On 17/05/2016 15:10, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote: > I think its an overestimation. Don't forget that the landscape of > F/OSS VC systems was different back then. In reality, DVC systems > existing around year 2005 were either slow (Monotone, Darcs) or had > horrible UI (GNU Arch) so Torvalds had nothing to pick from. Indeed. > In my opinion the best marketing strategy for Fossil would be to > compete with Subversion as trying to be a safe go-to solution for shops > with "simple" demands. I think the statements made by one of > Subversion developers in his «Version Control and “the 80%”» rant [1] > pretty much explain why those who like Git won't switch to Fossil but > how a simpler solution could help "the 80%" to cope with version > control. Also indeed :)
I use Fossil exclusively for all my projects (such as 8th and Reva Forth) and I try to convince my smaller clients that it is worthwhile for them to adopt its use. Many of those clients do not have any kind of SCM, or use something like Dropbox in lieu of SCM. And the small clients who use git are often quite happy to find something much simpler to use, which answers all their actual needs. -- Best regards, Ron Aaron +1 425.296.0766 +972 52.652.5543
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
