There’s always a big rush when someone you’ve respected and admired for a long time writes a specific response to your question. I’ve still got an email from 2004 when the author Greg Egan took a moment to reply to an email I sent him.
Ritholtz, for the small number of friends and my parents who take time to read this blog, is a well known in the world of finance, whose blog The Big Picture I’ve followed for many years now. You can read his Wikipedia entry for more specifics but it suffices to say that offering a direct response to a kid from Nairobi wouldn’t need to be a high priority. But he did and I think quite a few people whose world intersects with mine but not that of the Bloomberg/Investor will benefit from what he sent my way.
First, here is what I wrote in a comment on his blog, asking about what individual investors should do if we’re so demonstrably bad in our decision making:
So a question then for “Guest Author,” Barry, or any others from the world of the much spited individual investor.
What’s a little guy like me supposed to do given that:
1. I don’t have a large enough portfolio to have an account managed by some clever adviser.
2. I’m not interested in paying a Mutual Fund management fees to be correlated with the market or worse.
3. I’m striving to learn not just from blogs but from different books and free online classes on finance and portfolio management.
4. I’m not the guy from the part of town (ok part of the world, to be honest) where it will all be okay and some inheritance or parental bail out will ever kick in
5. I’ve got 15 years until kids start going to college and 30 until I can max out my social security retirement benefits.
Barry pointed me to the following:
Thanks Barry, and hopefully someone browsing by will benefit from them as well.
How to use Google+ as a light weight bookmarks service.
1. Create an empty circle on Google+
2. Use the Google +1 feature to share items in that circle
3. View posts to that circle
Next up: some NodeJS code to generate RSS from it.
I had a conversation over the holidays with a person who rejected the idea of fiction or writing about things that “didn’t exist.” Although the origin of the discussion was superheroes I thought a good bridge for said person might be Iron Man since his brand of hero more closely resembles Science Fiction than mythology. Unfortunately Science Fiction fell under the umbrella of “things that don’t exist” and was therefore a subject to be ignored. Moments like this are a bit jarring for me; when I have a very basic assumption (Science Fiction is valuable) that is challenged at its root and I have to mentally reconstruct the rationale for so deep seeded a belief that I’ve come to assume is common for most people.
What is fundamental about Science Fiction is that one must imagine things that may not exist within the context of human nature and narrative, things which are constant. Love is a human nature, as much in the time of the written letter as it is in the previously nonexistent age of email. Formative education is a part of all of our lives, whether it is the tragic bildungsroman of an impoverished boy in Jude the Obscure or the near future when children in impoverished countries learn from MOOCs.
While I would be hard pressed to find any advantage in deliberately trying not to imagine things that don’t exist, a person’s profession does bear heavily on how much of useful such a skill might be perceived. Although they are few and far between, some fields have no bearing on the understanding of technology and people. But for any engineer, and even more so for the software engineer, the entire basis of one’s work is to build things that do not exist. They are wrought from imagination, even the most pedestrian software that must be built.
What catapults an engineer from mere laborer to innovator is the ability to conceive an imagined object of the future in the present. An example of this that I recently read about is the story of Edwin Link, the inventor of a flight simulator called the Link Trainer in the 1920s. It’s hard to imagine in the present but fatality rates for prospective pilots in that age were shocking. Link had an engineer’s mind and came up with the concept of a simulator (he built them from parts used by his family’s organ manufacturing company) that would allow a learner to practice on the ground, in a safe environment before taking to the air. It seems so obvious when we look in hindsight but Link had to work hard for many years to gain acceptance that his contraption would be of any use. He persevered because he could conceive of a device of the future in the present and how it would be valuable.
In the world of software, where the constraints of traditional engineering are loosened, the ability to think in a future against typical convention wields tremendous power. There are many precedents for this from the innovations in places like the famed Augmentation Research Center at Stanford Research Institute to more recent evolutions of source control management. In each case the engineer must stretch his or her imagination into the future and pull us into it from the present.
