On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Yann Dirson wrote: > > Well, being hated is often the fate of tools for which users got no > training, but are forced to used because of a corporate decision. That's one possible reason. > That does not necessarily mean the tool is bad in itself. It does not _necessarily_ mean that, but let's face it, it really usually does. Too many developers shrug off the "it's hard to use" argument. THEY think it's fine. THEY think it's "lack of training". THEY think the tools are fine, and the problem is the user. THEY are wrong. Almost every time when a user says "it's hard to use", the user is right. Sometimes it's a lack of documentation, but quite often it's just that the tool interfaces are bad. Oh, I'm sure git has the same problems, but dammit, I think we've tried very hard to listen to user opinions, and make the things that make them go "that's hard" be more obvious. All the things that were _possible_ to do if you did them by hand, that you now can do pretty obviously without even knowing what it really does. "git commit -a". "git log -p". "git show <name>", etc etc. Sometimes the problem space makes the interfaces fundamentally hard. But sometimes the program itself just makes things ugly and hard, and autoconf and automake definitely didn't make it easier for users - they were designed for people who knew fifteen different versions of UNIX, and not for sane people. These days, there aren't fifteen different versions of UNIX. There's a couple, and it's perfectly ok to actually say "fix your damn system and just install GNU make". It's easier to install GNU make than it is to install autoconf/automake. Linus - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html