4 ms·

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 a

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)".
- sametmax 9y ago
  That's actually a much better reason that what's been used before. As for non sequitur, it's not. There is no moral comparison, i'm just saying that practicality beats purity and that we all do it so advocating purity is defintly not credible.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    > i'm just saying that practicality beats purity and that we all do it so advocating purity is definitely not credible This is like arguing that a member of the Vegeterian Foundation should buy chicken rather than chick-peas because chicken is easier to cook. Or because the chick-peas are being produced using animal fertilizers. There are many criteria by which you can evaluate software. Usability is one of them. Software freedom is another. The GNU project proritises the latter over the former. More importantly it's got nothing to do with "purity". I really don't understand how people are surprised that the Free Software Foundation prioritises Free Software as a criteria over anything else.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      No that's fair enough.

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)".

sametmax 9y ago
That's actually a much better reason that what's been used before. As for non sequitur, it's not. There is no moral comparison, i'm just saying that practicality beats purity and that we all do it so advocating purity is defintly not credible.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > i'm just saying that practicality beats purity and that we all do it so advocating purity is definitely not credible This is like arguing that a member of the Vegeterian Foundation should buy chicken rather than chick-peas because chicken is easier to cook. Or because the chick-peas are being produced using animal fertilizers. There are many criteria by which you can evaluate software. Usability is one of them. Software freedom is another. The GNU project proritises the latter over the former. More importantly it's got nothing to do with "purity". I really don't understand how people are surprised that the Free Software Foundation prioritises Free Software as a criteria over anything else.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    No that's fair enough.