Writers of Science Fiction are aware of this implication in their work. Not too long ago Neal Stephenson made the case for Science Fiction writers to be deliberate in their power to inspire; put colloquially on io9.com:
“SF needs to stop mucking around with steampunk and dystopia, and start making decent roadmaps for a future where we all want to live.”
All of this to say that it is possible to live in a world where there is no thought of the future, in a continuous reaction to what the world presents to us. It is possible to ignore science, the human narrative, and the future things which don’t exist. When I think of this possibility, I think of a very dark and drab place. But this is not a world for an engineer, especially not a software engineer. We have to build things which don’t exist. And the difference between the engineer who is perfectly contented to rehash a precedent and an Elon Musk, our present day Tony Stark, is that Musk is immersed in hyperloops, mass produced electric vehicles, space infrastructure, and commoditized solar energy; a future world that is being made to exist.
 I personally believe that myth is important as well; the definition of “ideology in narrative form” implies that in understanding myth, one can understand how a person thinks. In the case of super heroes, whether they are Greek titans like Prometheus or as American as Steve Rogers, they tell us about our deeper values.
 An in depth exploration is Jack Reeves excellent essay “What is Software Design?”
 Case in point: the “mother of all demos” done by Douglas Engelbart in 1968.
 As a person who went from centralized source control (SVN) to distributed (GIT) and back, the latter has hacked my brain with concepts I didn’t “get” before I experienced them. Now it’s hard going back.
 Tony Stark is Iron Man
I just completed Startup Engineering, a Stanford MOOC offered through Coursera. There are two broad themes in the course: one that is technical and another that is philosophical.
Although the course assumes limited technical knowledge, it would be difficult for a person without at least moderate technical skills to complete this portion with any depth of understanding. A brief summary of topics covered demonstrates this:
Any one of those topics could be a lengthy course on its own and, even though the course is designed more for exposure, the depth of the subject matter can be overwhelming. But for those who persevered the reward was a strong foundation along with reference materials (discussed later under Reference Material) to revisit.
Beyond technical knowledge the course offers practical direction on how to think about and execute startup concepts. Two things make this work exceptionally well: first, the depth provided in written lectures (discussed later under Reference Material), and second the instructor, Balaji Srinivasan whose track record and experiences provide the gravitas that separates this course material from the type of people who post inspirational startup drivel with hopes of getting posted to Hacker News.
Perhaps the most fascinating thing about the philosophy arc of the course comes from its origin: it was initially offered by Peter Thiel as CS183 at Stanford. Thiel is well known as an avowed libertarian, and Srinivasan, beyond describing the course as a “spiritual sequel” to its initial offering, continues along these themes providing credible evidence in support of this political and economic philosophy. One lecture in particular, concerning regulation, makes a devastating case against how interventions impede innovation and business.
Most MOOC offerings involve video lectures with some sparse reference materials. The videos are well produced and it’s easy to watch, pause, and rewind. Startup Engineering was vastly different: all of the lectures were written in long form and although there were videos Srinivasan essentially skims through the written material. Some people wanted more screen time for the instructor but this was one of the best aspects of the course for me; I ended up with a book of lecture material on my tablet to consume at the speed of my designation. The lectures are dense: I just counted 130 external links/references in the first provided lecture alone. The lectures that involve tasks performed on AWS were straightforward and methodical. I cannot emphasize enough how valuable these were and I will probably use them to start some of the more technical tasks again from scratch to uncover what I might have missed. One last thing that deserves mention are the guest lectures delivered by founders of some more well known startups. It was the proverbial icing on the cake.
I would recommend Startup Engineering to anyone interested in either starting a technology company or to those who simply want a broad overview of the technologies and engineering of web applications. Although the course is officially past its timeframe it’s still available for sign up as I’m writing this blog entry. I would recommend waiting for the next offering and participating in the competition among students for crowd sourcing a business idea.
