On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Luke, you don't have to be peer-to-peer to be decentralized and > distributed. People from what I understand bitch most about > centralized (and closed) services. i've covered this in the FAQ i wrote: FAQ: Q: is git a "distributed source control system"? A: yeees, but the "distribution" part has to be done the hard way, by setting up servers, forcing developers and users to configure git to use those [single-point-of-failure] servers. so it's "more correct" to say that git is a "distributable" source control system. so if you believe that git is "distributed" just because people can set up a server.... mmm :) i'd say that your administrative and technical skills are way above the average persons' capabilities. proper peer-to-peer networking infrastructure takes care of things like firewall-busting, by using UPnP automatically, as part of the infrastructure. come on, people - _think_. we're so used to being able to run our own infrastructure and workaround problems or server down-time, but most people still use "winzip", if they have any kind of revision control _at all_. l. -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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