5 ms·

Rude. What's you beef with Sourcehut? "Other projects use Github" will not be accepted as an answer.

coldtea 7y ago
That it's between GNU project webpages and Sourceforge circa 2002? >"Other projects use Github" will not be accepted as an answer Well, not that I care whether it would or would not be accepted, but It would still be a valid answer: using common services others use, makes for less friction: 1) immediate familiarity for most (not having to learn yet another thing) 2) common tooling with what other projects you use, use, 3) more available tooling -thanks to popularity- 4) more dependable to be around, 5) easier to engage with others since they more likely already use it -network effects-, and so on...
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  >That it's between GNU project webpages and Sourceforge circa 2002? Even more rude. This looks nothing like either. GNU Savannah has a garish color scheme and completely unplanned UI. Sourceforge is overplanned and looks like a mid-2000's ad-ridden malware distribution site. >Well, not that I care whether it would or would not be accepted, but It would still be a valid answer: using common services other's use, make for less friction Then you'll never get new services. You'll bow to your Microsoft overlords and take what Github gives you, and be thankful for it. Github is proprietary and profit driven. It's going to do what's best for it, not what's best for you. This is a pretty naive and immature line of reasoning.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Even more rude. Rude to whom? Styles? UX? I'm pretty sure even the graphic/UX designers involved (if any) would agree.
    - bitofhope 7y ago
      That's the founder and lead dev of sourcehut you're talking to. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't object if he agreed.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        Well, that's a blunder for sure! Didn't know it, thought I was talking to just some FOSS proponent, so sorry. But even so, we can surely agree that the design is basic compared to GitHub no?
        joemi 7y ago
        The design is different, but I wouldn't say it's worse than github. I actually prefer sourcehut's design to github's. If nothing else, there are some undeniable benefits to sourcehut's style, such as faster page loading time and less memory usage. How would your criticism change if you knew who you were talking to? Why not just always assume the developer of anything will be reading HN comments that mention their thing, and form your comments as such? Developers are human, after all.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Then you'll never get new services. You'll bow to your Microsoft overlords and take what Github gives you, and be thankful for it. Well, that escalated quickly. Or, you know, we'll leverage the commonality as long as it suits us, and jump ship when it doesn't. Like we did with Sourceforge itself, and like people did with common once dominant and good to use because of network effects projects... How about that? As if we have agency, and are not just mindless automata, that just because we chose an option are forced to live with it forever... >Github is proprietary and profit driven. Both are acceptable, even in polite society...
    - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
      >Both are acceptable, even in polite society... Proprietary is not acceptable. Profit-driven can be acceptable, but time and again we've seen that companies driven by profits don't make decisions in the best interests of their users, i.e. you.
      - coldtea 7y ago
        >Proprietary is not acceptable. Do you speak for everybody? Because you can pry Sublime Text, Final Cut Pro X or Cubase from my dead hands, and all those are proprietary... >Profit-driven can be acceptable, but time and again we've seen that companies driven by profits don't make decisions in the best interests of their users, i.e. you. We've seen time and again than FOSS project leaders also don't make decisions in the best interests of their users. And we've also seen that just their being open source just raises the chances of somebody having the will/resources/knowledge/time to fork them and do them right from 0% (for proprietary) to near 0 (for FOSS). As for me, one of said users, doing it, it's 0% in both cases.
- Crinus 7y ago
  > Sourceforge circa 2002? Sourceforge has one thing that other services do not seem to have: it is user centric instead of developer centric. With that i mean that for any project you get information that would be interesting to the (potential) users of that project, such as up front information about what the project is all about, collection of screenshots (where that applies), a big fat button to download the latest release (instead of a repository snapshot - note that a release can be different from a repo snapshot, e.g. it can contain pregenerated configure and/or makefiles and documentation whereas a repo snapshot may only contain the "source" for those - and of course a release may also be in binary form), comments and reviews from other users, discussion mailing lists/forums, information about the project's category/tags and similar projects, etc. FWIW of all the above, the only thing that sourcehut does is having an optional "what is this all about" page (article). Though even that still puts it above the likes of GitHub (that front load each project's page with the file tree of its source code) - again from a users' perspective. Though even a self-contained Fossil repository is still better than that (but you still need to do customizations to make it more user oriented). Of course that might be just a sign that (considering the popularity of GitHub) the majority of developers do not care about users :-P