 I’m not “libertarian” myself although I do think all of the ideas and arguments presented in the course should be taken seriously. This wasn’t the crazy uncle on Medicare and Social Security (irony intended) venting personal frustrations on “The Government,” it was well thought out, evidence-based reasoning promoting libertarian thinking.
I’ve been enjoying my current class, Startup Engineering, from Coursera. My own fascination for startup culture preceded the “Dot Com” era; I always admired people like Nolan Bushnell, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates. But I came of age during “The Bubble” and hearing all of the sensational stories made me excited with what I might be able to become a part of as a young technologist. Even after the party ended and it seemed so obvious that most startup emperors had no clothes, I was still under the spell of people like Paul Graham whose essays and work at YCombinator have influenced so many of us in our thinking about building businesses.
One of the key points made by the Startup Engineering professor, Balaji Srinivasan, is that there is a difference between a “small business” and a “startup.” The major difference has to do with the size of the market. According to the lecture notes: “Startups Must Exhibit Economies of Scale.”
When I think about the companies I admire I realize that many don’t have enormous markets in a traditional sense. I find myself admiring companies like Wolfram Research for products like Wolfram Alpha or a gaming company like Paradox Interactive for publishing niche titles well known for their sophistication and obsessive community rather than mass market appeal. Both, if I’m not mistaken, are privately held which means that while neither is “small,” neither has to kowtow to short term demands of shareholders.
Although I’m in learning mode at present I hope one day to build my own business selling software. It is, after all, the reason I took the course. But from a philosophical and temperamental side, this has helped me clarify my interests in something smaller than a conventional startup. I would rather take on an ambitious goal in a small market than making a conventional concept “mainstream.” Worse yet, I wouldn’t want to build a sand castle product that is just designed to get a buck rather than make an impact.
 The First Quarter : A 25-year History of Video Games is a great history of early gaming. It was later edited and republished as The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon--The Story Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World but I've only personally read the former.
 Folklore.org is a great resource for stories around the early days of Apple and the building of the original Macintosh.
 Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and many others are chronicled in Robert Cringely’s excellent book Accidental Empires: How the Boys of Silicon Valley Make Their Millions, Battle Foreign Competition, and Still Can't Get a Date.
 According to Graham, the valuation of companies incubated at YCombinator as of June 2013 was $11.7 billion.
 By this I mean a lot of people. I’m aware of companies with a smaller market that achieve their revenues with higher prices.
 Like Johan Andersson’s: “to create believable worlds.”
I never thought I’d find myself saying it but my next computer is going to be a classic desktop machine; a “tower” as some of the gray bearded veterans of the “Build Your Own PC” era used to say. Although some people have preferred this type of machine my last 15 years (20 if you want to throw in college) have been spent on laptops. It’s been a practical decision: as a student I needed mobility to work in the library or in a class room, as a newly minted professional I had jobs that involved a lot of travel. And I liked working in coffee shops.
Moving to a desktop feels in many ways like moving backward. As everyone and everything seems to get more “mobile first,” as there is more and more competition to build a smaller laptop with more battery life, it would seem like the action of a misty eyed classicist; the kind of guy who restores cars or listens to music from the 60s for the look and feel of a bygone era.
But it’s the future that has moved me backward. Last year after much agonizing I bought myself a Nexus 7 and the effect was that it became more and more of a rare need to move my laptop. The things I did – checking email, reading internets, watching screencasts – all not only were available on my tablet, but they were in many ways better.
As I come up on my 3 or so year upgrade cycle I’ve realized that in terms of bang for your buck, building a desktop machine is not only more economical, it comes with more power. Power is something I’ve always wanted but as I find myself more and more drawn to a “virtualize everything” approach to operating systems, it’s something I find myself needing. In a perfect world I run a virtualized OS for a work machine, another one for personal use, and several experimental VMs for running prerelease software and Linux. These are all things I do with my laptop but there are better, cheaper options for optimizing CPU and memory on a desktop machine.
