Am 01.12.14 um 19:56 schrieb kilon alios:
"It's not a matter of SourceTree or other program, it's about your git
GUI app of preference. You can use plain git from the command line if
you prefer.
The git repo is portable, the client is up to you."
+1000
exactly and that is something I advocate.
You cant use Sourcetree on linux ? no problemo use SmartGit
you prefer using Emacs ? no problemo use magit.
you prefer the terminal ? no problemo use the terminal.
I prefer the Smalltalk environment.
The cool thing is that it does not really matter what you choose
because all tools follow the git workflow, the rest is just a matter
of preference.
The disadvantage of sticking just with Pharo ? you will be lucky to be
able to use a single tool and you will be also lucky if that tool has
a substantial fraction of the features of some of the external tools.
Bigger community , bigger competition and cooperation. Quantity
brings quality.
Sorry, if that would be true then Java or C# would be of extraordinary
quality.
Smalltalk has been there for more than 30 years and will probably
another 30 years.
Hypes come and go. Quantity for me seems more like the opposite of quality.
"Non-portable programs die with their system."
Good luck waiting for MacOS and Windows to die.
Why shouldn't they be able to die? There have been other successful
companies before.
Do you remember Netware? The market leader in networking, almost gone.
What about DEC? Gone.
Windows is already declining and the Microsoft desparately tries to find
new ways to get back.
Regarding Apple: They seem to be more interested in iPhone and iPad than
in Macs.
Obviously they earn a lot more in this field.
IMO Apple and Microsoft have one thing in common these days: they make
their products life style
products that can be used by everybody. Alas for your work needs their
operating systems get worse with every release.
Windows XP and Snow Leopard are being seen as the best versions by some...
Nothing lasts forever so you can be sure that Windows and Mac OSX will
die some day.
"Closed source programs die with their company."
a) if something "dies" that does not make it useless
b) The beauty of capitalism is that as long there is demand there is
going to be supply. So you will never run out of options. Aint working
like that with open source I am afraid.
That is not quite true. Look at what Oracle did with Solaris: They are
not interested in the mass market.
If you don't have millions (better billions) to spend they don't care
about you.
That's also possible in capitalism: you can ask very high prices so most
people and companies cannot (or will not) be able to affort it
or you can deny to sell a product. You don't even need a good
explanation for it.
I am all for open source, I am a huge fan and if I could I would use
100% open source if it satisfied me but you cant just push under the
carpet the advantages of closed source software even if you are
Richard Stallman. Plus we are MIT not GPL ;)
My comment was not about discussing the pros and cons of closed versus
open source software. My concerns are more about reliability.
For me it's totally Ok to use git for versioning IF the tools are there.
Squak and Pharo have decent versioning systems that suit their internal
needs. There is room for improvements, that's for sure.
For me Smalltalk is a system and not a simple language with some
arbitrary tools that can be replaced easily.
Andreas
