It's pretty hard to take anything Eric S Raymond says seriously, and pretty revolting to look at so many of the things he has said, and he's certainly not easy to work with, so why would you recommend his software?
As you surely know, Eric S Raymond has a long well documented track record of wildly inaccurate claims and outright racism and misogyny, and he regularly inflates and exaggerates his technical competency and achievements.
Thomas Ptacek actually raised $100,000 to stop himself from tweeting vile ESR quotes: he actually raised money to cancel HIMSELF! I bet that's a lot more than ESR has raised on his SRC fundraising page that you linked to and endorsed.
ESR> Unfortunately, this doesn't cover the BLM crowd, which would have an average IQ of about 85 if it's statistically representative of Americans blacks as a whole. I've never tried to train anyone that dim and wouldn't want to.
> I asked some friends, who tend to be quite nerdy but are mostly not programmers. The only response so far is Ada Lovelace.
ESR> Figures. She doesn't deserve that reputation; "the first programmer" is pure hype created by political animals desperate to conjure up female role models.
ESR> I’m wondering about this because my wife Cathy asked me a simple question last night, and I realized I didn’t have an answer to it. “Are you” she asked “the most famous programmer in the world?” This was a question which I had, believe it or not, never thought about before. But it’s a reasonable one to ask, given recent evidence – notably, the unexpected success of my Patreon page. This is relevant because Patreon is mainly an arts-funding site – it’s clearly not designed for or by techies.
Man, that is almost a textbook example of an ad hominem attack.
I try to recommend some useful software, and you go on an unrelated rant about its author, in an obvious attempt to have him cancelled and all his works expunged.
I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false, but this is not the time and place for it. Take your ESR-bashing somewhere else.
I want people to know about him, and what he's said. And so does he, even more than I do! So I'm doing him a favor, literally spreading his own words, and giving him a platform, not canceling him.
You linked to his appeal for financial support. So did you already know all about him when you recommended his software, or were those quotes and his reputation for misogyny and racism news to you?
You seem pretty Dunning-Kruger sure of yourself that all of my claims and evidence I linked to about ESR are "either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false", but you're wrong, so of course you don't want to discuss the person whose project and appeal for financial donations you linked to and endorsed.
What are you even talking about? You are too discussing ESR here. You're the one who brought him up in the first place, and linked to his SRC fund raising page. How did I "trap" you into suddenly trying to change the subject? Who did I ask to "cancel" you? That's "physically impossible", as you would say. ;)
Again: did you already know about ESR's racism and misogyny and narcissism, or not? Were those quotes news to you? Do you still dispute them? Is asking you those questions a "trap" that will "cancel" you if you answer, so now you want to change the subject?
You're on record as having submitted two of his other ridiculously arrogant articles to Hacker News: "How to Become a Hacker" (3 points by teddyh on March 24, 2016), and "Things Every Hacker Once Knew" (7 points by teddyh on Jan 26, 2017), although there were few points and no comments on either. That proves you've read his articles and known of him for at least five years, and you're obviously a fan of his. So let's hear your side of the story, instead of changing the subject or canceling you, please.
Were you seriously suggesting that ESR would be a good person to collaborate with on developing a source code control system, despite all the evidence? Please explain why. Do you still endorse contributing to his fundraising campaign that you linked to? Have you put your money where your mouth is by contributing to it yourself?
I believe Thomas Ptacek's self-cancelation fundraising campaign is over, but it was a great idea, so how much will you pay me to cancel myself, stop quoting ESR, and change the subject?
Funny how most of the people whining about cancel culture actually want to cancel other people themselves, while playing the victim, because they have reprehensible believes they can't defend, and don't want to face the consequences of their own words and deeds.
>Opinion: Nobody loves ‘cancel culture’ more than Republicans do
>America, conservatives will tell you, is under siege by “cancel culture.” What they won’t tell you is that they couldn’t be happier about it, since it gives them a handy comeback to any criticism, and helps feed their supporters’ sense of victimization.
>Consider the defense Donald Trump Jr. offered of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s jaunt to Cancun while millions of his Texas constituents froze without power.
>“The optics of that right now isn’t ideal,” Trump Jr. admitted in a video posted to social media, but “I’m not going to jump on this bandwagon of trying to cancel the guy.” Because Cruz is the real victim here.
