From: Earle Martin Date: 15:21 on 10 Sep 2007 Subject: Dear Perforce: fuck you. I saw this on the intertubes and immediately thought, dear friends, of you. "Dear Perforce: Fuck you. Fuck you, you miserable, untrustworthy, misleading, overpriced bastard. I hope your office goes up in flames along with all your off-site backups. I pray that some open source product that actually works is embraced by all the major companies and drives you out of business. I hope that no other company is duped by your salespeople into thinking you have something even remotely close in quality to the ancient and craptastic product known as CVS. Never before have I experienced so much pain in the most simplistic of version control tasks as I have since starting to work at a company that made the mistake of considering you you." http://weblog.masukomi.org/2007/8/31/dear-perforce-fuck-you
From: jrodman Date: 16:30 on 10 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:21:35PM +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > I saw this on the intertubes and immediately thought, dear friends, of > you. I feel this rant is roughly accurate. The tools do have a long list of warts, and I have experienced unfixable repo munging with Perforce. I really love some aspects of the how the main use-case works for simple edit and submit, I think they got some usability issues dead-on, but I won't trust any of my data to it. But I think he missed the best part. The datastore is essentially proprietary and undocumented. If a problem occurs with your datastore (and this does happen, and you may take time to realize), probably no one can fix it. Ever. -josh
From: Marco Von Ballmoos Date: 22:54 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. On Sep 10, 2007, at 17:30, jrodman@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:21:35PM +0100, Earle Martin wrote: > I feel this rant is roughly accurate. The tools do have a long > list of > warts, and I have experienced unfixable repo munging with Perforce. I > really love some aspects of the how the main use-case works for simple > edit and submit, I think they got some usability issues dead-on, but I > won't trust any of my data to it. I've had much better luck with Perforce and have never lost data in about a decade or use. I got sucked in by changelists and never looked back, but since this is about hating software: - Renaming files is an understandable kludge considering their system, but stop bothering me with it and just let me drag & drop them to their new location already - "Check Consistency", "Reconcile Offline Work", "Diff against version in Local Folder". Wonderful. Make it more obvious and integrate a damned offline workflow into the GUI instead of assuming that the server is always connected. > The datastore is essentially proprietary and undocumented. If a > problem > occurs with your datastore (and this does happen, and you may take > time > to realize), probably no one can fix it. Ever. Probably the metadata can't be saved or restored, but the files are in RCS format and gzipped. -- Marco Von Ballmoos http://earthli.com - Home of the earthli WebCore; PHP web sites made simple.
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi Date: 00:52 on 12 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. about a decade or use. I got sucked in by changelists and never > looked back, but since this is about hating software: > > - Renaming files is an understandable kludge considering their > system, but stop bothering me with it and just let me drag & drop > them to their new location already I've been using perforce in various projects for not quite yet a decade, and I have no idea what is this fraganflop you speak of... I guess I should count myself lucky. > - "Check Consistency", "Reconcile Offline Work", "Diff against > version in Local Folder". Wonderful. Make it more obvious and > integrate a damned offline workflow into the GUI instead of assuming > that the server is always connected. > >
From: Peter da Silva Date: 17:01 on 10 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. On the other hand, I would REALLY like to know why SVN requires half a dozen extended HTTP commands when pretty much everyone else in the entire world manages to get by using little more than GET and POST. I would love to have the opportunity to hate SVN instead of CVS, but I'm buggered if I'm going to put myself in the position of begging some IT guy to upgrade their HTTP proxy so I can get to my source code. Yes, I'm sure I can tunnel it over SSH but some IT guys get sarcastic about contractors who leave SSH tunnels around. CVS at least only fires up SSH when it needs it. If you reply with an explanation of the details, and it's entertainingly hateful, feel free to include hates-software. If they actually have some legitimate reason to use pointless HTTP extensions just send it to me... :) (note, "the guy who write it was excited by or involved in developing said extensions" would not be a legitimate reason. "they couldn't possibly put X, Y, or Z in the URI, header, or body of a request" would be, but it better be "impossible" not just "inelegant" or "inconvenient")
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 01:08 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 11:01 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote: > On the other hand, I would REALLY like to know why SVN requires half > a dozen extended HTTP commands when pretty much everyone else in the > entire world manages to get by using little more than GET and POST. I > would love to have the opportunity to hate SVN instead of CVS, but > I'm buggered if I'm going to put myself in the position of begging > some IT guy to upgrade their HTTP proxy so I can get to my source code. > > Yes, I'm sure I can tunnel it over SSH but some IT guys get sarcastic > about contractors who leave SSH tunnels around. CVS at least only > fires up SSH when it needs it. HTTPS :) Martin.
