3 ms·

I imagine after the Bitkeeper fiasco, Linus and others are disinclined to become dependent on a proprietary service.

by mmagin 9y ago

Aissen 9y ago
Bitkeeper was proprietary software. git is not. This dependency exists with Github only if you use issues, wiki, etc. But even those are exportable with documented APIs.
dublinben 9y ago
It should be a complete non-starter for one of the largest, and most important free software projects to be hosted on a centralized, proprietary service like Github. I can't even consider it as a serious suggestion.
- mi100hael 9y ago
  I always think this sums it up well: > Current state makes it very hard to mange/search/fork/open-issues etc > especially for newcomers, > please move the project to github so we can have nice disussions > forks/prs etc goodness. No. Never. Github is proprietary communications tool which requires users to accept a terms of service and login. That gives power and influence to a single entity (and a for-profit organization at that). Contributing to unicorn is *socially* as easy as contributing to git or the Linux kernel. There is no need to signup for anything, no need to ever touch a bloated web browser. The reason I contribute to Free Software is because I am against any sort of lock-in or proprietary features. It absolutely sickens me to encounter users who seem to be incapable of using git without a proprietary communications tool. https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20140801213202.GA2729@dcvr.yhbt.net/ https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20140801213202.GA2729@dc...
  - dajt 9y ago
    Linus seems to have a different take on OSS than most OSS warriors. I don't think he sees proprietary software as 'evil' or OSS as morally superior. I get the impression he just thinks OSS will be better in quality. Depending on the contributors, which is why he doesn't want or need endless numbers of average devs contributing to his baby. I think his point about Tridgell's actions with BK reverse engineering were right, and El Reg was playing the OSS warrior card. It looks to me like Tridgell was trying to create a way to steal BK metadata - BK specifically required you to have a license to get that data. OSS warriors annoy me as much as SJWs do, and seem just as narrow minded.
jordigh 9y ago
Hm, I don't think so. Linus never had a problem with bitkeeper being proprietary, and he actually was annoyed when Andrew Tridgell tried to reverse-engineer the bitkeeper protocol. Linus seemed very unhappy with Tridgell, not with Larry McVoy for making bitkeeper proprietary. He built git out of necessity, not out of some desire to have free software.
- snakeanus 9y ago
  > and he actually was annoyed when Andrew Tridgell tried to reverse-engineer the bitkeeper protocol. Linus seemed very unhappy with Tridgell Why was that?
  - jordigh 9y ago
    El Reg has the story: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tridgell/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tr...
- Shorel 9y ago
  > He built git out of necessity, not out of some desire to have free software. History has proven that necessity is a much better incentive, and produces better products than ideology.
  - jordigh 9y ago
    I don't know about that. Hg was built at the same time for the same reason but seems to have more ideology around it, and I would argue it's a superior product that just was unlucky enough to not have github built for it.
    - Shorel 9y ago
      For people who seriously care about performance like me, git is by far the superior product. I don't care much about the github website, because 99% of the time I use git from the command line.

I imagine after the Bitkeeper fiasco, Linus and others are disinclined to become dependent on a proprietary service.

by mmagin 9y ago

I imagine after the Bitkeeper fiasco, Linus and others are disinclined to become dependent on a proprietary service.

Bitkeeper was proprietary software. git is not. This dependency exists with Github only if you use issues, wiki, etc. But even those are exportable with documented APIs.

dublinben 9y ago

It should be a complete non-starter for one of the largest, and most important free software projects to be hosted on a centralized, proprietary service like Github. I can't even consider it as a serious suggestion.

mi100hael 9y ago
I always think this sums it up well: > Current state makes it very hard to mange/search/fork/open-issues etc > especially for newcomers, > please move the project to github so we can have nice disussions > forks/prs etc goodness. No. Never. Github is proprietary communications tool which requires users to accept a terms of service and login. That gives power and influence to a single entity (and a for-profit organization at that). Contributing to unicorn is *socially* as easy as contributing to git or the Linux kernel. There is no need to signup for anything, no need to ever touch a bloated web browser. The reason I contribute to Free Software is because I am against any sort of lock-in or proprietary features. It absolutely sickens me to encounter users who seem to be incapable of using git without a proprietary communications tool. https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20140801213202.GA2729@dcvr.yhbt.net/ https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20140801213202.GA2729@dc...
- dajt 9y ago
  Linus seems to have a different take on OSS than most OSS warriors. I don't think he sees proprietary software as 'evil' or OSS as morally superior. I get the impression he just thinks OSS will be better in quality. Depending on the contributors, which is why he doesn't want or need endless numbers of average devs contributing to his baby. I think his point about Tridgell's actions with BK reverse engineering were right, and El Reg was playing the OSS warrior card. It looks to me like Tridgell was trying to create a way to steal BK metadata - BK specifically required you to have a license to get that data. OSS warriors annoy me as much as SJWs do, and seem just as narrow minded.

jordigh 9y ago

Hm, I don't think so. Linus never had a problem with bitkeeper being proprietary, and he actually was annoyed when Andrew Tridgell tried to reverse-engineer the bitkeeper protocol. Linus seemed very unhappy with Tridgell, not with Larry McVoy for making bitkeeper proprietary. He built git out of necessity, not out of some desire to have free software.

snakeanus 9y ago
> and he actually was annoyed when Andrew Tridgell tried to reverse-engineer the bitkeeper protocol. Linus seemed very unhappy with Tridgell Why was that?
- jordigh 9y ago
  El Reg has the story: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tridgell/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tr...
Shorel 9y ago
> He built git out of necessity, not out of some desire to have free software. History has proven that necessity is a much better incentive, and produces better products than ideology.
- jordigh 9y ago
  I don't know about that. Hg was built at the same time for the same reason but seems to have more ideology around it, and I would argue it's a superior product that just was unlucky enough to not have github built for it.
  - Shorel 9y ago
    For people who seriously care about performance like me, git is by far the superior product. I don't care much about the github website, because 99% of the time I use git from the command line.