> You're the one who brought him up in the first place,
No, I never mentioned him until you did.
> and linked to his fund raising page.
No, I did not. I only linked to one page, the page of the SRC project, which is what I wanted to suggest that people might want to evaluate as an alternative to RCS.
> How did I "trap" you into suddenly trying to change the subject? Who did I ask to "cancel" you? That's "physically impossible", as you would say. ;)
[…]
> Is asking you that a "trap" that will "cancel" you if you answer?
Yes. As is obvious to any but the most casual observer.
> > America, conservatives will tell you, is under siege by “cancel culture.” What they won’t tell you is that they couldn’t be happier about it, since it gives them a handy comeback to any criticism, and helps feed their supporters’ sense of victimization.
Which one of us is trying to cancel anyone right now? Me or you? It’s quite obviously you who’s first trying to cancel ESR for some things unrelated to the software which I suggested, and you are then also trying to get me to argue about ESR, which would make me an easy target for suggesting that I would then somehow be on ESR’s side, responsible for ESR’s opinions and thereby making me eligble for cancellation as well.
EDIT:
> You're on record as having submitted two of his other ridiculously arrogant articles to Hacker News […] you're obviously a fan of his. […] Were you seriously suggesting that ESR would be a good person to collaborate with on developing a source code control system, despite all the evidence? Please explain why. Do you still endorse contributing to his fundraising campaign that you linked to?
Apparently having submitted articles by ESR three years ago is enough to get me smeared as supporting whatever ESR is being accused of. I’m feeling seriously stalked here.
(You neglect to mention that I have also submitted to HN your story about Sun Microsystems PizzaTool. Does this mean that I also endorse your opinions?)
Trying to engage you in a conversation is not canceling you, buddy. If you admit it's obvious to the most casual observer that your answer will trap you, then it also must be obvious what your answer would be, so why not admit that too?
If you don't want people to discuss ESR, then you're the one who is canceling instead of defending him.
More than half the word count on the page you linked to was dedicated to fundraising, so yes, it was a fundraising page.
In response to my evidence, you confidently claimed "I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false", but you failed to refute what I said, and refused to discuss it further.
Do you also accuse me of lying about the fact that you've submitted two other links to his pretentious "Hacker" articles to Hacker News in the past?
It sure sounds like you're afraid of being associated with ESR, and desperate to change the subject that you brought up, to the most casual observer.
> More than half the word count on the page you linked to was dedicated to fundraising, so yes, it was a fundraising page.
Regardless of the contents of the web page, it is the official home page for the project; what else was I going to link to? I also disagree about your characterization of the page; I invite anyone to read the page themselves to see if they agree with your description.
> you failed to refute what I said, and refused to discuss it further.
Yes. Because this is not the time or place for it. This is supposed to be about SCCS.
Even if it were somehow appropriate, I have more sense than to try and defeat your Gish gallop. And even though I didn’t bite, you were quick to move on to attacking me:
> It sure sounds like you're afraid of being associated with ESR, and desperate to change the subject that you brought up, to the most casual observer.
It sure sounds like you’re desperate to both attack ESR at any opportunity and also to smear any opposition as “fans” of ESR who must obviously support his views. At this stage, I am more worried about being associated with you. I did submit an article of yours too, you know.
You certainly could have linked to the actual official gitlab page of the project itself, instead of ESR's unofficial fundraising page on his own personal web site. You're the one who dragged ESR into it, when you should have pointed directly to the official project, not one person's fundraising page.
And yes, there actually are more words on that unofficial personal page you linked to about fundraising than about SCR itself, so what I said is not a mischaracterization. Go count them. I get 186 fundraising : 104 SCR, or 65% fundraising (not counting punctuation as white space, so a url counts as one word -- maybe I'm off by one or two, but it was a free and fair election). What do you count?
The official gitlab page you should have linked to doesn't have any fundraising appeals or links at all (0% fundraising, 100% SCR), but it does have the most recent version. Why would you point to an out-of-date snapshot of the project, instead of the live latest version?
It was originally a Gish Gallop when ESR said those words in the first place, because he says such things again and again, but it's only a Gish Gallop if it's not true.