The one element of my life that is perhaps a tipping point is that I no longer travel for work. This is the one element that might have continued the appeal for the powerful laptop I could move around with but as a remote worker who needs his home office for better bandwidth and privacy than could be achieved at a coffee house or library, it’s a chapter closed. Even with the most robust tablets out there, it seems like any serious undertaking involves a more traditional laptop or desktop computer. When my out of the ordinary travel or mobile scenarios show up I’ll still have one of my old laptops to fall back upon.
I have to wonder how many people like me still buy laptops by force of habit but wind up doing most “mobile” tasks on a tablet or a phone. I also wonder if, once chained to a desktop, I’ll start to discover all sorts of scenarios when it would have been convenient to have a laptop instead.
 Fewer distractions on a single purpose screen, apps like Instapaper, being able to multitask with real life (watching my toddler).
 Ubuntu for the most part although I realized a big reason I wasn’t doing any Windows 8 development was because I didn’t have the time or inclination to try to merge my heavily Windows 7 life with something new. It would have been easier to learn WinRT in parallel on a VM.
Are Vim and Emacs as powerful as their legend would have it or do the “lesser” developers, the “Morts” of the world, spend less time focused on learning their tools at the expense of learning their problem domain?
I read an old blog post from Brian Carper about learning Emacs recently:
Emacs isn't difficult to learn. Not in the sense of requiring skill or cleverness. It is however extremely painful to learn. I think there's a difference.
The key word is tedium. Learning Emacs is a long process of rote memorization and repetition of commands until they become muscle memory. If you're smart enough to write programs, you can learn Emacs. You just have to keep dumping time into the task until you become comfortable.
I’m willing to assume Brian is a clever guy; the fact that he writes books about Clojure is like a dog whistle for intelligent programmers. How long does it take?
Well, it took me over a year to be able to sit down at Emacs and use it fluidly for long periods of time without tripping over the editor.
So picking up on this specific time frame here is my hypothesis: perhaps it’s not something so special about the capabilities of an Emacs or a Vim – perhaps it’s this timeframe that makes for the types of productivity associated with these tools rather than the tools themselves?
A different way to think about it is to think of how many people using Visual Studio know more than a handful of the many shortcuts? How many a Mort really uses the Command Window to automate or interact with the tool? It’s always fun and enlightening to watch a person like Scott Hanselman using Visual Studio (how many talks have you been to when you picked up some keyboard shortcut that was your biggest takeaway?). It’s even more of an eye opener to see what is possible with the power of extensions such as Mads Kristensen’s Web Essentials.
Some closing thoughts on this open ended assertion [to mitigate the forthcoming beat down in comments?]:
I will be learning a little Emacs as a part of a MOOC I’m enrolled in, Startup Engineering. I hope to write a follow up post but if you do find my reasoning faulty for a lack of Emacs or Vim experience, what do you recommend I look for in the painful process of getting going?
Although I have used Visual Studio on a nearly daily basis for a long time now. I have not, however, spent more than a few minutes in a concerted effort to learn keyboard shortcuts or add-in programming. Any recommendations on getting better with the IDE at hand are welcome.
When Visual Studio is too large of a hammer, I use Notepad++. If you have any recommendations about Notepad++ or any other text editors (yes, I know Sublime is very popular these days) I’d love to catalog it from the comments.
In the wake of the death of Google Reader I was planning to write an ode to RSS and how important it is for the web but Dieter Bohn has done the job in his article on The Verge, “Why RSS still matters.”
In short I’m hopeful because something that valuable and so passionately used won’t just disappear. This represents an opportunity for all of us who consider ourselves innovators to build something to fill the gap without Google Reader. At present I’m kicking the tires of NewsBlur but here are some things I’d love to see in the more evolved RSS clients people will start building:
1. Tools for long form reading – similar to Instapaper which I use for deferred but eventual reading.
2. Shared content from feeds, perhaps also syndicated with annotations. Take the social network out of the walled garden and make it open.
