now.
> Whenever people make predictions that far into the future, I try to
> think that far back -- and it always ends the same way: what people
> thought 25 ago about what would happen 25 years later isn't necessarily
> a good match with what is happening today. I extrapolate this to today
> and think that what we'll have in 25 years won't necessarily be what
> people (including me) today think it will be.
>
> >From that, I derive the simple rule: When you have archives that you
> want to be able to read in the future, keep around what you need to read
> them -- be that FOSS, OSS, CSS, FS, OSes, drives, whole computers,
> whatever. And do try to read it in regular intervals to make sure it all
> still works.
>
> Gerhard


I am an example that people can have all their data accessible and
usable even after 25 years.

My old MSX programs and data, dated back to 1985, are all backed-up in
modern media (my several PCs hard-disks, some CDs, DVDs and a couple of
thumb-drives).
Besides, I keep three MSX machines (don't know if they all are still
usable), and images of their EPROMs together with the other data. Even
if all the machines break, there are perfect emulators available (in my
opinion, BlueMSX is the best).

The same for my PC data back to the times of university, when I got my
first PC computer (a 40MHz AMD 386DX-40, of which I still have the boards).


In fact, probably I will never need that data, but it is reassuring to
have it available.


Isaac

2011\03\12@060318 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
peter green wrote:

> IMO if a digital archive is important you should have a "state of the
> archive" session at least every few years where you
>
> 1: check that all copies of the media (you did make multiple copies
> right,,,) are still readable and make more copies and/or copies on
> newer media or filing systems if appropriate.

I have archived data from the 80ies that has moved from floppies to
tapes to CD-ROMs to IDE harddisks to SATA harddisks.

Gerhar

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...