I’d like to touch some philosophical topics here.
First of all, I want to thank all of the BitKeeper developers for their decision to make it free. I know that this is a difficult time for BitMover, so this decision is especially appreciated.
There are discussions in social networks about that decision and the BitKeeper’s future in general. There are insightful opinions and superficial ones as well.
I’ve seen Larry’s comments that he dislikes the way FOSS is killing good commercial projects by copying and competing with them. This could be directed to free markets as well. But the truth is the FOSS projects don’t kill only the businesses - they actually kill all competing FOSS projects too. There were Monotone, Codeville, Arch/TLA etc. before Git took over the world. Now they all are technically dead. And it’s not a competition in a classical sense - there is no market share. There is no market at all, because nobody is selling nothing. Were they all inferior? Yes, Git has some strong points, but I think it’s not a primary reason. That’s all about crowds and psychology, not about money or technology. Git won because of the personal influence of his authors and early adopters. Everyone else just want to be on the winning side and rip all the usual benefits.
What are you guys think about the evolution? I mean, what could be a strategy to attract new developers to the project despite these trends? The technical superiority doesn’t mean that much, there should be something else. What could it be?
Why are people so fond of novelties despite the good things they already have? Did they already get everything useful from it? Should they always abandon the good for the best? How a good ideas can be preserved for the future and won’t die in some dusty drawer?
I’m really interested in your thoughts on the subject.