5 ms·

My cynical side wonders if this is a case of Embrace Extend Extinguish-move developer mindshare off of git (GitHub as commodity git hosting) and into vendor loc

My cynical side wonders if this is a case of Embrace Extend Extinguish-move developer mindshare off of git (GitHub as commodity git hosting) and into vendor lock-in.

zelly 7y ago
Yes, time to move to gitlab or self hosted gitlab
- sneak 7y ago
  The time to do that was when people asked GitHub to stop providing services to ICE to help run concentration camps for children and their military-industrial complex owners at Microsoft just shrugged and said “whatever”. (It continues to date. Microsoft has always been more than happy to sell software to the violent and authoritarian. The Snowden slides are PowerPoint.) https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/13/github-faces-more-resignations-in-light-of-ice-contract/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/13/github-faces-more-resignat... But yes, time to switch. I highly recommend Gitea + Drone, it’s the setup I use. Gitea thankfully supports U2F (and oauth for logging into Drone) which is awesome, and although they took shit for plainly ripping off GitHub’s UI back when GitHub was beloved, it’s super convenient to have a nearly identical UI to switch to now.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    Well that completely passed under the radar. Last year November? Can't remember reading about this .. Didn't we judge Nokia-Siemens when they did similar, developing DPI infrastructure for Iran and Egypt? Good on those people resigning over this, that shows some backbone. > “We do not know the specific projects that the on-premises GitHub Enterprise Server license is being used with, but recognize it could be used in projects that support policies we both agree and disagree with.” That sounds like when Nokia Siemens Networks provided communications intercept technology with foresight of how the Iranian authorities might use it to violate human rights. That reasoning does NOT hold, if the "policies we disagree with" part literally equates to children kept in cages. Then "I'm just making a service, not doing politics" is being wilfully blind. People resigned over this. That also means, the people who are still there, did not.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
It sort of makes sense with MS being the owner. I definitely notice that a lot of the new grads don’t really know about git. They think it’s all Github.
- grogenaut 7y ago
  I've had a lot of freelancers lately who when I ask for their ssh public key they send me their GitHub username. Like 10 in a row. Half of them had public keys even. Yet at work no one has this issue with our ghe
  - GauntletWizard 7y ago
    Yeah, I don't get that. I use my github as a repository of my public keys - At least partially because Ubuntu will now ask for a github username to prefill authorized_keys, but I had a curl script set up before that - But I would not confuse "Here's where there's an updated list of my keys" for "Here's a key"; The response is, at best, `*[]key` rather than `key` (and assuming you know the github.com/$USER.keys syntax, which isn't exactly standard)
- ronsor 7y ago
  We're now on "extend." I wonder when "extinguish" will come.
  - bisby 7y ago
    For the true pure "EEE" experience. they would need to be pushing us back towards some other MS product. Embrace git. Extend git. Extinguish git. Everyone is tired of git and just goes to Microsoft VSCode Repos. With "gh" in theory they could do that: get everyone using a custom tool... and while no one is paying attention, change out the backing infrastructure to use MS Repos Tool. And you wont even notice because gh was built to make the transition seamless. (I doubt this is truly the case because there is a lot of automated tooling that uses git that would break in that case) And now when you decide you want to pull your code off github to go to gitlab, it becomes too much of a hassle.
- 7y ago
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
They can't extinguish anything if users don't switch. Users won't switch unless it provides value.
- kzzzznot 7y ago
  The point is this CLI is providing value. Do you disagree?
  - clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
    I agree. It provides value. If it provides value then why are people against it? Every thread about Microsoft has some knee jerk low effort post about embrace extend extinguish.
    - EamonnMR 7y ago
      If it provides value but leads to vendor lock-in it's still not a good thing. Additionally, I think that Git's CLI is fine and there's no reason to put training wheels on it.
      - caymanjim 7y ago
        This is a CLI for GitHub, not for Git. All the examples are about manipulating issues and pull requests, which are both concepts that do not exist at all in Git. That's the value add of GitHub.
    - tripzilch 7y ago
      Such posts are not "knee jerk low effort". I had very much the same worries when I read this, and I think those are very legitimate worries, worthy of discussion. It used to be FUD and sometimes knee jerk, until it becomes SOP and "why is anybody surprised by this". In between those stages there are moments where you can ask "is this where we want to go". Maybe a better question to ask than "are they doing this for vendor lock-in", is "will this allow them to make a decision to easily increase vendor lock-in" (in which case business forces will make that decision). It doesn't really matter what the motivation is, after all, a corporation doesn't have memory for good intentions.
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
Coming from a company with a 40 years long tradition of EEE? Nooo...
juped 7y ago
What about Github was ever not vendor lock-in?
- rkuykendall-com 7y ago
  git clone; git set remote; git push
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
lilyball 7y ago
This tool doesn't replace git in the slightest. It replaces in-browser interactions with the GitHub website.

