my point is that even superior products can die if not managed
correctly. if the SVN developers do not feel compelled to ensure that
SVN is compatible with VS, VS .NET, and any other tool that may have a
problem with the .svn format because 'it is not our problem', it is not
being managed correctly.
-alvin
rbb@rkbloom.net wrote:
> Quoting Alvin Thompson <al@thompsonlogic.com>:
>
>
>>Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>>I do not agree that "this list" has shown having a .svn directory to be
>>>a major limitation. Perhaps for you and a small (but vocal) minority,
>>>but not for the majority of the list.
>>
>>actually, i use linux and don't have a problem at all. but i understand
>>that there is more to this than having it work adequately for me; if
>>this product is to be adopted beyond a small niche of developers it must
>>be made to work well with any/all mainstream products. it's a good
>>product, and i want to see that the benefits of this good product are
>>available to as many people as possible. having the attitude, 'it works
>>for me so i don't care about anyone else' is not likely to give some
>>project lead a warm, fuzzy feeling when evaluating which VCS to use.
>>
>>no doubt, SVN is a technically superior product. but many technically
>>superior products have gone by the wayside because they didn't play well
>>with existing, 'inferior' products (where's my OS2 disk?).
>
>
> OS/2 didn't die because it didn't interoperate well with 'inferior' products.
> OS/2 died becaue IBM doesn't know how to market to the masses. IBM has just
> recently learned how to do marketing, with the newest e-business tv ads. Most
> people within IBM accept that OS/2 died for completely non-technical reasons.
>
> Ryan
--
Alvin Thompson
Navy: 34
Army: 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 8 23:59:05 2004