SVN? VSS? Why is one better than the other? [closed]

Question

I tend to get the feeling that most folks here think SVN is gold-plated goodness, whereas VSS is the worst program ever devised (at least as Version Control is concerned).

That said, why? I've used some CVS, and my current job uses VSS, and from a grunt on the team's perspective, I can't really tell that much difference. Most of the differences I've seen are cosmetic. Granted, I've not tried to do any branching/merging in either, but as a coder who comes in, checks out files, works on those files and checks them in at the end of the day, why would I want 1 over the other?

Answer 1

“Visual SourceSafe? It would be safer to print out all your code, run it through a shredder, and set it on fire.” - (Attributed to an unidentified Microsoft employee).

SourceSafe has many problems and no redeeming features. There are several freely available, cross-platform alternatives that are safer, faster and more powerful. Subversion is probably the most widely used of these. Some people prefer distributed version control systems such as Git, Mercurial or Bazaar.

Some reading about why VSS is so bad:

• Visual SourceSafe: Microsoft's Source Destruction System
• Visual SourceSafe Version Control: Unsafe at any Speed?
• (And my own experiences)

Answer 2

Microsoft, which makes Visual Source Safe, does not use it internally for any projects of any significant size. That's a major mark against it, in my book. And using it for large projects, you understand why; it's SLOW, and god help you if you ever decide to let it auto-merge anything.