3 ms·
> “Open Science is not compatible with one corporation owning the platform used to collaborate on code. I hope that expert coders in #openscience have a viable
by jdormit 8y ago
> “Open Science is not compatible with one corporation owning the platform used to collaborate on code. I hope that expert coders in #openscience have a viable alternative to #github,” tweeted Tom Johnstone, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Reading, UK.
This shows an astounding lack of understanding, both of Github and of git itself. Github was always owned and operated by "one corporation" - now it is owned by a different one. And "the platform" isn't Github - it is git itself! If this neuroscientist is so concerned about the acquisition, he can just set up a git server for himself and his colleagues and start citing that URL instead of Github.
- SiempreViernes 8y agoThe platform is pretty clearly github, a binary on a disk isn't a "platform". And any scientist is far too busy with the interesting stuff to set up a git server, otherwise they would be a sysadmin.
- tedajax 8y agoUmm, support staff exist largely for this exact reason. In college I worked in IT support for the CS professors and would setup whatever services a lab needed.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoTo follow up on this, the design of git is inherently open and free. The very act of checking out a repo is mere seconds away from pushing it to any other server or platform/service provider. Thus, by the great design of git, there is no way to make it a "walled garden" like your email/calendar/facebook. Should Microsoft ever show any inkling of restricting content, moving thousands of repos to another provider would be trivial (i.e. I could do it in a day)