But ESR's own words I quoted are all actual things he really said, as unbelievable as it may be to you. You baselessly accused me of lying about it, then repeatedly refused to prove I'm wrong, after confidently claiming without evidence that "I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false".
There are a hell of a lot more vile ESR quotes that support my point, so many in fact that people have donated $100,000 to make Thomas Ptacek stop posting them, and you should be grateful I only posted a few. Literally quoting somebody's own words is not a "Gish Gallop", nor "canceling" them.
You're biting again and again, yet still failing to answer the simple questions that you're afraid will "trap" you into admitting something you obviously don't want to say. Do you still accuse me of lying about those ESR quotes and word counts, or not? Then prove it, or apologize for falsely calling me a liar.
I could go on, as I disagree with most of what you write, but, man, is this the wrong forum for it. I come here to talk about other things, in this case SCCS, not to have flame wars with you.
That wasn't the official home page of the project, it was his personal fundraising page, with more words dedicated to fundraising than anything else. The official home page of the project is on gitlab, where the most recent sources, issue tracking, and history are.
Asking you to prove what you claimed is not canceling you.
>I never accused you of lying.
>"I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false" -teddyh
Then either explain away all of the quotes of him saying racist and sexist shit as inconsequential, or prove he didn't say what I quoted. Has he ever claimed someone broke into his web site and planted all those racist misogynistic words attributed to his name, that he's never gotten around to removing?
For example: Does this make your skin crawl, or do you agree with his defense of Harvey Weinstein? "Is the casting couch fair trade?"
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7701
Do you have any idea how many racist and sexist remarks he's made that you're going to have to explain away as inconsequential? Have you ever even looked at the comments section of his blog on his web site, or did you ever read his Google+ account, or see any of the many screen snapshots posted to twitter? You've sure got a lot of work cut out for you.
The fact that you are so sure you can explain all that filth away as inconsequential, but refuse to actually do so, sure says a lot about you.
I'm not afraid of Eric S Raymond ripping my head off, and I certainly didn't create him. He did make a death threat to Bruce Perens, but never followed through with it, and has been mercilessly mocked and ridiculed about it ever since.
I've known ESR for at least 35 years, and he hasn't changed from being a smarmy jerk, he's just gotten much worse, especially after 9/11, when his racism and islamophobia and violent death threats really started erupting. But he's always been deeply sexist, for as long as I've known him.
>"And for any agents or proxy of the regime interested in asking me questions face to face, I’ve got some bullets slathered in pork fat to make you feel extra special welcome." -Eric S Raymond
>"A clash of civilizations driven by the failure of Islamic/Arab culture (though I would stress the problem of the Islamic commandment to jihad more than he does). I think he [Steven den Beste] is also right to say that our long-term objective must be to break, crush and eventually destroy this culture, because we can't live on the same planet with people who both carry those memes and have access to weapons of mass destruction. They will hate us and seek to destroy us not for what we've done but for what we are." -Eric S Raymond
>"In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color." -Eric S Raymond
>"When I hear the words "social responsibility", I want to reach for my gun." -Eric S Raymond
And in all that time he's never written any impressive code, nor performed any noteworthy hacks, he just talks and talks and talks. He has made his entire career out of trying to tear down RMS and the Free Software Foundation, not doing anything constructive.
One good example of the problem with his "technical" works and his lack of actual experience with the things he likes to talk about so much, is that he makes and promotes outrageously incorrect claims like Linus's Law, which ESR confabulated himself, but misleadingly attributed "in honor of" Linus Torvalds, who never said that:
src is a cute wrapper for rcs, but it has all of the same limitations of rcs, plus a few extra, so I hope you'd consider sccs/cssc if you wanted something "like rcs" but not.
fossil is also a really interesting choice for an "easy setup" version control system, and it's definitely worth considering if you're looking at sccs/cssc: I've used it to log configuration changes for an application, the "push" functionality to centralise changes from tenants, and then I can store issues/tickets (and other metadata) on the configuration changes centrally.
Wow, he was 66 when he authored an O'Reilly book on developing Chrome apps. That's very impressive. I wonder if I could have the same curiosity on future technologies when I reach that age.
