The Apache Software Foundation has come under withering attacks lately, with accusations of its politics and bureaucracy getting in the way of its ability to foster open-source software. The common rallying cry of the Apache attackers is GitHub, a source-control system that has almost blossomed overnight into the industry's top …
Storm in a teacup, not newsworthy.
Most people don't care what someone uses for source control as long as it works for them. The only really major bonus of git over subversion is working offline, git is significantly more difficult to use.
As far as ASF forcing people to use subversion, maybe it's their source revision control of choice, but I'm fairly sure they don't force all their projects to use it, couchdb being an example. Sure they'll always be resistance from people familiar with one technology to using a new one, but I don't think it's some organized top down policy.
Often found that "which source control" ends up as just another religious argument.
Just DVCS talibans
I guess it's just Subversion disturbing them. DVCSs have generated a whole clan of talibans. Whatever and whoever don't use their god tool must be converted. Subversion becoming an Apache project should have been seen by them as if the Pope appointed the devil himself in charge of the Vatican archives. It's impossible to talk to those people.
You can't fight the man if you use the man's infrastructure, man.
Why shouldn't Apache want members to use the same infrastructure... as a developer I like that I know how things will work in advance.
And all this waffle about Git - it's just another tool, not a silver bullet.
There's nothing wrong with git, except perhaps the blurring of lines (and thus confusion) between git itself and github! It's only a tool.
But certain git advocates are a whole nother story! The vanguard of a Holy War[tm]!
This article (whilst blatantly building on the blog post of Mikeal) is totally confusing as it melds together a repository tool, and an organisation that actively promotes Open Source software that has guidelines and rules to ensure consistency and stability.
GitHub is the equivalent of SourceForge and CTO does not decide based on a 'brand' but the license terms. The post by what's his face at SeatMe about the problem with Git. i.e. how easy it is to Fork, is more of rant on forks in general that has to be tackled by every Open Source projects and made worst by the way GitHub shows forks. (unintuitive UI)
You're comparing Apples and Bears (yes an animal). What can I say? It's another article from Matt.
Apache is a cool company name. Git, however...
There ain't no such thing as Intellectual Property
It's like a Government Benefit or Militaru Intelligence, a ghost, a fantasy. Get used to it. Ideas of course can and should generate income, but not by pretending that they can have owners. Only creators and skillful users, and general consumers. The creators and skillful users need to partner up and serve and make money from the consumers. Abolish patents and copyrights - what is unenforcible is so because it is BACKWARDS and UNWANTED.
Sounds rather like something a consumer rather than a creator would say.
Non-trivial amounts of money are made by people selling the rights to their creations to a third party who is better placed to make use of them. This is not a bad thing. Do not confuse reform with abolition.
I liked this article.
So, Strobe didn't work out then eh?
Propaganda. Served with a Red Herring.
This is not about Subversion or anything else that Apache foundation is doing. It is simply a propaganda piece to promote the Apache License where "conservative organisations" can use your code freely without being obligated to provide anything in return, instead of the GPL where the developer retains control of their code outside of GPL compliant implementations.
Within the enterprise, "Apache" is tantamount to saying "safety"? No, it's tantamount to saying "web server".