3. Tools for curating and annotating syndicated content.
4. Tools for feeds with specialized content like video blogs or podcasts.
5. Integrated Groupware: things like long form chat and the ability to post comments in an environment that makes them visible to some group of people. The big trick is to avoid the walled in social network; we have too many of those.
Any other ideas?
There’s An App For That
Thousands of apps, native and web based, litter the consumer facing stores of big platform vendors, each with some story about how they will make your life better. Even if your problem domain is something as obscure as surviving an earthquake, someone has written a simple app with the singular purpose of keeping you alive.
What’s interesting to me in a world proliferated by apps is how we are conditioned now to look for boxes to fill, buttons to push, and single domain user interfaces in order to get things done. Whether it’s on the web or a mobile device, this is the paradigm we seem to find everywhere.
Lego and Clay
Many moons ago, when Silverlight was still fresh and bright in the eyes of the Microsoft developer crowd, I attended a talk given by Rick Barraza on animation. He was attempting to walk those of us newer to Silverlight through his thought process and how he developed some of the showcase pieces of software that his then employer, Cynergy, had developed for Microsoft. As he showed attendees his process of manually animating an effect of falling snow, he discussed a paradigm analogous to working with clay and contrasted it with how many of us in the Microsoft sphere have become accustomed to controls and user interface building blocks to put things together, a more Lego oriented perspective on software development. From an interview:
There are two types of personalities in this space. Those that like solving problems using the Lego method: snapping predictable and scalable objects together. And those who like solving problems with clay: loose and messy, but with a high level of customization and intricacy in the finished product. The tension between those two camps and their evolution, that cross pollination of ideas and techniques, should create some compelling experiences.
I will admit I was one of those developers who was uneasy and frustrated by the lack of snap in controls. Even though things got better as Silverlight evolved, the idea of an evolving framework of prebuilt building blocks was something I had a hard time letting go of. Even if the outcome was battleship gray, I could build things quickly and without the type of detail and ownership I would encounter by making everything from scratch.
Apps Are Legos
Apps fit the Lego mindset – they build a layer of abstraction on top of the task at hand, hoping to “automate” some of the structure around it. The goal of app designers (besides the money) is that this abstraction makes for a “solved problem” – that people would see effort on their part as reinventing the wheel.
For example, if you have a newborn, one of the things they have you do in the first few days is track when the baby eats and when it poops. Since this problem predates the dawn of the mobile era people have usually kept a notebook with one column where you wrote the activity, one where you wrote the time and one column with “notes” for anything extra. These days, however, there are apps to simplify that with push buttons that indicate the activity, automatically recording the details. Why bother with the notepad, having to find a pen, or your inconsistent notations that the nurse has a hard time reading? Just push a button!
If you are happy living in an abstraction this makes perfect sense. Most app design doesn’t anticipate too much around a problem and focuses on a specific task. Some of the more subtle and clever designs steer users in a particular direction or eliminate things the app designer finds unnecessary. It all works great as long as there is no edge case or unexpected element within the problem domain. Continuing with the idea of newborns our imaginary app that tracked eat, sleep, and poop would work well until the doctor noticed something and asked you to note something special along with the regular activity (e.g. every time little Jonny’s poop is green, write out how long it was since he had eaten!).
For those who dislike snap-in pieces or want something completely unique, the blank piece of paper offers utmost freedom to solve problems as diverse as taking care of a newborn to planning a writing schedule. In a digitized environment clay comes primarily in the form of text editing or the slightly more evolved spreadsheets.