The idea that technology is a place for young people is simply a harmful myth as far as I can tell. Almost all of the most skilled developers I've met IRL are over 40.
> .. Wisdom is cultivated by and linked to curiosity [2], but this link has not received a large amount of attention in lifespan development research. Moreover, research on aging populations has often overlooked the role of curiosity in aging [3], despite curiosity demonstrating connections to enhancements in memory, health, wellbeing, and longevity [3,4,5]. Unfortunately, curiosity is also known to decline as individuals get older [3], and many adults cease to ask big and beautiful questions as they age [6]. ...
Following on from some discussions about SCM history on here over the weekend I was poking around in the history of things too.
The original 1986 CVS¹ is quite interesting from a historical prospective. Given that the implementation is just a bunch of scripts on top of RCS you can see how it plumbed together really easily.
There is a note¹ on Grune's site, that explains the relationship between the scripts and the system people would more likely recognise as CVS(assuming you're old enough to recognise it at all).
Edit: And I guess you might not recognise the archives in the first footnote either. They're shar files which can be extracted using the files as a script or more simply with unshar from sharutils³.
This amazing paper holds a special place in my heart: my marked up 1992 copy serving me well when working as a graph and weave engineer on BitKeeper.
To me, SCCS is both a marvel and a disappointment. A marvel because its graph and weave were so far ahead of its time. A disappointment is because for the most part, time didn't build on the innovations, with TeamWare and BitKeeper among the exceptions.
Take the graph: storing history not just as a version graph, but also as a collection of deltas. The 3rd paragraph from end of section II:
"The second kind of special delta is one which, when applied, explicitly forces others deltas to be applied or not, by either including or excluding them. A list of deltas to be included or excluded is specified when such a delta is created. The exclusion facility is most often used simply to correct mistakes. For example if, after delta 3.14 is added, it is found to be undesirable, the programmer might add delta 3.15 which excludes it. If the module is accessed at level 3.14, delta 3.14 itself would be applied. If the module is accessed at a level 3.15, though, delta 3.14 would not be applied. From the viewpoint of control, this form of error correction is safer than allowing the programmer to actually delete a delta, since no potentially necessary information is lost."
Such advanced thinking from 1975! As for the for the brilliance of the weave, ... [1 - adding to mmastrac's reference of J. Schilling's wonderful SCCS pages]
After seeing luckydude answer questions on the little thread the other evening, I'm wondering what other things the SCCS/BK folk think we should be doing better. What have we forgotten?
luckydude mentioned real per-file history for example¹, and that pushed me to remember per-file comments as the thing I'd want back.
A reasonable direction to go, and I'll give sort of a non-response. For me, it's to take some time to absorb and celebrate this paper. If I go too quickly to doing better, I tend to miss the amazing. It also makes it easier for me to talk about other's contributions (like luckydude's many) to the state of the art, as then get into what could be better.
The 4th paragraph from the end of section II talks about optional deltas. It's like ifdefs in a version control system: many version can be checkout with or without some of the deltas. While not part of many version control systems, it's an interesting idea explored in Andreas Zeller's Feature Logic PhD work 20 years later [1].
Zeller's design seems to be addressed at least in part by darcs/pijul using the methods described in David Roundy's Theory of Patches¹. A virtual filesystem seems like an especially nice way to solve the interface issues that would arise too.
It strikes me that I treat the result of git-rerere as a ridiculously weak version of this. I'll occasionally carry an unwanted integration branch simply to handle changes that could be managed correctly if there was a better way to express relationships in my tools. Having the functionality baked in to the graph with the associated strictness, and available across clone boundaries would be great.
> It strikes me that I treat the result of git-rerere as a ridiculously weak version of this
I'm the main author of Pijul, and rerere has been my main argument in every discussion about Pijul to explain how everybody is trying to simulate commutation instead of really achieving it.
This is the first time I hear it from somebody else. THANKS!
Also, Darcs' theory doesn't really work around conflicts. Also, until recently, applying a patch in Darcs could take a time exponential in the size of history. It seems to be quadratic in the last few versions (Pijul is in log of the size of history).
If you're familiar with the Zeller paper... Was I right in believing that the approach you're using in pijul allows the use of optional deltas as Zeller's paper describes? I was planning on digging around a little more next weekend, but if you happen to know.
