3 ms·

Some armchair speculation: the price Gitlab and Atlassian would pay to have one link each up there would probably dwarf the current monthly hosting costs. Not

by gsylvie 10y ago

Some armchair speculation: the price Gitlab and Atlassian would pay to have one link each up there would probably dwarf the current monthly hosting costs. Not sure if the "try.github.io" link should count as a link to Github, but most of the others do (e.g., github.com/google).

tacostakohashi 10y ago
Further armchair speculation: you could extract more money from one of them for having an "exclusive" link than you could from both of them having one link each.
- atmosx 10y ago
  Indeed. I'm having a hard understanding why Github, Gitlab or Attlasian didn't jump already in requesting full ownership of the project. This is the clearly the most important open source project to their core business.
  - Cogito 10y ago
    If you're not aware, many of the core contributors are employed by these companies, or extensions are built internally at these companies and then released opens source. For example, the long time maintainer Junio works at Google and peff at GitHub. I think the current management of the project, by the Project Leadership Committee, is working well and the project would gain little by coming under the direct management of any single company.
    - ajdlinux 10y ago
      The project would lose a lot by coming under the "management" of any one company. I imagine several forks would quickly ensue.
    - atmosx 10y ago
      I see your points.
Cogito 10y ago
In a different thread, peff (author of the original post we're discussing here) requested input from the community about adding links to paid content to the site. You can see the end of the thread here [0] and the pull request it was discussing here [1] The thinking in that thread, which I think would apply similarly to this case, was: I think I'm inclined to try it, as long as it's kept in a separate "paid training" section, and is open to everybody. If it becomes a burden, we can cut it out later. I think the important thing is that it be equally open to everybody or nobody, but not just "some". So we'll go with everybody for now, and switch to nobody later if need be. I agree that they would probably pay well for the chance to have a link on the homepage of git, but if it is done it should be done fairly for all involved, or not at all. [0] http://public-inbox.org/git/20170125184258.v5sy6hwwpdsxz2u6@sigill.intra.peff.net/ http://public-inbox.org/git/20170125184258.v5sy6hwwpdsxz2u6@... [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/924 https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/924

by gsylvie 10y ago

tacostakohashi 10y ago

Further armchair speculation: you could extract more money from one of them for having an "exclusive" link than you could from both of them having one link each.

atmosx 10y ago
Indeed. I'm having a hard understanding why Github, Gitlab or Attlasian didn't jump already in requesting full ownership of the project. This is the clearly the most important open source project to their core business.
- Cogito 10y ago
  If you're not aware, many of the core contributors are employed by these companies, or extensions are built internally at these companies and then released opens source. For example, the long time maintainer Junio works at Google and peff at GitHub. I think the current management of the project, by the Project Leadership Committee, is working well and the project would gain little by coming under the direct management of any single company.
  - ajdlinux 10y ago
    The project would lose a lot by coming under the "management" of any one company. I imagine several forks would quickly ensue.
  - atmosx 10y ago
    I see your points.

Cogito 10y ago

In a different thread, peff (author of the original post we're discussing here) requested input from the community about adding links to paid content to the site. You can see the end of the thread here [0] and the pull request it was discussing here [1] The thinking in that thread, which I think would apply similarly to this case, was: I think I'm inclined to try it, as long as it's kept in a separate "paid training" section, and is open to everybody. If it becomes a burden, we can cut it out later. I think the important thing is that it be equally open to everybody or nobody, but not just "some". So we'll go with everybody for now, and switch to nobody later if need be. I agree that they would probably pay well for the chance to have a link on the homepage of git, but if it is done it should be done fairly for all involved, or not at all. [0] http://public-inbox.org/git/20170125184258.v5sy6hwwpdsxz2u6@sigill.intra.peff.net/ http://public-inbox.org/git/20170125184258.v5sy6hwwpdsxz2u6@... [1] https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/924 https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/pull/924