5 ms·

Ask yourself - is git decentralized? No. Therefore it’s not a blockchain. Its bytes live in one single location.

ocds 9y ago
Git has been design with decentralized development in mind. It is decentralized by design ... Many user use git in a centralized maner (with github for instance like the old svn and so on ...) but it doesn't make the git core a centralized tool. So, in my opinion, you're wrong; its bytes lives in many locations. https://git-scm.com/book/it/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows https://git-scm.com/book/it/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-W...
- bsvalley 9y ago
  It’s a cloud based architecrure. You work locally, you synch to a cloud. It’s not a P2P based architecture. It is centralized. Is it a blockchain? No.
  - forgottenpass 9y ago
    Git is a peer-to-peer tool, but flexible enough to let you use a workflow with a more-equal-than-others peer, or even communicate with actual centralized servers that expose a git interface. Git doesn't swarm in a way that often gets associated with the idea of "p2p" by the prevalence of more popular p2p protocols used for file-sharing or cryptocurrencies. Nor is it geared towards world-readability. But none of those are intrinsic properties of peer to peer protocols. I can (and do) use the git software on my computer to pull from co-workers development desktops running the same git software as me. And they pull from me, all with no external servers used coordinate that exchange of trees. That makes git peer to peer. No amount of tools built on top of git that require treating one peer as the a point of centralization can undo that. It just means that those tools aren't p2p. This distinction is often invisible to users, and I don't blame people for missing it because the business model of GitHub and GitHub-competitors rests on everyone thinking they're necessary.
    - ocds 9y ago
      Thank you for your accurate answer!
  - ocds 9y ago
    Just reading the resource I have put to support my words ... "Unlike Centralized Version Control Systems (CVCSs), the distributed nature of Git allows you to be far more flexible in how developers collaborate on projects. In centralized systems, every developer is a node working more or less equally on a central hub. In Git, however, every developer is potentially both a node and a hub – that is, every developer can both contribute code to other repositories and maintain a public repository on which others can base their work and which they can contribute to. This opens a vast range of workflow possibilities for your project and/or your team, so we’ll cover a few common paradigms that take advantage of this flexibility. We’ll go over the strengths and possible weaknesses of each design; you can choose a single one to use, or you can mix and match features from each."
  - fulafel 9y ago
    Don't take the "cloud" memes as prescriptive, your and collaborators' computers can still talk to each other over IP (unless you block it), just like before, without paying Amazon or Google.

ocds 9y ago

Git has been design with decentralized development in mind. It is decentralized by design ... Many user use git in a centralized maner (with github for instance like the old svn and so on ...) but it doesn't make the git core a centralized tool. So, in my opinion, you're wrong; its bytes lives in many locations. https://git-scm.com/book/it/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows https://git-scm.com/book/it/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-W...

bsvalley 9y ago
It’s a cloud based architecrure. You work locally, you synch to a cloud. It’s not a P2P based architecture. It is centralized. Is it a blockchain? No.
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  Git is a peer-to-peer tool, but flexible enough to let you use a workflow with a more-equal-than-others peer, or even communicate with actual centralized servers that expose a git interface. Git doesn't swarm in a way that often gets associated with the idea of "p2p" by the prevalence of more popular p2p protocols used for file-sharing or cryptocurrencies. Nor is it geared towards world-readability. But none of those are intrinsic properties of peer to peer protocols. I can (and do) use the git software on my computer to pull from co-workers development desktops running the same git software as me. And they pull from me, all with no external servers used coordinate that exchange of trees. That makes git peer to peer. No amount of tools built on top of git that require treating one peer as the a point of centralization can undo that. It just means that those tools aren't p2p. This distinction is often invisible to users, and I don't blame people for missing it because the business model of GitHub and GitHub-competitors rests on everyone thinking they're necessary.
  - ocds 9y ago
    Thank you for your accurate answer!
- ocds 9y ago
  Just reading the resource I have put to support my words ... "Unlike Centralized Version Control Systems (CVCSs), the distributed nature of Git allows you to be far more flexible in how developers collaborate on projects. In centralized systems, every developer is a node working more or less equally on a central hub. In Git, however, every developer is potentially both a node and a hub – that is, every developer can both contribute code to other repositories and maintain a public repository on which others can base their work and which they can contribute to. This opens a vast range of workflow possibilities for your project and/or your team, so we’ll cover a few common paradigms that take advantage of this flexibility. We’ll go over the strengths and possible weaknesses of each design; you can choose a single one to use, or you can mix and match features from each."
- fulafel 9y ago
  Don't take the "cloud" memes as prescriptive, your and collaborators' computers can still talk to each other over IP (unless you block it), just like before, without paying Amazon or Google.