It definitely appears to be a natural extension of the channels feature, but it isn't clear to me that you can express the actual relationship Zeller describes.
I'm not familiar with that thesis. Pijul uses deltas everywhere (but a special form of deltas, storing more information than the output of `diff`), plus tricks to make that fast.
Branch operations should be first-class transactions in a revision control system. In Git, if you rename branch "foo" to "bar" there's even less record-keeping in place than changes to files. Instead, there should be a first class transaction in the repo history that represents this change.
One thing only lightly hinted on is how sccs was designed to tightly couple the source files to the output object files. Imagine super fine grain symbol versioning + loads of metadata for large project management tools. There was also stuff related to version constraints, security, and dynamic dispatching. They had a very different definition of "source control". I still see some odd artifacts of it pop up every so often in AIX object files.
42 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 82.1 ms ] threadAs you surely know, Eric S Raymond has a long well documented track record of wildly inaccurate claims and outright racism and misogyny, and he regularly inflates and exaggerates his technical competency and achievements.
Thomas Ptacek actually raised $100,000 to stop himself from tweeting vile ESR quotes: he actually raised money to cancel HIMSELF! I bet that's a lot more than ESR has raised on his SRC fundraising page that you linked to and endorsed.
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/966859542792458240
Some choice quotes (you can pay me to stop, too!):
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/816449724127608833
ESR> Unfortunately, this doesn't cover the BLM crowd, which would have an average IQ of about 85 if it's statistically representative of Americans blacks as a whole. I've never tried to train anyone that dim and wouldn't want to.
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/657333910846742528
https://www.dropbox.com/s/55ut8psqeb20tnj/Screenshot%202015-...
> I asked some friends, who tend to be quite nerdy but are mostly not programmers. The only response so far is Ada Lovelace.
ESR> Figures. She doesn't deserve that reputation; "the first programmer" is pure hype created by political animals desperate to conjure up female role models.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13147038
ESR> I’m wondering about this because my wife Cathy asked me a simple question last night, and I realized I didn’t have an answer to it. “Are you” she asked “the most famous programmer in the world?” This was a question which I had, believe it or not, never thought about before. But it’s a reasonable one to ask, given recent evidence – notably, the unexpected success of my Patreon page. This is relevant because Patreon is mainly an arts-funding site – it’s clearly not designed for or by techies.
I try to recommend some useful software, and you go on an unrelated rant about its author, in an obvious attempt to have him cancelled and all his works expunged.
I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false, but this is not the time and place for it. Take your ESR-bashing somewhere else.
You linked to his appeal for financial support. So did you already know all about him when you recommended his software, or were those quotes and his reputation for misogyny and racism news to you?
You seem pretty Dunning-Kruger sure of yourself that all of my claims and evidence I linked to about ESR are "either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false", but you're wrong, so of course you don't want to discuss the person whose project and appeal for financial donations you linked to and endorsed.
I’m not discussing ESR here. I’m discussing you, and your transparent attempt to trap me and try and have me cancelled as well.
Again: did you already know about ESR's racism and misogyny and narcissism, or not? Were those quotes news to you? Do you still dispute them? Is asking you those questions a "trap" that will "cancel" you if you answer, so now you want to change the subject?
You're on record as having submitted two of his other ridiculously arrogant articles to Hacker News: "How to Become a Hacker" (3 points by teddyh on March 24, 2016), and "Things Every Hacker Once Knew" (7 points by teddyh on Jan 26, 2017), although there were few points and no comments on either. That proves you've read his articles and known of him for at least five years, and you're obviously a fan of his. So let's hear your side of the story, instead of changing the subject or canceling you, please.
Were you seriously suggesting that ESR would be a good person to collaborate with on developing a source code control system, despite all the evidence? Please explain why. Do you still endorse contributing to his fundraising campaign that you linked to? Have you put your money where your mouth is by contributing to it yourself?
I believe Thomas Ptacek's self-cancelation fundraising campaign is over, but it was a great idea, so how much will you pay me to cancel myself, stop quoting ESR, and change the subject?
