24 ms·

For Mac or Windows.... it is just insulting that GitHub continues to Treat linux has a second class citizen when with out Linux Git would not be a project...

comboy 11y ago
In their defense, I don't see many linux users choosing GUI app over command line to handle git (unless they have it integrated in their IDE)
- r3bl 11y ago
  Well, to be honest, as a Linux user, I would definitely consider using GitHub's own GUI application instead of some application developed by a third party.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  As a Linux user: I very much would at least try it. Magit works great for the git repos themselves, but when I'm on my work machine (a Macbook) I tend to use Github's Mac client in order to handle things Github-specific (particularly cloning and handling pull requests).
- mhw 11y ago
  I use git primarily on Linux, but I don't use an IDE. I frequently use 'git gui' to prepare commits - I particularly like the ability to select individual lines from a diff to include in a commit, breaking apart multiple changes to the same file when necessary. I also use gitk a lot. I'm very comfortable using the command line, but it's not correct to assume that command line users wouldn't want a GUI tool as well.
hueving 11y ago
They don't participate in the open source community. They're similar to Apple in that they take open source stuff and build a closed ecosystem on top of it.
- imbriaco 11y ago
  That'd be a shame if it were true. GitHub has 6 pages of public repositories (https://github.com/github https://github.com/github) that you can peruse. To pre-empt your response, yes, they aren't all open source projects that GitHub has released. But a great many of them are. Some of their popular projects include things like Atom, Hubot, Boxen, Linguist, and many more. They also have developers who contribute to a great many other projects as part of their daily work; Ruby springs to mind - Aman Gupta and Charlie Somerville have contributed quite a lot. And they pay at least two people to work effectively full time on git itself. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
  - hueving 11y ago
    What have they contributed to git? The other projects are irrelevant, I'm talking about contributing to the core product they are vampiring off of.
    - imbriaco 11y ago
      At least the #2 and #7 (by number of commits) committers to Git are employed by GitHub. They're both very consistent contributors and have been for a very long time. You specifically said that GitHub does not participate in the open source community and I think I've amply demonstrated that you're incorrect. If you'd like to continue to argue the point, I'd appreciate some facts.
      - hueving 11y ago
        You're right, they hired people that were already participating in the git community to continue to participate in the community. This is better than nothing because it ensures that they are employed, but it's a net zero effect for the git community and isn't what I would call participating because they aren't bringing anything new to the table. It's similar to Microsoft hiring a bunch of Linux developers to continue developing. Yeah, this is good for marketing checkboxes of 'supporting the open source community', but from the perspective of a developer in that community, it's worthless. What would be nice is if they hired new developers to work on git so the community actually grows and gets something.

comboy 11y ago

In their defense, I don't see many linux users choosing GUI app over command line to handle git (unless they have it integrated in their IDE)

r3bl 11y ago
Well, to be honest, as a Linux user, I would definitely consider using GitHub's own GUI application instead of some application developed by a third party.
yellowapple 11y ago
As a Linux user: I very much would at least try it. Magit works great for the git repos themselves, but when I'm on my work machine (a Macbook) I tend to use Github's Mac client in order to handle things Github-specific (particularly cloning and handling pull requests).
mhw 11y ago
I use git primarily on Linux, but I don't use an IDE. I frequently use 'git gui' to prepare commits - I particularly like the ability to select individual lines from a diff to include in a commit, breaking apart multiple changes to the same file when necessary. I also use gitk a lot. I'm very comfortable using the command line, but it's not correct to assume that command line users wouldn't want a GUI tool as well.

hueving 11y ago

They don't participate in the open source community. They're similar to Apple in that they take open source stuff and build a closed ecosystem on top of it.

imbriaco 11y ago
That'd be a shame if it were true. GitHub has 6 pages of public repositories (https://github.com/github https://github.com/github) that you can peruse. To pre-empt your response, yes, they aren't all open source projects that GitHub has released. But a great many of them are. Some of their popular projects include things like Atom, Hubot, Boxen, Linguist, and many more. They also have developers who contribute to a great many other projects as part of their daily work; Ruby springs to mind - Aman Gupta and Charlie Somerville have contributed quite a lot. And they pay at least two people to work effectively full time on git itself. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.
- hueving 11y ago
  What have they contributed to git? The other projects are irrelevant, I'm talking about contributing to the core product they are vampiring off of.
  - imbriaco 11y ago
    At least the #2 and #7 (by number of commits) committers to Git are employed by GitHub. They're both very consistent contributors and have been for a very long time. You specifically said that GitHub does not participate in the open source community and I think I've amply demonstrated that you're incorrect. If you'd like to continue to argue the point, I'd appreciate some facts.
    - hueving 11y ago
      You're right, they hired people that were already participating in the git community to continue to participate in the community. This is better than nothing because it ensures that they are employed, but it's a net zero effect for the git community and isn't what I would call participating because they aren't bringing anything new to the table. It's similar to Microsoft hiring a bunch of Linux developers to continue developing. Yeah, this is good for marketing checkboxes of 'supporting the open source community', but from the perspective of a developer in that community, it's worthless. What would be nice is if they hired new developers to work on git so the community actually grows and gets something.