On 5/16/2016 1:17 PM, Andy Goth wrote: > He said he thinks he'll go with Git instead because that would give the > engineers working under him more forward mobility when they eventually > move on to other companies, whereas Fossil is unknown and would not > improve their employability. > > [...] > > Of course, none of that matters since he started by prioritizing marketing.
I had a thought about Git marketing versus Fossil marketing. Git's success, at least its initial adoption from which critical mass formed, is due to it being written by the principal author of Linux for managing the development of Linux. Sound familiar? Fossil was written by the principal author of SQLite for managing the development of SQLite, and SQLite is arguably MORE successful than Linux, so... haha. But then I'm reminded of drh speaking at the 2012 Tcl/Tk Conference, showing a chart correlating a massive jump in Apple stock with Apple's adoption of SQLite. He said this to demonstrate his claimed inability to market his products, because he's not been able to use this chart to sway any management types. (Am I remembering that correctly?) -- Andy Goth | <andrew.m.goth/at/gmail/dot/com>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
