3 ms·
Beyond uptime concerns (which Github manages very well) is the fact that it is closed source, and whenever you use a closed system but that provides very good s
by leksak 10y ago
Beyond uptime concerns (which Github manages very well) is the fact that it is closed source, and whenever you use a closed system but that provides very good services for free you yourself is the commodity.
Beyond that, dozzie's remark is very much on point, the host could become tainted in the same way as for instance SourceForge. Fortunately, the distributed nature of Git means that you are unlikely to "lose" your source-code.
But really you have no control over your code, it is their liberty to censor it if they please.
The primary issue, as far as I am concerned, is that while I can clone and go elsewhere is that Github is the centralized hub for (FL)OSS today. Everything lives there. If you are not on there, you are de facto invisible.
A better alternative, as far as I am considered, would be a distributed net of "self-hosted" Gitlab instances.
I am not comfortable with all the bad press that Github has suffered regarding gender equality, but I feel that I am suffering from vendor lock-in due to the success of the platform.
- hilop 10y agoIf GitHub censors your code, or even if they don't, you can publish it elsewhere
- leksak 10y agoAbsolutely, but that is part of the ethical qualm. You are perpetuating the use of Github as the dominant (code) social network by using it. If you continue to use it after Github has performed an act of censorship (or anything else that violates your values) and you continue to use the service then that act goes unpunished as they will keep their market share and may repeat that act again. After all, there weren't enough negative consequences to avoid doing so in the future.