Re: Slashdot article

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 03:07:34PM -0800, Billy Tanksley wrote:
>...
> I don't find errors (as I mentioned); what I do find is a clear
> advertisement of arch at Subversion's expense. This isn't a bad thing. I

Right.

>...
> I just think it would be a great idea for the Subversion project to make up
> a "rebuttal" to this document, not with the intent of posting it and getting
> in a fight, but rather with the intent of helping Tom moderate it so that he
> can attract the sort of people who would truly benefit from arch's
> advantages over Subversion. Who knows? We may even wind up with an article
> which will clearly spell out the differences in approach and usefulness
> between the two.

For example, we could discuss our ability to use SSL, client and server
certificates, alternate forms of authentication, interoperation with other
DAV clients, our libraries promote integration with other tools, etc.

That's off the top of my head :-) And all advantages for SVN at the expense
of arch :-) I'm sure there are more alternative benefits which are not
shared by arch.

As Billy states, each has advantages (and disadvantages wrt. the other). Any
document can be slanted to support one or the other.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org