3 ms·

I fully expect Github to go down the dangerous path of becoming a walled garden. Big companies like Microsoft just can't help themselves. Give it 10 years absol

I fully expect Github to go down the dangerous path of becoming a walled garden. Big companies like Microsoft just can't help themselves. Give it 10 years absolutely max. I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts, but don't expect it to last forever. Google Code, Sourceforge, etc. Been there done that. These things rise and fall constantly.

hardwaresofton 6y ago
Yeah I agree, but can you blame them? They've almost single-handedly borne the cost of supporting open source in the most tangible way you can (hosting the code, supporting "remixing" and innovation) for so long. As you say, these things never last, but this is what happens when you don't have a Stallman-esque BDFL/figure involved in some product. People (myself included) might under-estimate how insane the free software movement was/is -- it just isn't normal to find something that is free and stays free. Whether I/we can blame them or not, it does feel good that there are some other business models in the space, I personally am a huge fan of GitLab[0] (I pay for an upgrade membership though it's nothing crazy), and on the more home-brewed front there's HN darling sourcehut[1]. Honestly if I was a GitLab project manager that browses HN... I might try and shark this idea -- you already "pay" for Gitlab Pages, why not streamline it, offer a netlify-like experience on top of it and try to get there ahead of Github? [EDIT] - the "them" in "can you blame them" is intended to be the early Github team and/or their Microsoft equivalents. People like to put out good PR releases, but selling means something. The people who sold are aware of the the risks of selling and the loss of control/vision. Along with that realization/knowledge I think it's expected for them to have felt some fatigue/been expectant of some recompense for supporting open source as much as they have over the years. [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/ https://about.gitlab.com/ [1]: https://sourcehut.org/ https://sourcehut.org/

hardwaresofton 6y ago

Yeah I agree, but can you blame them? They've almost single-handedly borne the cost of supporting open source in the most tangible way you can (hosting the code, supporting "remixing" and innovation) for so long. As you say, these things never last, but this is what happens when you don't have a Stallman-esque BDFL/figure involved in some product. People (myself included) might under-estimate how insane the free software movement was/is -- it just isn't normal to find something that is free and stays free. Whether I/we can blame them or not, it does feel good that there are some other business models in the space, I personally am a huge fan of GitLab[0] (I pay for an upgrade membership though it's nothing crazy), and on the more home-brewed front there's HN darling sourcehut[1]. Honestly if I was a GitLab project manager that browses HN... I might try and shark this idea -- you already "pay" for Gitlab Pages, why not streamline it, offer a netlify-like experience on top of it and try to get there ahead of Github? [EDIT] - the "them" in "can you blame them" is intended to be the early Github team and/or their Microsoft equivalents. People like to put out good PR releases, but selling means something. The people who sold are aware of the the risks of selling and the loss of control/vision. Along with that realization/knowledge I think it's expected for them to have felt some fatigue/been expectant of some recompense for supporting open source as much as they have over the years. [0]: https://about.gitlab.com/ https://about.gitlab.com/ [1]: https://sourcehut.org/ https://sourcehut.org/