Funny how most of the people whining about cancel culture actually want to cancel other people themselves, while playing the victim, because they have reprehensible believes they can't defend, and don't want to face the consequences of their own words and deeds.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/19/nobody-lo...
>Opinion: Nobody loves ‘cancel culture’ more than Republicans do
>America, conservatives will tell you, is under siege by “cancel culture.” What they won’t tell you is that they couldn’t be happier about it, since it gives them a handy comeback to any criticism, and helps feed their supporters’ sense of victimization.
>Consider the defense Donald Trump Jr. offered of Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s jaunt to Cancun while millions of his Texas constituents froze without power.
>“The optics of that right now isn’t ideal,” Trump Jr. admitted in a video posted to social media, but “I’m not going to jump on this bandwagon of trying to cancel the guy.” Because Cruz is the real victim here.
No, I am not.
> You're the one who brought him up in the first place,
No, I never mentioned him until you did.
> and linked to his fund raising page.
No, I did not. I only linked to one page, the page of the SRC project, which is what I wanted to suggest that people might want to evaluate as an alternative to RCS.
> How did I "trap" you into suddenly trying to change the subject? Who did I ask to "cancel" you? That's "physically impossible", as you would say. ;)
[…]
> Is asking you that a "trap" that will "cancel" you if you answer?
Yes. As is obvious to any but the most casual observer.
> > America, conservatives will tell you, is under siege by “cancel culture.” What they won’t tell you is that they couldn’t be happier about it, since it gives them a handy comeback to any criticism, and helps feed their supporters’ sense of victimization.
Which one of us is trying to cancel anyone right now? Me or you? It’s quite obviously you who’s first trying to cancel ESR for some things unrelated to the software which I suggested, and you are then also trying to get me to argue about ESR, which would make me an easy target for suggesting that I would then somehow be on ESR’s side, responsible for ESR’s opinions and thereby making me eligble for cancellation as well.
EDIT:
> You're on record as having submitted two of his other ridiculously arrogant articles to Hacker News […] you're obviously a fan of his. […] Were you seriously suggesting that ESR would be a good person to collaborate with on developing a source code control system, despite all the evidence? Please explain why. Do you still endorse contributing to his fundraising campaign that you linked to?
Apparently having submitted articles by ESR three years ago is enough to get me smeared as supporting whatever ESR is being accused of. I’m feeling seriously stalked here.
(You neglect to mention that I have also submitted to HN your story about Sun Microsystems PizzaTool. Does this mean that I also endorse your opinions?)
If you don't want people to discuss ESR, then you're the one who is canceling instead of defending him.
More than half the word count on the page you linked to was dedicated to fundraising, so yes, it was a fundraising page.
In response to my evidence, you confidently claimed "I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false", but you failed to refute what I said, and refused to discuss it further.
Do you also accuse me of lying about the fact that you've submitted two other links to his pretentious "Hacker" articles to Hacker News in the past?
It sure sounds like you're afraid of being associated with ESR, and desperate to change the subject that you brought up, to the most casual observer.
Regardless of the contents of the web page, it is the official home page for the project; what else was I going to link to? I also disagree about your characterization of the page; I invite anyone to read the page themselves to see if they agree with your description.
> you failed to refute what I said, and refused to discuss it further.
Yes. Because this is not the time or place for it. This is supposed to be about SCCS.
Even if it were somehow appropriate, I have more sense than to try and defeat your Gish gallop. And even though I didn’t bite, you were quick to move on to attacking me:
> It sure sounds like you're afraid of being associated with ESR, and desperate to change the subject that you brought up, to the most casual observer.
It sure sounds like you’re desperate to both attack ESR at any opportunity and also to smear any opposition as “fans” of ESR who must obviously support his views. At this stage, I am more worried about being associated with you. I did submit an article of yours too, you know.
And yes, there actually are more words on that unofficial personal page you linked to about fundraising than about SCR itself, so what I said is not a mischaracterization. Go count them. I get 186 fundraising : 104 SCR, or 65% fundraising (not counting punctuation as white space, so a url counts as one word -- maybe I'm off by one or two, but it was a free and fair election). What do you count?
The official gitlab page you should have linked to doesn't have any fundraising appeals or links at all (0% fundraising, 100% SCR), but it does have the most recent version. Why would you point to an out-of-date snapshot of the project, instead of the live latest version?
