I'm glad you agree, because for the rest of the equation (Tarballs > CVS > SVN), Linus agrees with me. So you see, I embody the combined wisdom of both of you, as far as version control goes.
You have his equation wrong. He says in this article that SVN is still better than CVS. And really, I would agree that tarballs are better than CVS. So the equation is more likely SVN > Tarballs > CVS. Don't put words in Linus's mouth.
Also Subversion no longer stores it's data in a database so Linus's objection in this article has been resolved.
Finally, Linus's needs are pretty unique in the world. Linus isn't satisfied with Subversion for the same reasons it might work perfectly well for you.
> He says in this article that SVN is still better than CVS.
He says SVN is better, but is more fragile (which for source control, I interpret as being worse):
SVN fixes (supposedly) those "implementation
suckiness" issues. ...
I think it's also a much more fragile setup and
there's apparently been people who lost their
entire database to corruption
Even if SVN = CVS, clearly Tarballs > SVN, according to him. His actual quote was Tarballs >> CVS. I can dig it up if you can't.
Thousands of companies (and millions of developers) use Subversion. It's 10 year old. It's an Apache project now. It's solid. It's a simple and easy to use tool that will make your life better. That's all.
Why do you say that I find this personally offensive?! You are not making a lot of sense. I'm just quoting Linus who probably had more experience with various VCSs than any of us.
