3 ms·

The site recently got discoverability of projects (less than a week ago); it's had a bunch of projects laying about for a few months now, but you'd have to use

by kick 6y ago

The site recently got discoverability of projects (less than a week ago); it's had a bunch of projects laying about for a few months now, but you'd have to use site:*.sr.ht on a search engine to find anything. It's more navigatable and has far fewer ethical problems than both Gitlab and GitHub, which makes it more enjoyable to search through. The site itself has actually had many links over the course of the past two years: - 46 from sr.ht https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sr.ht https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sr.ht - 22 from sourcehut.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sourcehut.org https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=sourcehut.org

franga2000 6y ago
> ethical problems with GitLab Ooh? What did I miss?
- kick 6y ago
  Mandatory telemetry until people started dropping subscriptions was the most well-known one in recent memory, but there have been more. The open core model is also ethically-poor.
  - vageli 6y ago
    > The open core model is also ethically-poor. Can you speak more to this?
    - kick 6y ago
      It's proprietary software with extra steps to trick people into giving a company the respect that comes with free software. To quote Andrew Miloradovsky: The reason why many companies insist on using "permissive" licenses is because they're having an "open core" business model, and want to be able to include the work of external contributors into their proprietary versions, without asking the contributors to sign any kind of agreement. I know multiple people working on multiple projects who would have been entirely willing and able to pay for the enterprise feature-set, were it not proprietary. It's not even a good business model! Solely aimed at large companies, GitLab has no regard for individual users or foundations & groups producing free software. Some people make the argument that because they offer the proprietary patches to free software projects at cost of nothing more than freedom, they do have regard for them, but that's a ridiculous argument: BitBucket was gratis for free software too.

by kick 6y ago

franga2000 6y ago

> ethical problems with GitLab Ooh? What did I miss?

kick 6y ago
Mandatory telemetry until people started dropping subscriptions was the most well-known one in recent memory, but there have been more. The open core model is also ethically-poor.
- vageli 6y ago
  > The open core model is also ethically-poor. Can you speak more to this?
  - kick 6y ago
    It's proprietary software with extra steps to trick people into giving a company the respect that comes with free software. To quote Andrew Miloradovsky: The reason why many companies insist on using "permissive" licenses is because they're having an "open core" business model, and want to be able to include the work of external contributors into their proprietary versions, without asking the contributors to sign any kind of agreement. I know multiple people working on multiple projects who would have been entirely willing and able to pay for the enterprise feature-set, were it not proprietary. It's not even a good business model! Solely aimed at large companies, GitLab has no regard for individual users or foundations & groups producing free software. Some people make the argument that because they offer the proprietary patches to free software projects at cost of nothing more than freedom, they do have regard for them, but that's a ridiculous argument: BitBucket was gratis for free software too.