(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
Jan Harkes wrote: > How did the talk go? Did you manage to get everything running for the > demo? Nope, afraid not. It wasn't nearly as big a loss as VNC would have been; Coda isn't visually very spectacular even when it works, while VNC is. I just sat on the table and talked about Coda and what it could do. I will still be working on it, though. > I guess that that question already exactly describes the advantage. > There is no need to make local copies of files. No need to do it manually, anyway. > Therefore less chance > that one forgets on which machine, or in what directory a file is, and > little work for keeping all the local copies in sync. So when people > don't forget to reintegrate disconnected changes, they always have the > latest version of the file. Right. > | I began describing the differences, and then I realized: Coda's > | functionality closely mirrors that of CVS. > > How's that? CVS gives every developer his own sandbox for development, > so that people working on the same files will not influence others. > However, in Coda, everyone is working on the exactly same files, with > the small exception that they do not influence each other while working > disconnected. In Coda, when you open a file for write [in write-connected mode], how soon can others see your changes? Immediately? After you close the file? > Well, yes, but that wouldn't be Coda then, would it :) It certainly wouldn't be. But it would be a distributed filesystem with local write-caching and support for disconnected operation. -- <kragen@pobox.com> Kragen Sitaker <http://www.pobox.com/~kragen/> We are forming cells within a global brain and we are excited that we might start to think collectively. What becomes of us still hangs crucially on how we think individually. -- Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the WebReceived on 1999-03-29 14:02:13