[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mercurial vs. git
From: |
Arne Babenhauserheide |
Subject: |
Re: Mercurial vs. git |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:38:57 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.12.3 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.3.3; x86_64; ; ) |
Hi Olaf,
Am Dienstag, 10. November 2009 15:11:26 schrieb olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net:
> > My opinion is that there's quite a neat sweet spot between the two
> > extremes -
>
> I don't believe this. There is a good reason why for most tasks, there
> are both "simple" programs for casual users and complex programs for
> "professionals". I don't see why revision control would be different.
Well, there's Photoshop - and it doesn't yet have a real competitor in free
software. Though Gimp is almost as powerful, it is much harder to use for
newcomers. Give Photoshop to a newbie, and you'll see him/her working at once.
Try that with Gimp, and after a few minutes you'll have a confused user.
I think the reason why there are most times pro-apps and simple programs is,
that their developers don't think usability far enough.
Best wishes,
Arne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/03
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/04
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/08
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/09
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michal Suchanek, 2009/11/09
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/10
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michal Suchanek, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git,
Arne Babenhauserheide <=
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Michael Banck, 2009/11/11
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2009/11/12
- Re: Mercurial vs. git, olafBuddenhagen, 2009/11/14