4 ms·

When Python moved from their own silo to github, the project instantly gained more visibility, with thousand of stars in a few days. You see, github is not jus

When Python moved from their own silo to github, the project instantly gained more visibility, with thousand of stars in a few days. You see, github is not just a fantastic plateform, well crafted and reliable, to use git. The important part in the name is "hub". Everybody is on github, have a github account, nows how to use it. It removes a lot of friction. Now I know it's proprietary. And it's close source. But since their track record as a company is exemplary, and since you can easily backup the data in there anyway, not being on github is like refusing to put shoes for a marathon because your feet will breathe better.

romanovcode 9y ago
I disagree. Even their source-code on Enterprise edition is obfuscated a lot. For a company that preaches open-source they sure are doing everything to keep their own stuff as closed as possible. Also, a lot of GNOME developers are strong on ethical side of open-source therefore they would never feel comfortable hosting something on closed platform. GitLab is great choice because it's: - Open Source - Self Hosted - Free (Unless you are going Enterprise) Yes, the UI sucks and there was this database fiasco. However since it is open-source it is improving and adding new features 10x faster then GitHub.
akerro 9y ago
ye, ye, ye KDE and GNOME don't want to use Saas, they prefer self-hosted. Please check prices for self-hosted GitHub.
- sametmax 9y ago
  You don't have to choose. It's git. It's decentralized. You can have your cake and eat it. Have most activity on github, but a dormant gitlab as a backup in the (improbable) case it reveals unsuitable. Github is not facebook, you can get easily all your data back, in a open format.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > It's git. It's decentralized. Except for issue/project tracking. And all ACL and organisation configuration. And CI hooks and so on. Of course GitLab lets you make a clone of this information, but that's a hack.
  - mikekchar 9y ago
    The main thing they want it for is issue tracking and code reviews. Git doesn't do that. And Github does not export that data.
    - WorldMaker 9y ago
      GitHub has REST and GraphQL APIs you can use to export that data. It would be great if there were more standards for issue tracking/code reviews that worked better across vendors, but GitHub is neither the best nor the worst in this regard.
cyphar 9y ago
The GNU project did an evaluation of code hosting providers recently[1]. GitHub got an F (and note that 'server code is free software' is only a requirement for an A grade). GitLab only got a C. There are more severe problems than just "is the server free software". Also please note that neither GNU nor the FSF really care about new fads. Their main concern is software freedom, and much like the whole convenience-security tradeoff there is a freedom-convenience tradeoff too. The FSF and GNU project do not compromise on freedom. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.en.html https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.en.htm...
- sametmax 9y ago
  You don't have to compromise, you just have to evaluate. What could go wrong ? In this case, the worst thing that can happen is that you have to get your data and move, which are both easy to do. So what you can do is: - create a git lab instance as a synchronized unused backup that doesn't require a lot of maintenance to work. - use github as the main dev plateform. - then if (and it's a biiiiiig if) something ever go wrong, you switch The benefits are huge : - much less work work for the GNU and FSF; - much more reliable plateform. If you get hit by a massive traffic, your gitlab instance is less likely to hold than github; - much more visibility; - much less friction. It's a win-win. It's not about fad. It's about being practical. You can fight for your freedom without rejecting everything closed source. We are all against slavery, but I don't see anybody on HN refusing to post a comment here because their laptop is being build by slavery labor in China. Which they all are. Spend your energy wisely instead of living a dogma.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > What could go wrong? The GNU project would be promoting proprietary software by requiring free software developers to use proprietary software. As there exist free alternatives, such promotion would negatively impact the free software movement (people would say "why not use GitHub? GNU decided that it was okay!"). That is enough of a reason to discount proprietary services. It's that simple. > much more visibility; ... for GitHub as well. Which is one of the main issues. > We are all against slavery, but I don't see anybody on HN refusing to post a comment here because their laptop is being build by slavery[sic] labor in China. Which they all are. Non-sequitur. "X is bad, so why are you caring about Y (which is less bad)".
VLM 9y ago
"the project instantly gained more visibility, with thousand of stars in a few days" Not everyone has the same metric for success. Getting stars on a developer-only site doesn't seem to fit any of the gnome-desktop-project long term goals. Getting stars on a developer-only site seems at least a semi-useful goal for a programming language, at least in some sense.
mugsie 9y ago
> When Python moved from their own silo to github, the project instantly gained more visibility, with thousand of stars in a few days. Think about that statement. One of the most popular programming languages in the world "gained more visibility" because a few thousand people / bots clicked a button. Did (useful) contributions increase? Did more people start using python because they could fork the core of the language, and have a stale copy of master in their account?
- sametmax 9y ago
  2 core contributors joined after that. I can't recall the last time it happened.