It was originally a Gish Gallop when ESR said those words in the first place, because he says such things again and again, but it's only a Gish Gallop if it's not true.
But ESR's own words I quoted are all actual things he really said, as unbelievable as it may be to you. You baselessly accused me of lying about it, then repeatedly refused to prove I'm wrong, after confidently claiming without evidence that "I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false".
There are a hell of a lot more vile ESR quotes that support my point, so many in fact that people have donated $100,000 to make Thomas Ptacek stop posting them, and you should be grateful I only posted a few. Literally quoting somebody's own words is not a "Gish Gallop", nor "canceling" them.
You're biting again and again, yet still failing to answer the simple questions that you're afraid will "trap" you into admitting something you obviously don't want to say. Do you still accuse me of lying about those ESR quotes and word counts, or not? Then prove it, or apologize for falsely calling me a liar.
I could go on, as I disagree with most of what you write, but, man, is this the wrong forum for it. I come here to talk about other things, in this case SCCS, not to have flame wars with you.
> you baselessly accused me of lying about it
I never accused you of lying.
> You're biting again and again
You know, you have a point there. I’ll stop.
Asking you to prove what you claimed is not canceling you.
>I never accused you of lying.
>"I’m sure all your claims can be either explained as inconsequential or disproven as false" -teddyh
Then either explain away all of the quotes of him saying racist and sexist shit as inconsequential, or prove he didn't say what I quoted. Has he ever claimed someone broke into his web site and planted all those racist misogynistic words attributed to his name, that he's never gotten around to removing?
For example: Does this make your skin crawl, or do you agree with his defense of Harvey Weinstein? "Is the casting couch fair trade?" http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7701
Do you have any idea how many racist and sexist remarks he's made that you're going to have to explain away as inconsequential? Have you ever even looked at the comments section of his blog on his web site, or did you ever read his Google+ account, or see any of the many screen snapshots posted to twitter? You've sure got a lot of work cut out for you.
The fact that you are so sure you can explain all that filth away as inconsequential, but refuse to actually do so, sure says a lot about you.
Start explaining away and rationalizing here:
https://twitter.com/tqbf/status/816449724127608833
In terms of "cancelling" him, isn't that up to individuals who decide they do not want to use his software?
People are complex and opinions change all the time, appreciating the code someone writes has very little to do with anything else.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/1999/04/msg00623.html
The irony of Eric S Raymond threatening someone else for behaving "like that kind of disruptive asshole in public" is rich -- very rich.
Bruce Perens Dead:
https://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/cat/bruce-perens/page/10
https://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/cat/bruce-perens/page/7
https://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/terrorismistic
I've known ESR for at least 35 years, and he hasn't changed from being a smarmy jerk, he's just gotten much worse, especially after 9/11, when his racism and islamophobia and violent death threats really started erupting. But he's always been deeply sexist, for as long as I've known him.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond
>"And for any agents or proxy of the regime interested in asking me questions face to face, I’ve got some bullets slathered in pork fat to make you feel extra special welcome." -Eric S Raymond
>"A clash of civilizations driven by the failure of Islamic/Arab culture (though I would stress the problem of the Islamic commandment to jihad more than he does). I think he [Steven den Beste] is also right to say that our long-term objective must be to break, crush and eventually destroy this culture, because we can't live on the same planet with people who both carry those memes and have access to weapons of mass destruction. They will hate us and seek to destroy us not for what we've done but for what we are." -Eric S Raymond
>"In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color." -Eric S Raymond
>"When I hear the words "social responsibility", I want to reach for my gun." -Eric S Raymond
And in all that time he's never written any impressive code, nor performed any noteworthy hacks, he just talks and talks and talks. He has made his entire career out of trying to tear down RMS and the Free Software Foundation, not doing anything constructive.
One good example of the problem with his "technical" works and his lack of actual experience with the things he likes to talk about so much, is that he makes and promotes outrageously incorrect claims like Linus's Law, which ESR confabulated himself, but misleadingly attributed "in honor of" Linus Torvalds, who never said that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus's_Law
"Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."
When in fact:
Given ANY number of eye, "all" bugs are NOT shallow.
