[somacert]

My interpretation of the openbsd slides are that it acts as a sort of turing test.

If you are the sort that is excessively bothered by our use of the comic-sans typeface. Then perhaps you are not a good fit for our project.

More and more, I see the the continued use of cvs as sort of the same thing. It works and it weeds out people who care more about how something is done then what is done.

[kazinator]

I developed a layer for CVS that provides directory structure versioning, symbolic links and execute permissions. Plus more: branches with merge tracking workflow for repeated merges, and a grab command that imports snapshots, identifying renamed/moved files, with symlink tracking.

That was 17 years ago.

People still using CVS in 2019 and not taking advantage of Meta-CVS are in a pretty special category.

[sitkack]

https://web.archive.org/web/20061230063314/http://users.foot...

This is sounds awesome. Would you suggest CVS or SVN for new deployments?

[kazinator]

The web page for this is alive, actually:

http://www.kylheku.com/~kaz/mcvs.html

I added the missing 1.1.98 tarball. Also, just tagged 1.2 which picks up some subsequent changes. (Last time anything was touched was 2014).

I wouldn't recommend CVS or SVN for any new deployments.

Even with Meta-CVS, CVS still sucks at the infrastructural level: the branching model and so on.

Meta-CVS has better support than Git for tracking changes in the directory structure, but that's not enough to offset the downside of being based on CVS.

Someone should port Meta-CVS to Git.

[lone_haxx0r]

> If you are the sort that is excessively bothered by our use of the comic-sans typeface. Then perhaps you are not a good fit for our project.

This is exactly what happened to me. I was thinking about installing OpenBSD, but then watched a presentation were Theo used Comic Sans and it put me off the whole project. The thing is: every OS has specific details turning me away from them: Linux, the BSDs, Windows, Android, MacOS.

Maybe I should stop using computers altogether, or maybe I should go with the flow and accept that everything and everyone in this world is mediocre and being a perfectionist is a fatal weakness.

[copperx]

The brightest and most productive people I've known can turn off perfectionism at will. Or more accurately, they accept mediocre input from others to find the diamond in the rough. They also accept mediocrity in the process; they don't care if they're brute forcing a part of the solution as long as they know that all of the pieces of the big picture are in place. In other words, they focus on the right thing.

Then, they turn perfectionism on when it comes to their output. They make sure their writing is impeccable and that communication is clear, precise, and efficient.

Unfocused perfectionism is a curse. It's a cause or a symptom of self-sabotage. Probably both.