romanovcode 9y ago

I disagree. Even their source-code on Enterprise edition is obfuscated a lot. For a company that preaches open-source they sure are doing everything to keep their own stuff as closed as possible. Also, a lot of GNOME developers are strong on ethical side of open-source therefore they would never feel comfortable hosting something on closed platform. GitLab is great choice because it's: - Open Source - Self Hosted - Free (Unless you are going Enterprise) Yes, the UI sucks and there was this database fiasco. However since it is open-source it is improving and adding new features 10x faster then GitHub.

akerro 9y ago

ye, ye, ye KDE and GNOME don't want to use Saas, they prefer self-hosted. Please check prices for self-hosted GitHub.

sametmax 9y ago
You don't have to choose. It's git. It's decentralized. You can have your cake and eat it. Have most activity on github, but a dormant gitlab as a backup in the (improbable) case it reveals unsuitable. Github is not facebook, you can get easily all your data back, in a open format.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > It's git. It's decentralized. Except for issue/project tracking. And all ACL and organisation configuration. And CI hooks and so on. Of course GitLab lets you make a clone of this information, but that's a hack.
- mikekchar 9y ago
  The main thing they want it for is issue tracking and code reviews. Git doesn't do that. And Github does not export that data.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    GitHub has REST and GraphQL APIs you can use to export that data. It would be great if there were more standards for issue tracking/code reviews that worked better across vendors, but GitHub is neither the best nor the worst in this regard.

cyphar 9y ago

The GNU project did an evaluation of code hosting providers recently[1]. GitHub got an F (and note that 'server code is free software' is only a requirement for an A grade). GitLab only got a C. There are more severe problems than just "is the server free software". Also please note that neither GNU nor the FSF really care about new fads. Their main concern is software freedom, and much like the whole convenience-security tradeoff there is a freedom-convenience tradeoff too. The FSF and GNU project do not compromise on freedom. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.en.html https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.en.htm...

sametmax 9y ago
You don't have to compromise, you just have to evaluate. What could go wrong ? In this case, the worst thing that can happen is that you have to get your data and move, which are both easy to do. So what you can do is: - create a git lab instance as a synchronized unused backup that doesn't require a lot of maintenance to work. - use github as the main dev plateform. - then if (and it's a biiiiiig if) something ever go wrong, you switch The benefits are huge : - much less work work for the GNU and FSF; - much more reliable plateform. If you get hit by a massive traffic, your gitlab instance is less likely to hold than github; - much more visibility; - much less friction. It's a win-win. It's not about fad. It's about being practical. You can fight for your freedom without rejecting everything closed source. We are all against slavery, but I don't see anybody on HN refusing to post a comment here because their laptop is being build by slavery labor in China. Which they all are. Spend your energy wisely instead of living a dogma.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > What could go wrong? The GNU project would be promoting proprietary software by requiring free software developers to use proprietary software. As there exist free alternatives, such promotion would negatively impact the free software movement (people would say "why not use GitHub? GNU decided that it was okay!"). That is enough of a reason to discount proprietary services. It's that simple. > much more visibility; ... for GitHub as well. Which is one of the main issues. > We are all against slavery, but I don't see anybody on HN refusing to post a comment here because their laptop is being build by slavery[sic] labor in China. Which they all are. Non-sequitur. "X is bad, so why are you caring about Y (which is less bad)".

VLM 9y ago

"the project instantly gained more visibility, with thousand of stars in a few days" Not everyone has the same metric for success. Getting stars on a developer-only site doesn't seem to fit any of the gnome-desktop-project long term goals. Getting stars on a developer-only site seems at least a semi-useful goal for a programming language, at least in some sense.

mugsie 9y ago

> When Python moved from their own silo to github, the project instantly gained more visibility, with thousand of stars in a few days. Think about that statement. One of the most popular programming languages in the world "gained more visibility" because a few thousand people / bots clicked a button. Did (useful) contributions increase? Did more people start using python because they could fork the core of the language, and have a stale copy of master in their account?

sametmax 9y ago
2 core contributors joined after that. I can't recall the last time it happened.