Reply to post: Re: "has ever used Visual Sourcesafe."

There once was a biz called Bitbucket, that told Mercurial to suck it. Now devs are dejected, their code soon ejected

LDS Silver badge

Re: "has ever used Visual Sourcesafe."

I wasn't defending it as a great tool. I just said it was better than no VCS at all.

It had issues that could be kept under control with some work by the administrator. Just like some older shared-file based db engines that could corrupt data as well more often than needed. It didn't stop people to use dbBase and its ilk, in an era when RDBMS were outside the reach of many.

About my "technobabble", evidently you don't know VSS was built on SMB and thereby had all the issues file-sharing access can have over a network for atomic operations.

CVS could corrupt RCS files too, especially if you attempted to run it on shares as well.

In the second half of 1990s, most systems and networks were much more brittle and less reliable. While NTFS had already journaling, FAT had not, and even Linux had to wait for EXT3.

It's your real-life experience that looks quite limited.

We were lucky to have already a fully switched network, reliable redundant hardware, and systems were carefully maintained, so it probably minimized our issues. Your mileage may vary.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019