I don't understand if Git has anything to with it. Simply because Linux and Minix differ on their views on kernel design, it doesn't mean Minix shouldn't use a better scm :)
I thought it was interesting that tanenbaum's operating system is now using something that Linus made. I think it is a neat detail to an old story. Circle of life, small world whatever cliche you want to attach to it.
It was not meant as a jab at minix, i thought others would appreciate the continued interconnection between Linus and AST. I apologize that I did not explain my comment in greater detail.
I have heard this over and over, "wohoo Linus won because Tanenbaum is using git", and frankly this is just ridiculous. Their disagreement was over how the kernel should be architected, not over personal issues. Not using a certain vcs because you disagree with its author on a completely unrelated subject would really be childish.
Moreover, vcs used to manage Minix'es source has zero impact on the merit of using one kernel architecture over the other.
[EDIT]: I understand that the "kernel war" argument is not what you meant, nevertheless Minix using Git is hardly a twist in Linux vs Minix history.
Hardly a twist? So twenty years ago you think it most people would have found it likely that Linus's operating system would lead to the creation of the SCM that minix uses?
Twenty years ago, I doubt many people gave much thought to anyone creating a new SCM. Is your premise that twenty years ago people would have accurately predicted other software trends? Was ruby on rails an inevitable development?
No. My premise is that I do no think that many people would have thought it likely that the hobby project by that "kid on c.o.minix" would bring about a software development tool that Minix would one day use...
Actually, when you put it like that, it does sound likely. I am speaking from the point of view of a person who knows very little about these "Kernel wars".
Your premise is bogus and entirely based on hindsight. The initial spat between Linus and Andrew was based on their approaches to system design not on the merits of their programming or design abilities.
What is bogus about being interested in such a confluence of unlikely events? I can not imagine a human interest piece in the NYT not including this in the narrative.
What does hindsight have to do with anything? It seems that any discussion about the relationship of two individuals is always retrospective...
It's mildly interesting. I guess it shows that PERSON_A is not an angry wingnut intent on ignoring everything from PERSON_B, but can make rational decisions about tools and software.
With some of the personalities involved in various high profile OS projects, and the numerous flame-wars, that's a useful detail.