  - ddevault 7y ago
    Gioui is a library for developers, though. End-users don't end up here.
    - Crinus 7y ago
      Note that i'm comparing the overall UI/UX of these services not just for this specific project. However libraries also have end users - the developers who are going to use the library (vs the developers who will work on the library). A library can have a release version (with e.g. pregenerated documentation, configure, make or whatever) which is different from a repo snapshot similar to how an application can have a release version.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
        Aye. However, git.sr.ht doesn't aim to be your project's home page, but rather its git repo. Its design is optimized for its usage as such. In the future, Sourcehut will have a project hub which is more suited to being the public face of your project, and will have static site hosting for your project website.
- npongratz 7y ago
  -1) promotes ecosystem monoculture -2) centralizes point of systemic failure -3) a downside to the "network effects" benefit is that it is becoming a "social coding" platform, with all the toxic effects and perverse incentives endemic to social media -4) Owned and controlled by a company which, while acting better in recent years (and I do believe the people involved are sincere!), still has not even apologized for their truly vicious attacks on free/libre and open source software in years past, and no indication that they've atoned for embrace-extend-extinguish.
pcr910303 7y ago
> "Other projects use Github" will not be accepted as an answer. It's not just because "other projects use GitHub", but it's that because "other projects use GitHub", discoverability of projects that are hosted in GitHub tends to be higher than ones that do not. Also the workflow is vastly different (AFAIK Sourcehut doesn't have web-based bug report/PR, I think you mentioned it being developed... looking forward for it) from most OSS contributors/users, and forcing a different workflow will turn them away. I think hosting the primary repo on sr.ht with a mirror on GitHub, and getting bug reports/PRs with both services might be a better solution IMHO.
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  I really hate this argument because it's an insurmountable problem for new platforms. It's really not reasonable to expect that of any platform. The project isn't on Github, but you seem to have discovered it just fine. Give it a chance. Also, Sourcehut does have web-based bug submissions, and a nice tutorial for setting up terminal-based PR submissions.
  - olah_1 7y ago
    >it's an insurmountable problem for new platforms. It's not. The solution is to use design language that people are familiar with. Nobody wants to feel stupid when they use a product. So instead make them feel smart by creating a UI that is already familiar to them. For example, why can't I find the issues/todos from the main repository page? For some reason, there's no button to get to here (https://todo.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio https://todo.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio) from here (https://git.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio https://git.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio).
    - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
      >The solution is to use design language that people are familiar with. Then all you end up with are clones of the same platform. Not much better imo. >For example, why can't I find the issues/todos from the main repository page? Because unlike Github, the repository is not the main home of the project. This is true even of many projects hosted on Github. The git repo is often one of many, or the wrong place to file issues, or isn't where the docs live. A centralized idea of a "project" with links backwards and forwards is a blocking planned feature of the Sourcehut beta. But if you're comfortable using a beta-quality UI library then you can live with using a beta-quality project host.
olah_1 7y ago
>What's you beef with Sourcehut? It's more difficult to keep up with a project that I find interesting. That's literally my only problem with it. I want to be notified of new releases. The only option Sourcehut has right now is subscribing via RSS to every single commit. I also don't want to have to bookmark every project I find interesting. I like that Github lets you star projects and then search or filter your starred projects. This is slightly less important for me though.
- Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
  Projects are encouraged to have -announce mailing lists, which you can subscribe to for announcements.
  - olah_1 7y ago
    Take this as you will: I am in my late 20's and have never intentionally signed up for a mailing list in my life. Not sure why. I guess I've just never thought of my email inbox as a social hub that connects services. I pretty much just use my email as a way to reset passwords.

