Author seems to assume that all software development is like Linux development and it isn't. I can't have 10 different versions of my order processing service floating around doing different things for different people.
Yea seems to ignore the obvious thing that maybe, just maybe, different teams have different needs.
Distributed source control is awesome. But closed source Devs don't use git for that feature. We use it for fast local branch and merge. We use it because it's way more ergonomical than cvs/svn. We use it because it works just as well for distributed development as it does in the single source of truth setup that we need.
Isn't his point that different people have different needs, and git was created with one typical use in mind? So maybe not everyone should use git exactly because their needs may be different? Disclaimer: not a serious programmer myself
But he starts by saying that people are using git "wrong" (or suboptimally). If git fits my needs why should I worry about how this dude or Linus or the prime emporer of gitland thinks it should be used?
I think the author has a great point about the differences between how git was "designed" to be used as compared to how it ends up being used in orgs most often. But I also balk at being told I'm using an open source tool incorrectly as a general rule.
disclaimer - I really want prime emporer of gitland to be a proper honorific.
Distributed source control is awesome. But closed source Devs don't use git for that feature. We use it for fast local branch and merge. We use it because it's way more ergonomical than cvs/svn. We use it because it works just as well for distributed development as it does in the single source of truth setup that we need.