<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/03/2015 20:32, Martin Frb wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5505EC49.3000703@mfriebe.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>I'm not talking about just installing it and not
doing anything with it - that's NOT using a product, so you can't review
it based on that.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
I forget that in my reply:<br>
<br>
That is what some people do (and what I pointed out): install, but
not really use.<br>
<br>
I did *not* judge GIT on that. <br>
<br>
I did judge your statement on it, that <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre><i>As 99% of developers would tell you, Git is simply</i><i> the better product.</i></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
1) How would those none users even judge that, what value would
there statement have.<br>
2) Should they really be told that GIT was best for them?<br>
<br>
If they do not want/care to use all the features. If for example all
they want is an online backup, with access to all previous backups
(revisions): Should I tell them GIT is the best product for that
task?<br>
<br>
I am willing to believe that 99% of the developers you know / you
have asked say that (and even that, when they said it, it was
correct in the situation.)<br>
But "the developers you know / you have asked" are not a random
selected group, they are not representative of *all* developers. <br>
<br>
If you state the above, without clarification of what group of
developers, in oher word, if you refer to *all* developers then I
disagree.<br>
<br>
So I am convinced that:<br>
- either a lesser percentage does say so<br>
- they are giving bad advice (telling someone to use git, who would
be better off without)<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>