I had a friend who worked for a defense contractor a while back who, although he couldn’t tell me much about his day job, alluded to being an engineer on a team designing missile defense systems. When I asked what kind of tools they used for something like that, thinking of something very “advanced” and esoteric, he just replied in earnest: a lot of Excel. At the time I thought he was being discrete but these days I don’t have a hard time believing it especially if he had to do a lot of mathematical models. I’ve also started to pay attention to the world of finance and the spreadsheet is the lingua franca of that world whether you’re doing an asset allocation model or some form of quantitative analysis.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to visualize a spreadsheet that tracks events for a newborn. But because a spreadsheet is like clay designing it would involve some messiness – and automating things would require a bit more effort, the type which would send most people back to the Lego jar.
The sculpting of this spreadsheet would also become a reflection of the sculptor. It could be a cringe worthy effort of repetition, manual entry, and strange conventions or it could be something singular: a small, elegant, and beautiful reflection of how they chose to solve the problem.
As with most things it is tempting to be lured into a false dichotomy of Lego versus Clay. It seems as though so many other facets of life are polluted with characterizations of polar opposites where one has to pick a side. Artists and designers argue about form versus function. Our politics are polluted with the arguments that are liberal or conservative. Personality types are misconstrued as either extroverted or introverted. Even my petty world of comic book collecting has the perennial arguments of Marvel versus DC (Marvel of course).
Rather than picking a side or calling one bad, I think it’s more constructive to do a self diagnosis of one’s predispositions and then try to find a point at which the two approaches can inform each other. I’ve seen amazing work from those that operate with Lego; from Alice Finch’s real world recreation of Hogwarts Castle to the type of apps that make the heart sing. At the same time, it’s hard to deny the beauty and power of sculpture; who wouldn’t stop for Cordier’s Bust of an African Woman?
My observation is that for those who are oriented toward clay, the danger lies in being overwrought or too singular; something that is molded so endlessly that it looses its sense of purpose or something that is so unique to a circumstance that it is never again useful. For those oriented toward Lego the danger seems to come in living too much inside of an abstraction and becoming unable to see around it.
It Never Occurred To Me
In general, it seems as though as a general culture our focus is driven by a mix of commercial forces and laziness to be driven toward the Lego mindset; to always look for the “right” prepackaged software that meets our needs. I know I’m a Lego person, especially when it comes to simple problems that are common. But recently I’ve been thinking about how little I actually know about Excel, and how so many app oriented problems would be trivial with a spreadsheet. For example, I used a 37Signals app for manipulating a “To Do” list for my reading. How difficult would this be in Excel? Why did it never occur to me to simply make a spreadsheet?
In the question of balance, it is important that when decisions are made, it’s with a cognizance of alternatives – choosing from the different paths that can be taken. I have personally been too App focused, too dependent on prepackaged solutions whether it’s To Do list software or project management. What would happen if I started trying to solve these problems with clay? What would happen if, rather than color by number, I began to paint?
Apps are useful. So too is the mindset behind them; I’ve learned that most things that become mainstream do so not because people are sheep but because they are designed well enough to accommodate needs. It is also wasteful to focus on our own implementations to solved problems when this serves as a distraction to a larger problem set that we are trying to solve; back to babies, I know that when my children were born my focus was on spending time with them, helping my wife, getting sleep, and maintaining my sanity. Creating a perfect notebook or spreadsheet to track the baby’s activity was less than a passing thought in my mind for the right reasons.
But there are things that warrant the attention. Things that I do every day, things that are core to my job and profession that ought to become candidates for a conscious choice of an out of the box solution or something that is customized and flexible. The pre-made software may do the trick but at this point it seems to me that the Lego oriented sphere of my thinking should inform the part that tends toward Clay, the part of my process where I think about how I would solve the problem myself if it became necessary.
Joel Spolsky wrote a long time ago about most of the time it’s not a good idea to reinvent the wheel but that it’s something you should do when you are operating on the core of your business, platform, or goal. This is debatable and I’m sure any reader would have an opinion (I’ve seen attempts at this become poor, feature-starved shadows of what is open and freely available) but on the question of choosing a full featured software or App that solves our problems by putting us into someone else’s abstraction versus the sweat equity of building something ourselves and really thinking through our needs, I think it’s worth the type of consideration that makes it a deliberate choice with an awareness of the benefits and limitations that we impose upon ourselves. Despite the generality that none of us is a unique and beautiful snowflake we all do come with our own edge cases.