Some bugs are NEVER "shallow".
And only a FEW eyes are qualified to see some bugs, while MANY eyes are totally unqualified, including his own:
His mouth is certainly not qualified to make sweeping generali...
But you're not making any sense here.
The ego based mind set you're perpetuating isn't helping create a future that any of us wants to live in.
I am not the enemy here, neither is ESR, or even Trump.
fossil is also a really interesting choice for an "easy setup" version control system, and it's definitely worth considering if you're looking at sccs/cssc: I've used it to log configuration changes for an application, the "push" functionality to centralise changes from tenants, and then I can store issues/tickets (and other metadata) on the configuration changes centrally.
I can particularly recommend Advanced UNIX Programming (2nd Edition) even though it is a little old.
Skill level does generally increase experience.
Curiosity with the world does generally decrease with age / experience.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323716917_Curiosity...
Curiosity in old age: A possible key to achieving adaptive aging
The original 1986 CVS¹ is quite interesting from a historical prospective. Given that the implementation is just a bunch of scripts on top of RCS you can see how it plumbed together really easily.
There is a note¹ on Grune's site, that explains the relationship between the scripts and the system people would more likely recognise as CVS(assuming you're old enough to recognise it at all).
¹ https://ftp.sunet.se/mirror/archive/ftp.sunet.se/pub/usenet/...
² https://dickgrune.com/Programs/CVS.orig/CVS_BB_and_GNU
Edit: And I guess you might not recognise the archives in the first footnote either. They're shar files which can be extracted using the files as a script or more simply with unshar from sharutils³.
³ http://www.gnu.org/software/sharutils/
To me, SCCS is both a marvel and a disappointment. A marvel because its graph and weave were so far ahead of its time. A disappointment is because for the most part, time didn't build on the innovations, with TeamWare and BitKeeper among the exceptions.
Take the graph: storing history not just as a version graph, but also as a collection of deltas. The 3rd paragraph from end of section II:
"The second kind of special delta is one which, when applied, explicitly forces others deltas to be applied or not, by either including or excluding them. A list of deltas to be included or excluded is specified when such a delta is created. The exclusion facility is most often used simply to correct mistakes. For example if, after delta 3.14 is added, it is found to be undesirable, the programmer might add delta 3.15 which excludes it. If the module is accessed at level 3.14, delta 3.14 itself would be applied. If the module is accessed at a level 3.15, though, delta 3.14 would not be applied. From the viewpoint of control, this form of error correction is safer than allowing the programmer to actually delete a delta, since no potentially necessary information is lost."
Such advanced thinking from 1975! As for the for the brilliance of the weave, ... [1 - adding to mmastrac's reference of J. Schilling's wonderful SCCS pages]
[1]. http://sccs.sourceforge.net/sccs_invention.html
luckydude mentioned real per-file history for example¹, and that pushed me to remember per-file comments as the thing I'd want back.
Perhaps someone is listening.
¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26207037
The 4th paragraph from the end of section II talks about optional deltas. It's like ifdefs in a version control system: many version can be checkout with or without some of the deltas. While not part of many version control systems, it's an interesting idea explored in Andreas Zeller's Feature Logic PhD work 20 years later [1].
[1 - currently, SSL cert expired this morning; notified] https://www.st.cs.uni-saarland.de/publications/files/zeller-...
It strikes me that I treat the result of git-rerere as a ridiculously weak version of this. I'll occasionally carry an unwanted integration branch simply to handle changes that could be managed correctly if there was a better way to express relationships in my tools. Having the functionality baked in to the graph with the associated strictness, and available across clone boundaries would be great.
¹ https://www.cs.tufts.edu/~nr/cs257/archive/david-roundy/Theo...
I'm the main author of Pijul, and rerere has been my main argument in every discussion about Pijul to explain how everybody is trying to simulate commutation instead of really achieving it.
This is the first time I hear it from somebody else. THANKS!
Also, Darcs' theory doesn't really work around conflicts. Also, until recently, applying a patch in Darcs could take a time exponential in the size of history. It seems to be quadratic in the last few versions (Pijul is in log of the size of history).
It definitely appears to be a natural extension of the channels feature, but it isn't clear to me that you can express the actual relationship Zeller describes.