5 ms·
Step 1: invent git. Step 2: have one of the most successful companies benefit from your work Step 3: Get banned by that company because you are an ass
by mrits 10y ago
Step 1: invent git. Step 2: have one of the most successful companies benefit from your work Step 3: Get banned by that company because you are an ass
- brockers 10y agoI am getting concerned about this juvenile concept of peoples emotions being fragile eggs that could be destroyed at any given moment. Why is it the HOSTING services job to decided community guidelines?
- anderber 10y agoI agree. It seems that a hosting company should just worry about what is legal/etc. This idea of being a moral police isn't good for the users or them.
- matt4077 10y agoWell they're hosting it, for free, so they get to decide the same way as someone hosting a party. But it's quite obvious they see the responsibility with the project owners first, and will only step in if it escalates. A written policy can make the owner's jobs a bit easier because they can just point at it and deflect criticism to GH.
- detaro 10y agoI don't think Github views their public parts purely as a hosting service for projects (with their individual communities). They want it to be seen as one platform-wide community, since a lot of the value and popularity of GitHub comes from easily being able to take part in many projects. Pure repository hosting is available in many other places as well, for network effects you need a (social) network.
- eli 10y agoA hostile commenting environment (e.g. racist or sexually explicit messages) negatively impacts the UX of the site, particularly for new users. It's bad for business.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"It's bad for business." So is thought-policing your customers.
- eli 10y agoPerhaps they disagree. I'm still keeping my paid corporate account.
- Turing_Machine 10y agoThat is their right. Personally, I nuked my Github account months ago. Dueling anecdotes!
- serge2k 10y ago> Why is it the HOSTING services job to decided community guidelines? because GitHub has been trying to save their reputation after some pretty lousy things went on, leading to them deciding to bend to PC pressure. I'm all for respecting others, and absolutely against any sort of threats of violence, harassment, etc... It's a massive problem online. That's a ways from having people flood your project with requests to change things like master/slave terminology or the name of the project because "bro" is horrible.
- flukus 10y ago> I'm all for respecting others, and absolutely against any sort of threats of violence, harassment, etc... It's a massive problem online. Citation Needed. I suspect the number of real threats are approximately the same as the number of people that have really fucked my mum.
- serge2k 10y agoDoxxing, Harassment, Swatting, etc... Plus it's hardly right that you can threaten someone just because "lol it's the internet brah"
- flukus 10y ago> Plus it's hardly right that you can threaten someone just because "lol it's the internet brah" Unless we lock down the internet and give up anonymity then it's something we have to accept.
- 8fGTBjZxBcHq 10y agoNo, it's not. That's the whole point. People are stepping up and saying "No, we do not have to accept this" and other people are shitting bricks.
- flukus 10y agoThe people doing this are the harassers. "This person has political views I don't like, they should be removed from the project, even though I've never heard of the project before now".
- echaozh 10y agoWell, people's emotions may be fragile, the point is, should we tolerate or even encourage it? Shouldn't we try to evolve into a species with a stronger heart?
- geofft 10y agoI assume you're referring to Linus Torvalds? The early versions of git were very unlike git as we know it; there were a few third-party tools on top, notably Cogito, that provided the interface that resembles what we expect. It took quite a while for git to develop its own interface along the lines of Cogito, and it wasn't very popular until then. I suspect that Linus's DVCS (as opposed to one of the many other DVCSes with extremely similar data models) succeeded in large part because Linux was an extremely active project, as opposed to because of any inherent technical superiority. I remember the early days of git, when people were using it because that's what you had to do to get Linux's VCS repo; the de-facto requirement to use some wrapper like Cogito was not a point in git's favor. So, I'm not sure the extent to which GitHub can be fairly said to derive its success from Linus. At best, it derived its success from the network effects around git (as a result of Linux switching to it, and therefore other projects switching to it because they knew Linux and whatever VCS Linux used would be well-supported), and fixing all the things about git that didn't work well. Linus still hates most of what GitHub does that stock git doesn't do! But all of those differences are the reason that GitHub has a very successful company that, seemingly, makes a business out of running a bunch of free tools on a central server.
- flukus 10y agoWe had sourceforge, google code and several similar places long before github. Github pounced on the opportunity that git opened up because other hosts were slow to adapt. So yes, without git there would be no gihub as we know it.
- worg 10y agoInvent git? Not even close, their product is good and has served as a great place to FL/OSS to thrive, I don't agree with the whole moral police thing but seriously before claiming things do a 5 minute research
- mrits 10y agoYou should learn to think before you get so angry!