That it's between GNU project webpages and Sourceforge circa 2002? >"Other projects use Github" will not be accepted as an answer Well, not that I care whether it would or would not be accepted, but It would still be a valid answer: using common services others use, makes for less friction: 1) immediate familiarity for most (not having to learn yet another thing) 2) common tooling with what other projects you use, use, 3) more available tooling -thanks to popularity- 4) more dependable to be around, 5) easier to engage with others since they more likely already use it -network effects-, and so on...

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
>That it's between GNU project webpages and Sourceforge circa 2002? Even more rude. This looks nothing like either. GNU Savannah has a garish color scheme and completely unplanned UI. Sourceforge is overplanned and looks like a mid-2000's ad-ridden malware distribution site. >Well, not that I care whether it would or would not be accepted, but It would still be a valid answer: using common services other's use, make for less friction Then you'll never get new services. You'll bow to your Microsoft overlords and take what Github gives you, and be thankful for it. Github is proprietary and profit driven. It's going to do what's best for it, not what's best for you. This is a pretty naive and immature line of reasoning.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Even more rude. Rude to whom? Styles? UX? I'm pretty sure even the graphic/UX designers involved (if any) would agree.
  - bitofhope 7y ago
    That's the founder and lead dev of sourcehut you're talking to. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't object if he agreed.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      Well, that's a blunder for sure! Didn't know it, thought I was talking to just some FOSS proponent, so sorry. But even so, we can surely agree that the design is basic compared to GitHub no?
      - joemi 7y ago
        The design is different, but I wouldn't say it's worse than github. I actually prefer sourcehut's design to github's. If nothing else, there are some undeniable benefits to sourcehut's style, such as faster page loading time and less memory usage. How would your criticism change if you knew who you were talking to? Why not just always assume the developer of anything will be reading HN comments that mention their thing, and form your comments as such? Developers are human, after all.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Then you'll never get new services. You'll bow to your Microsoft overlords and take what Github gives you, and be thankful for it. Well, that escalated quickly. Or, you know, we'll leverage the commonality as long as it suits us, and jump ship when it doesn't. Like we did with Sourceforge itself, and like people did with common once dominant and good to use because of network effects projects... How about that? As if we have agency, and are not just mindless automata, that just because we chose an option are forced to live with it forever... >Github is proprietary and profit driven. Both are acceptable, even in polite society...
  - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
    >Both are acceptable, even in polite society... Proprietary is not acceptable. Profit-driven can be acceptable, but time and again we've seen that companies driven by profits don't make decisions in the best interests of their users, i.e. you.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Proprietary is not acceptable. Do you speak for everybody? Because you can pry Sublime Text, Final Cut Pro X or Cubase from my dead hands, and all those are proprietary... >Profit-driven can be acceptable, but time and again we've seen that companies driven by profits don't make decisions in the best interests of their users, i.e. you. We've seen time and again than FOSS project leaders also don't make decisions in the best interests of their users. And we've also seen that just their being open source just raises the chances of somebody having the will/resources/knowledge/time to fork them and do them right from 0% (for proprietary) to near 0 (for FOSS). As for me, one of said users, doing it, it's 0% in both cases.
Crinus 7y ago
> Sourceforge circa 2002? Sourceforge has one thing that other services do not seem to have: it is user centric instead of developer centric. With that i mean that for any project you get information that would be interesting to the (potential) users of that project, such as up front information about what the project is all about, collection of screenshots (where that applies), a big fat button to download the latest release (instead of a repository snapshot - note that a release can be different from a repo snapshot, e.g. it can contain pregenerated configure and/or makefiles and documentation whereas a repo snapshot may only contain the "source" for those - and of course a release may also be in binary form), comments and reviews from other users, discussion mailing lists/forums, information about the project's category/tags and similar projects, etc. FWIW of all the above, the only thing that sourcehut does is having an optional "what is this all about" page (article). Though even that still puts it above the likes of GitHub (that front load each project's page with the file tree of its source code) - again from a users' perspective. Though even a self-contained Fossil repository is still better than that (but you still need to do customizations to make it more user oriented). Of course that might be just a sign that (considering the popularity of GitHub) the majority of developers do not care about users :-P
- ddevault 7y ago
  Gioui is a library for developers, though. End-users don't end up here.
  - Crinus 7y ago
    Note that i'm comparing the overall UI/UX of these services not just for this specific project. However libraries also have end users - the developers who are going to use the library (vs the developers who will work on the library). A library can have a release version (with e.g. pregenerated documentation, configure, make or whatever) which is different from a repo snapshot similar to how an application can have a release version.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
      Aye. However, git.sr.ht doesn't aim to be your project's home page, but rather its git repo. Its design is optimized for its usage as such. In the future, Sourcehut will have a project hub which is more suited to being the public face of your project, and will have static site hosting for your project website.
npongratz 7y ago
-1) promotes ecosystem monoculture -2) centralizes point of systemic failure -3) a downside to the "network effects" benefit is that it is becoming a "social coding" platform, with all the toxic effects and perverse incentives endemic to social media -4) Owned and controlled by a company which, while acting better in recent years (and I do believe the people involved are sincere!), still has not even apologized for their truly vicious attacks on free/libre and open source software in years past, and no indication that they've atoned for embrace-extend-extinguish.