From: Ann Barcomb Date: 01:18 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Martin Ebourne wrote: >> Yes, I'm sure I can tunnel it over SSH but some IT guys get sarcastic >> about contractors who leave SSH tunnels around. CVS at least only >> fires up SSH when it needs it. > > HTTPS :) Doesn't it require Apache 2? At least that was the reason I got for not using HTTPS for SVN when I requested it.
From: Michael G Schwern Date: 01:33 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. Ann Barcomb wrote: > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Martin Ebourne wrote: > >>> Yes, I'm sure I can tunnel it over SSH but some IT guys get sarcastic >>> about contractors who leave SSH tunnels around. CVS at least only >>> fires up SSH when it needs it. >> >> HTTPS :) > > Doesn't it require Apache 2? At least that was the reason I got for > not using HTTPS for SVN when I requested it. SVN over HTTP requires mod_dav_svn which requires Apache 2. Fortunately, for those who fear change, you can run Apache 1 and 2 side by side. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html Or just use svnserve + ssh. Or svnserve + a tunnel. Or just svnserve.
From: Ann Barcomb Date: 02:25 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. >> Doesn't it require Apache 2? At least that was the reason I got for >> not using HTTPS for SVN when I requested it. > > SVN over HTTP requires mod_dav_svn which requires Apache 2. Fortunately, for > those who fear change, you can run Apache 1 and 2 side by side. > http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html It's more that OpenBSD doesn't support Apache 2; it doesn't run in a chroot jail like their Apache 1 fork does. > Or just use svnserve + ssh. Or svnserve + a tunnel. Or just svnserve. That's what I'm using now, but I don't really like the passwords being in plain text with svnserve.
From: Michael G Schwern Date: 02:58 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. Ann Barcomb wrote: >>> Doesn't it require Apache 2? At least that was the reason I got for >>> not using HTTPS for SVN when I requested it. >> >> SVN over HTTP requires mod_dav_svn which requires Apache 2. >> Fortunately, for >> those who fear change, you can run Apache 1 and 2 side by side. >> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html > > It's more that OpenBSD doesn't support Apache 2; it doesn't run in > a chroot jail like their Apache 1 fork does. Tell your admins its time to COWBOY UP and compile some source code. Or hell, build a cheap ass server, put the repo on it and put it off in a corner. Hate security fascists.
From: Phil Pennock Date: 19:15 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. On 2007-09-10 at 18:58 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Or hell, build a cheap ass server, put the repo on it and put it off in a corner. > > Hate security fascists. Oh, well if we're off hating just software ... Hate lame-arsed developers who think that it's appropriate to entrust all the work they're paid to produce to some cheap-arsed server off in the corner without reliable disks, backup or anything else. And not just the current snapshot, no, but the entire revision history. And one where the devs control it and can fake up the entire history. Way to make the C<x>Os go to jail, there, when the SOX auditors find out about it. Hate people who're so selfish that they won't even try looking at things from the other perspective and are so cavalier with stuff when its other peoples' necks on the line. -Phil
From: Michael G Schwern Date: 22:07 on 11 Sep 2007 Subject: Re: Dear Perforce: fuck you. Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2007-09-10 at 18:58 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote: >> Or hell, build a cheap ass server, put the repo on it and put it off in a corner. >> >> Hate security fascists. > > Oh, well if we're off hating just software ... > > Hate lame-arsed developers who think that it's appropriate to entrust > all the work they're paid to produce to some cheap-arsed server off in > the corner without reliable disks, backup or anything else. And not > just the current snapshot, no, but the entire revision history. > > And one where the devs control it and can fake up the entire history. > Way to make the C<x>Os go to jail, there, when the SOX auditors find out > about it. > > Hate people who're so selfish that they won't even try looking at things > from the other perspective and are so cavalier with stuff when its other > peoples' necks on the line. Hate admins who use "security" as a club to refuse to upgrade anything to get my job done so that I HAVE to go run critical services off on a crappy little dev box. Grrrrrrr. While we're hating things merely related to software, why does a government program intended to stop executive fraud reach down into minor aspects of software development? At my last job with a public company, nobody seemed to know what is necessary to be SOX compliant. They just slavishly went with whatever their auditor said to do. "OH GOD, DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING! IT MIGHT NOT PASS THE NEXT SOX AUDIT!!" It was paralyzing. And for some reason QA was put in charge. The NON TECHNICAL QA group headed by an ex-DoD guy. Oh god the paperwork. QA people were signing off on feature changes and code they don't know how to read. We had to push little pieces of paper around and get them signed by managers to make changes AND WE ALREADY HAD AN ELECTRONIC CHANGE TRACKING SYSTEM! Hell, we nearly had to PRINT OUT DIFFS of each change and STORE THEM IN A CABINET before we convinced them of the lunacy of that plan. Oh yes, I've dealt with SOX. I hate it with the firey passion of a million burning shares of Enron stock. I think twice before ever working for a public company in the US again. I've also secured CVS and SVN servers against developer tweaking, so nyah. ;)
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi