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.

-- 
<[email protected]>       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 Web