My cynical side wonders if this is a case of Embrace Extend Extinguish-move developer mindshare off of git (GitHub as commodity git hosting) and into vendor lock-in.

zelly 7y ago

Yes, time to move to gitlab or self hosted gitlab

sneak 7y ago
The time to do that was when people asked GitHub to stop providing services to ICE to help run concentration camps for children and their military-industrial complex owners at Microsoft just shrugged and said “whatever”. (It continues to date. Microsoft has always been more than happy to sell software to the violent and authoritarian. The Snowden slides are PowerPoint.) https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/13/github-faces-more-resignations-in-light-of-ice-contract/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/13/github-faces-more-resignat... But yes, time to switch. I highly recommend Gitea + Drone, it’s the setup I use. Gitea thankfully supports U2F (and oauth for logging into Drone) which is awesome, and although they took shit for plainly ripping off GitHub’s UI back when GitHub was beloved, it’s super convenient to have a nearly identical UI to switch to now.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  Well that completely passed under the radar. Last year November? Can't remember reading about this .. Didn't we judge Nokia-Siemens when they did similar, developing DPI infrastructure for Iran and Egypt? Good on those people resigning over this, that shows some backbone. > “We do not know the specific projects that the on-premises GitHub Enterprise Server license is being used with, but recognize it could be used in projects that support policies we both agree and disagree with.” That sounds like when Nokia Siemens Networks provided communications intercept technology with foresight of how the Iranian authorities might use it to violate human rights. That reasoning does NOT hold, if the "policies we disagree with" part literally equates to children kept in cages. Then "I'm just making a service, not doing politics" is being wilfully blind. People resigned over this. That also means, the people who are still there, did not.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

It sort of makes sense with MS being the owner. I definitely notice that a lot of the new grads don’t really know about git. They think it’s all Github.

grogenaut 7y ago
I've had a lot of freelancers lately who when I ask for their ssh public key they send me their GitHub username. Like 10 in a row. Half of them had public keys even. Yet at work no one has this issue with our ghe
- GauntletWizard 7y ago
  Yeah, I don't get that. I use my github as a repository of my public keys - At least partially because Ubuntu will now ask for a github username to prefill authorized_keys, but I had a curl script set up before that - But I would not confuse "Here's where there's an updated list of my keys" for "Here's a key"; The response is, at best, `*[]key` rather than `key` (and assuming you know the github.com/$USER.keys syntax, which isn't exactly standard)
ronsor 7y ago
We're now on "extend." I wonder when "extinguish" will come.
- bisby 7y ago
  For the true pure "EEE" experience. they would need to be pushing us back towards some other MS product. Embrace git. Extend git. Extinguish git. Everyone is tired of git and just goes to Microsoft VSCode Repos. With "gh" in theory they could do that: get everyone using a custom tool... and while no one is paying attention, change out the backing infrastructure to use MS Repos Tool. And you wont even notice because gh was built to make the transition seamless. (I doubt this is truly the case because there is a lot of automated tooling that uses git that would break in that case) And now when you decide you want to pull your code off github to go to gitlab, it becomes too much of a hassle.
7y ago

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago

They can't extinguish anything if users don't switch. Users won't switch unless it provides value.

kzzzznot 7y ago
The point is this CLI is providing value. Do you disagree?
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  I agree. It provides value. If it provides value then why are people against it? Every thread about Microsoft has some knee jerk low effort post about embrace extend extinguish.
  - EamonnMR 7y ago
    If it provides value but leads to vendor lock-in it's still not a good thing. Additionally, I think that Git's CLI is fine and there's no reason to put training wheels on it.
    - caymanjim 7y ago
      This is a CLI for GitHub, not for Git. All the examples are about manipulating issues and pull requests, which are both concepts that do not exist at all in Git. That's the value add of GitHub.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    Such posts are not "knee jerk low effort". I had very much the same worries when I read this, and I think those are very legitimate worries, worthy of discussion. It used to be FUD and sometimes knee jerk, until it becomes SOP and "why is anybody surprised by this". In between those stages there are moments where you can ask "is this where we want to go". Maybe a better question to ask than "are they doing this for vendor lock-in", is "will this allow them to make a decision to easily increase vendor lock-in" (in which case business forces will make that decision). It doesn't really matter what the motivation is, after all, a corporation doesn't have memory for good intentions.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago

Coming from a company with a 40 years long tradition of EEE? Nooo...

juped 7y ago

What about Github was ever not vendor lock-in?

rkuykendall-com 7y ago
git clone; git set remote; git push
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lilyball 7y ago

This tool doesn't replace git in the slightest. It replaces in-browser interactions with the GitHub website.