First and foremost the full disclosure: I’m new to Git. Although I’d used Github for a few of my errant thoughts/projects, it was for the most part just copying commands without a deep understanding of the benefits of distributed source control.
Today a light clicked on when I was finally able to set up a Dropbox repository and share it out with some collaborators. First, here are the steps I followed, adapted from an old post by Roger Stringer.
Setting Up Your Remote Repository On DropBox
1. Get Dropbox, create your folder. (If you don’t have a Dropbox account, please use this affiliate link which will give me more space).
2. Create a “bare” repository there:
- Start Git Bash in the folder and use the following commands:
git init –-bare
- Once you’ve created your empty repository you’ll see the repository metadata which is ok.
Setting Up Your Local Repository, Pushing To Dropbox
Now that you have your DropBox folder set up to be a remote repository, you can set up your working folder. I already have a Visual Studio project with some files in it so I just started a Git Bash in that folder.
1. Double check that you’ve got a .gitignore file that is configured for Visual Studio or whatever project files you’d like to ignore.
2. Create the local git repository with the following:
git init .
3. Now add all your files to be tracked by the local repository with the following:
git add --all
4. Commit the changes you made by adding all those files:
git commit –m “Added initial files for git tracking”
5. Now set up your remote repository as the previously created “bare” repository in DropBox. Here is the small divergence from the original article since Windows is the file system:
git remote add origin /c/users/curufin/dropbox/gitbox
In the above:
- origin represents the name of the remote repository
- In the local path, curufin is my username on windows and gitbox is the name of the folder I made.
6. Push your files to the remote dropbox repository:
git push origin master
Collaborators and Others Wishing to Connect to Your Repository
The point behind using Dropbox is to have a synced space for your remote repository but without hosting and some of the other frictions or sharing elsewhere. Here are the steps to get your collaborators onboard:
1. Share your Dropbox folder with them. They will need Dropbox accounts, of course.
2. Once the folder is shared and propagated, they will need to make an empty repository in the folder from which they plan to work. The command, reiterated from above is:
git init .
3. The next step is to point to the remote repository. The “remote” repository is really the synced Dropbox folder and the idea is that Dropbox will do the heavy lifting in terms of keeping the folders synced.
git clone /c/users/celebrimbor/dropbox/gitbox
In the above:
- In the local path, celebrimbor is the username on windows.
4. The next step is to do a pull from the remote repository.
git pull origin
5. At this point they should be able to inspect the project files in their local folder and work on them using git to manage their versions.
The Future Is Distributed
I opened the article by admitting I am new to Git. In terms of serious projects, I would only consider the last month or so as legitimate experience. I’ve also struggled, as a person relatively experienced with Subversion, with the gestalt of Git.
However what the above shows is how useful it is to generate repositories that live in local or remote file systems and how much flexibility there is in being able to take advantage of existing protocols and structures that do the sharing on our behalf. Not only is that remote repository so easily accessible, it’s logically separate from my local repository to which I can make changes and commit to my heart’s content. There are probably other niceties but the last positive I noticed was that Git was tracking my changes with my default user/email configuration. There is a way to reset this but it makes it easy to differentiate my changes from any collaborators. If you add on the ability to do in place branching this is quite a powerful environment.
One final note: of course the above is probably not a great idea for a full fledged project (or is it? maybe someone with experience can comment… ). The project I work on is taking advantage of Github and especially after using their tools to hunt down (blame button!) some issues I fully appreciate their business model. One other plug is for my personal project hosting provider, ProjectLocker. They host Git repositories and after 2+ years with them as a primarily Subversion customer, I’m happy. I’ve started my first Git repository and the process is straightforward.