this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
348 points (95.3% liked)

Open Source

31406 readers
67 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Are you guys fine with these new shenanigans from Github. I found a bug and wanted to check what has been the development on that, only to find out most of the discussion was hidden by github and requesting me to sign-in to view it.

It threw me straight back to when Microsoft acquired Github and the discussions around the future of opensource on a microsoft owned infrastructure, now microsoft is exploiting free work from the community to train its AI, and building walls around its product, are open source contributors fine with that ?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Your project will inevitably get forked onto MS GitHub & the SEO will rank that fork above you—changing VCS adds a layer of friction that discourages forking back onto MS GitHub. Best you see is these pretty please attempts to encourage not forking to Microsoft’s platform. Microsoft has a massive pull in the direction Git goes, & whatever MS GitHub does, the alternative forges seems to want to clone even if it’s bad (look at Forgejo diverging from Gitea to copy Actions verbatim even tho we all know working with YAML for CI is a bad idea that scales poorly). When you look at the latest release notes for Git, often the first publisher is GitHub’s blog—this is what gets shared around the link aggregators. Part of the strategic purchase of GitHub on Microsoft’s part was getting access to that project sway (& upselling services—it’s not pure conspiracy—with some of the changes definitely being for the better).

And again, Git is not the best DVCS—but folks are hesitant to try other platforms since there is less forges & tooling. If Microsoft is controlling the Git ecosystem like it is, that effort, in my opinion, would be better spent choosing a better DVCS system that isn’t already infected by Microsoft or Google or Apple or similar.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't agree, but it's a unique, interesting thought that I can upvote.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

That’s how a “hot take” should work

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I self-host GitBucket, and honestly your reasoning behind giving up arguably the best version control application, just because of one hosting site, is downright ludicrous.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I stand by my stance that Microsoft has poisoned the whole Git experience, where everyone will be comparing all forges to MS GitHub & the direction of the Git project ship is being steered heavily by Microfsoft. I also disagree with “best” VCS—I will agree with Git having currently the most/best tooling around it which can lead to a better overall experience, but Git’s fundamentals are not without some obvious flaws.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It hasn't. There are literally thousands and thousands of developers using Git daily without having nothing to do with GitHub.

You are entitled to your opinion, but that's a fact. What MS does or doesn't, with GitHub, has no effect on these devs. You can see how egregious it is to read a random person sayint we should stop using a certain tool, because Walmart also uses it? Jeesh.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I would venture while thousands use Git without MS GitHub, 98% have an account since you largely can’t contribute to many projects without due to lock-in.

If Walmart was the biggest funder, making the most calls to the project, & optimizing it to be sold in their stores, I would 100% have hesitance against something if I could find an alternative (physical vs. digital goods working a bit different).

It’s not that I don’t see your point, it’s just that I’m pessimistic that the open source community at large would in practice move off of MS GitHub or otherwise offer alternative contribution channels before we would see another tool + platform supplant Git as the status quo in the next generation of VCSs. I would rather accelerate that future—unless like Google or Facebook is the clear leader of that new tool, but many projects right now not named Jujutsu seem to be independent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The great majority of developers never contribute, that's a false expectation. Majority of programmers work in the private sector and use local git hosts/solutions instead of GitHub.

Again, expecting those devs to not use git because of one hoster, is a ludicrous idea in itself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Open source drives that ecosystem & the private sector follows suit as the developers try new tools & suggest platforms from their open source experience. There are a lot of companies on MS GitHub Enterprise as well as opening some of there source in the form of libraries & they all choose Microsoft for marketing reasons over technical ones (Git is just Git after all).

You are acting like I’m saying “leave Git now or else”. I suggest it could be an option, if IMO a faster option, to get out Microsoft’s of monopoly. It’s easier to pitch as better tool with better features that solve problems than argue “well, ethically, you just self-host or move to Codeberg since user freedom matters”. That philosophical argument is harder to preach than Fossil ports the whole forge + tooling ecosystem with your project or Darcs/Pijul solve the merge conflict order of patches not commuting or Mercurial offers a more user-friend CLI.