Re: Perforce vs CVS

On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:30:25PM +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
> http://www.perforce.com/perforce/cvs.html is obviously biased, but reasonably
> accurate.

Well, I've been having my doubts about the whole Perforce thing.  I know
now I'm not the only one who hasn't downloaded bleadperl because of
unfamiliarity with rsync and perforce.

After looking at the above URL my doubts increased.  It sure looks to me
like the company is spreading FUD about CVS:

    Perforce is commercial software with a purchase price, while CVS is
    freeware. Perforce is priced starting at $600/user for an end-user
    license and one year software support (prices go down as number of users
    goes up, see Perforce Licensing and Pricing), while CVS is available for
    free (unsupported).


They later, humorously enough, contradict themselves:

    Total cost of ownership for Perforce is comparable to the cost of
    commercial support for CVS.  Cyclic Software provides commercial support
    for CVS, and their cost is about the same as support for Perforce. The
    first year of support and updates for Perforce is included in the
    purchase price.


I don't know about anyone else, but it gives me the willies when I have to
deal with a company that both has a low opinion of "freeware" simply because
it doesn't have a monetary price tag, and is willing to resort to FUD in
order to compete.

I'm not saying this should necessarily affect decisions, but it's something
to think about while considering.  I know I would choose CVS, mostly because
of familiarity with it, both my own, and many other developers'.


Michael
--
Administrator                      www.shoebox.net
Programmer, System Administrator   www.gallanttech.com
--