4 ms·

I feel like this is a part of a trend that reflects how github itself is changing - slowly making access to things harder, then finally removing it. Github use

by matt_o 11y ago

I feel like this is a part of a trend that reflects how github itself is changing - slowly making access to things harder, then finally removing it. Github used to have an awesome and public way to explore projects (http://web.archive.org/web/20130730125837/https://github.com/explore http://web.archive.org/web/20130730125837/https://github.com...) - I remember using it a lot to look for projects to learn to read code because it allowed me to easily find projects by language. They replaced it with a flashier, but in my experience, much less useful tool that you have no control over - https://github.com/explore https://github.com/explore . I know I'm not the only one thinking of moving my repos to another provider or perhaps a self-hosted solution because of this direction.

danmaz74 11y ago
OTOH, a trend towards self hosted solutions will only make finding projects to explore harder.
- r0muald 11y ago
  Or create the demand for an index/curation platform/search engine, which would be something quite interesting, I think.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Google had one but they shut it down.
  - Rondom 11y ago
    "Back in the old days" we had Freshmeat...
- zanny 11y ago
  gitlab.com is a fine compromise, albeit I'm not a fan of their "private repos for free" model, it means a lot of software that might have utility if it were default-open will be lost behind default-privte repositories. But if gitlab jumps the shark like github is doing we can always have anyone in the ecosystem selfhost a clone, albeit we would need to reimplement all the enterprise features people want.
  - 9248 11y ago
    In my experience it was the other way around. I signed up with gitlab only because they offer free private repos. Now since I already have an account with them and I don't have to go through the hassle of setting up stuff again, I'm only a couple clicks away from putting some project in the open.
- zzzeek 11y ago
  Self hosted solutions lend themselves towards being freely indexable via search engines, many of which are optimized towards source code repositories.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  Like the move to self-hosted websites made finding websites harder? /s
mgraupner 11y ago
As danmaz74 said, this will fragment the open source scene over multiple platforms which makes it harder to discover. Github always felt nice as a home for all these projects, I don't get the need for this move either. They must know that people contributing to open source rather not want their stuff to be hidden behind some wall. I just wish they would have continued their offering, in my books they were the good guys, helping open source to new hights but also do well on a business side. I guess I was wrong.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  If anything, github's lock-in fragmented "the open source scene". The internet and the web are distributed systems, there is no reason why all code has to be hosted with one proprietary service in order to be discoverable, just as there is no reason for hosting all websites with one proprietary service in order to be discoverable. That's what standardized protocols and interfaces are for.
  - krapp 11y ago
    There's no lock-in with github. It's a service that many people prefer to use, but nothing is stopping anyone from moving their repos elsewhere.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
      Well, first, there is lock-in for non-owners of projects: You cannot submit pull requests to pull from git repositories hosted elsewhere and without signing in. Which also is an incentive to use it for other things, once you have an account that you need in order to contribute. Secondly, they do have proprietary features, embrace, extend, extinguish style.
      - krapp 11y ago
        Unless they convert repos to a proprietary format that requires a Github client to use, don't allow git cloning or pushing, and are trying to add Github-only features to git itself, then I think "embrace, extend, extinguish" is a bit overblown.
awalGarg 11y ago
> They replaced it with a flashier, but in my experience, much less useful tool that you have no control over - https://github.com/explore https://github.com/explore . Not quite sure if I understand which specific thing you are mentioning, but does https://github.com/trending https://github.com/trending happen to be what you want?

by matt_o 11y ago

danmaz74 11y ago

OTOH, a trend towards self hosted solutions will only make finding projects to explore harder.

r0muald 11y ago
Or create the demand for an index/curation platform/search engine, which would be something quite interesting, I think.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Google had one but they shut it down.
- Rondom 11y ago
  "Back in the old days" we had Freshmeat...
zanny 11y ago
gitlab.com is a fine compromise, albeit I'm not a fan of their "private repos for free" model, it means a lot of software that might have utility if it were default-open will be lost behind default-privte repositories. But if gitlab jumps the shark like github is doing we can always have anyone in the ecosystem selfhost a clone, albeit we would need to reimplement all the enterprise features people want.
- 9248 11y ago
  In my experience it was the other way around. I signed up with gitlab only because they offer free private repos. Now since I already have an account with them and I don't have to go through the hassle of setting up stuff again, I'm only a couple clicks away from putting some project in the open.
zzzeek 11y ago
Self hosted solutions lend themselves towards being freely indexable via search engines, many of which are optimized towards source code repositories.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
Like the move to self-hosted websites made finding websites harder? /s

mgraupner 11y ago

As danmaz74 said, this will fragment the open source scene over multiple platforms which makes it harder to discover. Github always felt nice as a home for all these projects, I don't get the need for this move either. They must know that people contributing to open source rather not want their stuff to be hidden behind some wall. I just wish they would have continued their offering, in my books they were the good guys, helping open source to new hights but also do well on a business side. I guess I was wrong.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
If anything, github's lock-in fragmented "the open source scene". The internet and the web are distributed systems, there is no reason why all code has to be hosted with one proprietary service in order to be discoverable, just as there is no reason for hosting all websites with one proprietary service in order to be discoverable. That's what standardized protocols and interfaces are for.
- krapp 11y ago
  There's no lock-in with github. It's a service that many people prefer to use, but nothing is stopping anyone from moving their repos elsewhere.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
    Well, first, there is lock-in for non-owners of projects: You cannot submit pull requests to pull from git repositories hosted elsewhere and without signing in. Which also is an incentive to use it for other things, once you have an account that you need in order to contribute. Secondly, they do have proprietary features, embrace, extend, extinguish style.
    - krapp 11y ago
      Unless they convert repos to a proprietary format that requires a Github client to use, don't allow git cloning or pushing, and are trying to add Github-only features to git itself, then I think "embrace, extend, extinguish" is a bit overblown.

awalGarg 11y ago

> They replaced it with a flashier, but in my experience, much less useful tool that you have no control over - https://github.com/explore https://github.com/explore . Not quite sure if I understand which specific thing you are mentioning, but does https://github.com/trending https://github.com/trending happen to be what you want?