pcr910303 7y ago

> "Other projects use Github" will not be accepted as an answer. It's not just because "other projects use GitHub", but it's that because "other projects use GitHub", discoverability of projects that are hosted in GitHub tends to be higher than ones that do not. Also the workflow is vastly different (AFAIK Sourcehut doesn't have web-based bug report/PR, I think you mentioned it being developed... looking forward for it) from most OSS contributors/users, and forcing a different workflow will turn them away. I think hosting the primary repo on sr.ht with a mirror on GitHub, and getting bug reports/PRs with both services might be a better solution IMHO.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
I really hate this argument because it's an insurmountable problem for new platforms. It's really not reasonable to expect that of any platform. The project isn't on Github, but you seem to have discovered it just fine. Give it a chance. Also, Sourcehut does have web-based bug submissions, and a nice tutorial for setting up terminal-based PR submissions.
- olah_1 7y ago
  >it's an insurmountable problem for new platforms. It's not. The solution is to use design language that people are familiar with. Nobody wants to feel stupid when they use a product. So instead make them feel smart by creating a UI that is already familiar to them. For example, why can't I find the issues/todos from the main repository page? For some reason, there's no button to get to here (https://todo.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio https://todo.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio) from here (https://git.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio https://git.sr.ht/~eliasnaur/gio).
  - Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
    >The solution is to use design language that people are familiar with. Then all you end up with are clones of the same platform. Not much better imo. >For example, why can't I find the issues/todos from the main repository page? Because unlike Github, the repository is not the main home of the project. This is true even of many projects hosted on Github. The git repo is often one of many, or the wrong place to file issues, or isn't where the docs live. A centralized idea of a "project" with links backwards and forwards is a blocking planned feature of the Sourcehut beta. But if you're comfortable using a beta-quality UI library then you can live with using a beta-quality project host.

olah_1 7y ago

>What's you beef with Sourcehut? It's more difficult to keep up with a project that I find interesting. That's literally my only problem with it. I want to be notified of new releases. The only option Sourcehut has right now is subscribing via RSS to every single commit. I also don't want to have to bookmark every project I find interesting. I like that Github lets you star projects and then search or filter your starred projects. This is slightly less important for me though.

Sir_Cmpwn 7y ago
Projects are encouraged to have -announce mailing lists, which you can subscribe to for announcements.
- olah_1 7y ago
  Take this as you will: I am in my late 20's and have never intentionally signed up for a mailing list in my life. Not sure why. I guess I've just never thought of my email inbox as a social hub that connects services. I pretty much just use my email as a way to reset passwords.