On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:46:55PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
> Julian Fitzell wrote:
>
> > - It isn't made my Microsoft
>
> What has that got to do with it? Are you implying that anything coming
> from Microsoft is inherently evil and anti-open-source?
>
> If so, I'd like to point out two things:
>
> 1) We're trying to write a configuration-managment system, not a
> political manifesto. We want to use the tools that fit our needs, no
> matter where they come from. IMO Mark's decision to use VB was eminently
> sensible.
>
> 2) Given that Bill Tutt, who is @microsoft.com, has made valuable
> contributions to this list, I'd say your statement is a bit impolite.
> Let's not start any flame wars here.
hehe... I remember back in '96 (soon after I started at Microsoft), I made
some post or another to comp.lang.python. Somebody railed on about my
@microsoft.com address. Guido came down *real* hard on the person, noting
that I had been making solid contributions to Python for over a year, and
that nobody had a right to bust on me because of where I happened to work.
But that said: Julian *does* have some good arguments for Borland (if you
miss the single one that Branko extracted). But there are two points that
I'd like to make about it:
1) MSFT tools (VB in this case) are more common; therefore, a VB-based
WinSVN has a larger potential audience.
2) Mark is probably more familiar with VB than Borland tools, so he chose
the tool he'd be most productive with. This does not preclude a Borland
afficionado from building their own version. I would even encourage it,
and would even support adding it to the CVS repository alongside the VB
and the GNOME versions.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:17 2006