Yes I do. And source control back then wasn't a tool the way git is. Like, also,git is awful in many ways, but I still love it deeply for the things it lets me do, manipulate and interrogate my repo history in many useful ways. It lets me approach certain problem classes in a meta way that old source control just could not. Branching is a first class citizen in git and that was not the case inb4. Learning git is a brick wall, as an early adopter I had the difficulty of explaining git many times to many companies, simple things are often stupid, and git basically requires you to learn it's mental model pretty well before you can do basic things with confidence. Then again, idk, sql doesn't make much sense unless you know what a relational database is. So git is hard in dumb ways, and if anything ever replaces it the way git ate svn, then I can't wait to drop git over whatever that future better system is, but it doesn't seem to exist, so I'm on the whole far far happier with git, warts and all, then any prior system. CVS wasn't even atomic, and vss would corrupt itself, svn really couldn't do branches and merge conflicts ruined your working copy in unrecoverable ways, and git is so so fast, and also best case was you could do exactly one local commit effectively where git you can do infinity local commits and also peer to peer stuff. Evolution of source control systems has been a net positive

@@rebeccakeller4666 Hi Rebecca. I could write a similar passage about how bad it is, but I won't bother. I will just say one thing; it is too difficult, and any good software should be easy. Yes, it can be learned, and when you have learned it, it is ok. But it shouldn't take so long to learn. I have been using Git for the last 10 years, so I feel like know it fairly in depth, but it took me about two years to get to this level. Why? You can of course take the easy way out at this point and just say I must be stupid, but I will assume you won't do that. It took me just a few weeks to get to a similar level with CVS, SVN, Clearcase etc. Now I know Git, but I have to work on projects with more junior people who are currently going through the same hell I went through. While they are learning, they make a lot of mistakes and people have to spend their time trying to fix them. The old systems, which would have improved a lot by now, were much better because they were simple and just worked. Anyway, I am glad you like it. Each to their own.

The problem is that we have more tools that work better in a terminal than we have GUIs to support those tools. Most Linux users will swear that the terminal is the only way to be productive, but that's only because most of their tools have no GUI, or the existing GUI is very limiting. If you want, I implore you to attempt building a GUI vs. building a command line interface for an application. You will quickly find out why GUIs are not as common. For one, it's more complicated and not all tools have an API, that exposes every aspect of that tool, in a way a GUI can easily present the same options to a user.

To be fair, it was from Sneakers, but same difference I suppose. :)

@@gitbutlerapp You appear to be correct, and yes when it comes down to it; same difference ;P